This article was downloaded by: [University of Wisconsin - Madison] On: 10 September 2014, At: 16:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Regional Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20 Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Cross-border Region: An Analysis of Strategic, Administrative and Personal Challenges Brian Ilbery a & Gunjan Saxena b a Countryside and Community Research Institute , University of Gloucestershire , Cheltenham, GL50 2RH, UK b Tourism Management, Scarborough Management Centre , The University of Hull , Scarborough, YO11 3AZ, UK Published online: 10 Sep 2010. To cite this article: Brian Ilbery & Gunjan Saxena (2011) Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Cross-border Region: An Analysis of Strategic, Administrative and Personal Challenges, Regional Studies, 45:8, 1139-1155, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2010.486785 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.486785 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of Wisconsin - Madison]On: 10 September 2014, At: 16:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Regional StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–WelshCross-border Region: An Analysis of Strategic,Administrative and Personal ChallengesBrian Ilbery a & Gunjan Saxena ba Countryside and Community Research Institute , University of Gloucestershire ,Cheltenham, GL50 2RH, UKb Tourism Management, Scarborough Management Centre , The University of Hull ,Scarborough, YO11 3AZ, UKPublished online: 10 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Brian Ilbery & Gunjan Saxena (2011) Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Cross-borderRegion: An Analysis of Strategic, Administrative and Personal Challenges, Regional Studies, 45:8, 1139-1155, DOI:10.1080/00343404.2010.486785
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.486785
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ILBERY B. et SAXENA G. Le tourisme rural integre dans la region transfrontliere anglo-galloise: une analyse des defis strategiques,
administratifs et personnels, Regional Studies. Le developpement du tourisme transfrontalier est lourd de tensions, ce qui est
evident dans la region transfrontaliere anglo-galloise. Cet article cherche a examiner les defis strategiques, administratifs et personnels
quant au developpement et a la promotion des facons integrees d’aborder la question du tourisme rural dans la region. On affirme
que la notion de tourisme rural integre pourrait aider les agences qui s’engagent deja a la promotion de la coordination par moyen de
l’esprit d’entreprise et de l’innovation. Cependant, les resultats laissent voir que les horizons delimites en fonction de circonscriptions
d’action administratives et par la collaboration inter-sectorielle faible entravent sensiblement la naissance d’une vision strategique,
alors que les personnes interrogees ont accueilli favorablement la possibilite de promouvoir un partenariat transfrontalier.
Tourisme rural integre Point de vue relationnel Initiatives transfrontalieres Frontiere anglo-galloise Agences
institutionnelles
ILBERY B. und SAXENA G. Integrierter landlicher Tourismus in der Grenzregion von England und Wales: eine Analyse der
strategischen, verwaltungstechnischen und personlichen Probleme, Regional Studies. Wie in der Grenzregion von England und
Wales deutlich wird, ist die Entwicklung eines grenznahen Tourismus mit Spannungen verbunden. In diesem Beitrag werden
die strategischen, verwaltungstechnischen und personlichen Probleme bei der Entwicklung und Forderung von integrierten
Ansatzen des landlichen Tourismus in der Region untersucht. Es wird argumentiert, dass das Konzept des integrierten landlichen
Tourismus fur Akteure nutzlich sein konnte, die sich durch Unternehmungen und Innovation bereits an einer Forderung der
Koordination beteiligen. Allerdings legen die Ergebnisse nahe, dass ein integrierter landlicher Tourismus von den Umfrageteil-
nehmern zwar als Chance zur Forderung einer partnerschaftlichen grenzubergreifenden Zusammenarbeit begrußt wurde,
zugleich aber das Entstehen einer strategischen Vision durch Einschrankungen aufgrund der vorhandenen verwaltungstech-
nischen Grenzen und einer mangelnden Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Sektoren erheblich behindert wurde.
Regional Studies, Vol. 45.8, pp. 1139–1155, September 2011
0034-3404 print/1360-0591 online/11/081139-18 # 2011 Regional Studies Association DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2010.486785http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
Integrierter landlicher Tourismus Beziehungsperspektive Grenzuberschreitende Initiativen Grenzregion von England
und Wales Institutionelle Akteure
ILBERY B. y SAXENA G. Turismo rural integrado en la region transfronteriza de Inglaterra y Gales: un analisis de retos estrategicos,
administrativos y personales, Regional Studies. El desarrollo del turismo transfronterizo esta plagado de tensiones, tal como se
observa claramente en la region transfronteriza de Inglaterra y Gales. En este artıculo analizamos los retos estrategicos, adminis-
trativos y personales al desarrollar y fomentar enfoques integrados para el turismo rural en la region. Sostenemos que el concepto
de turismo rural integrado podrıa ser util para las agencias que ya se ocupan de fomentar la coordinacion mediante negocios e
innovacion. Sin embargo, los resultados indican que si bien el turismo rural integrado era bienvenido por los entrevistados
como una ocasion para fomentar los metodos de colaboracion transfronteriza, los obstaculos planteados por las limitaciones admi-
nistrativas existentes y la debil colaboracion intersectorial dificultan en gran medida el crecimiento de una vision estrategica.
Turismo rural integrado Perspectiva relacional Iniciativas transfronterizas Frontera de Inglaterra y Gales Agencias
institucionales
JEL classifications: D7, D74, D85, O18
INTRODUCTION
This paper analyses the strategic, administrative, andpersonal challenges that policy-makers face in develop-ing integrated rural tourism (IRT) in the English–Welsh cross-border region. IRT is defined as tourismexplicitly linked to the economic, social, cultural,natural, and human structures of the localities inwhich it takes place (SAXENA et al., 2007; alsoSAXENA and ILBERY, 2008). Given the geographicaland administrative divide between England and Wales,the focus on IRT helps to uncover what previousresearch suggests are structural and culture-based insti-tutional barriers that may hinder the diffusion of ideasto a wider community by either preventing the disclos-ure of knowledge or by creating a climate of suspicion(HOSPERS and BEUGELSDIJK, 2002; LAZARIC et al.,2008). The growing interest in IRT (CAWLEY andGILLMOR, 2008; ILBERY and SAXENA, 2009; HALL,2009) corresponds with current academic and policydebates advocating a more integrated and territorialapproach to rural development in Europe based onactivities that extend beyond food production (LING,2002; COWELL and MARTIN, 2003; CLARK, 2006).
While agriculture remains central to new visions ofrural development, policy discussions about ways toreform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),particularly the ‘Second Pillar’ (Rural DevelopmentRegulation), call upon European agriculture to
play a productive and market function, a territorial man-
agement function, an environmental and management
function, as well as a rural development function.
(BULLER, 2001, p. 5)
(See also MARSDEN et al., 2002; GOODMAN, 2004;WARD and LOWE, 2004; and DWYER et al., 2007.)Increasingly, rural development policies and practicesare being shaped by a ‘multifunctional’ agriculturalregime that involves a move away from state-sponsored
production subsidies that have encouraged agriculturalintensification to an entrepreneurial culture that helpsregions to benefit from territorial assets in buildingcompetitive advantage (GOODWIN et al., 1999,pp. 50–64; WILSON, 2001; DEPARTMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
(DEFRA), 2004; ILBERY and MAYE, 2005). Thus,land-management schemes funded through Axis 2 ofthe Rural Development Programme in Wales, forexample, expect farmers, who would not otherwisesupply them, to provide environmental goods and ser-vices (‘public goods’) (WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERN-
MENT, 2008b). Similarly, Axis 2 of the England RuralDevelopment Programme focuses on optimizing con-ditions for long-term growth through integratingsocial, economic, and environmental considerations(DEFRA, 2008).
Authors suggest that this reconfiguration of actor-spaces has resulted in the inclusion of formerly politi-cally marginal actors (such as environmental groups/local grassroots organizations) in policy formulationnetworks and decision-making (WILSON, 2001;POTTER and TILZEY, 2005). Further, in light of theseshifting economic and institutional structures, andincreasingly inappropriate national-level centralizedapproaches to local issues, the region has emerged asthe most appropriate scale to govern a knowledge-intensive economy (PRYTHERCH and HUNTOON,2005). This process, variously termed ‘new regional-ism’, ‘reterritorialization’ (BRENNER, 1999), and‘state rescaling’ (SWYNGEDOUW, 2000), is characterizedby a restructuring of state capacities to secure socialcohesion and involvement, and solutions reachedthrough interaction, dialogue, and confrontation forthe sake of the region (PHELPS and JONES, 2000; EVER-
INGHAM et al., 2006). Thus, regions, perceived as coresites of competitiveness, governance, planning, andidentity have become major players in the building ofan integrated Europe as well as the restructuring of
1140 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
national administrative and political territories(LAGENDIJK, 2005).
It appears that the ‘integration’ perspective inherentin these approaches is one that ‘silences’ exclusion andprioritizes economic rationality and homogeneitywith a view to creating strategic advantages over com-petitors (MARCHAND, 1994; GREN, 2002; REES,2005). Also, there are several dilemmas associated withthis process of ‘de-nationalization’ due to the pluralityof approaches and theories. HARRISON (2006) arguesthat whilst economic new regionalists (SCOTT, 2001) con-ceptualize regions as urban-metropolitan clusters result-ing out of political–economic interdependence, politicalnew regionalists represent regions as territorial and pol-itical sub-national administrative units (KEATING,2001). Both these approaches acknowledge the insularnature of local politics that may make it difficult to seethe interrelatedness among oppositional viewpointsand favour exclusionary ‘us versus them’ resistancetactics. This could be a consequence of the conflict-laden relationships that may have been the ‘part andparcel’ of localities for years (DEAS and WARD, 2000;HALL and STERN, 2009). Research also suggests thatthe voluntary displacement of power upwards fromlocal authorities in the United Kingdom, combinedwith the decision to endow Regional DevelopmentAgencies (RDAs) with regeneration powers, formerlydischarged at the local level, has led to the creation ofa national template for regional governance, exacer-bating pre-existing tensions between and withinregions ( JONAS and WARD, 1999; DEAS and WARD,2002). A weaker region might occasionally find itselfeconomically included (read exploited) while sociallyand politically excluded (MARCHAND, 1994). Further,in the context of cross-border governance, researchsuggests that collaborative initiatives rarely link upwith popular aspirations, are top-down, and remainrather ‘nationally bounded’ (PERKMANN, 2002,p. 109). These problems are compounded in ruralcross-border regions that are far from decision-makingcentres, making it particularly difficult for them toaccess policies and budgets from which urban cross-border spaces usually benefit.
This paper explores some of these complexities in thelagging rural region of the English–Welsh border, anarea characterized by declining economic activity,out-migration of the young, and a growth in the popu-lation of economically inactive people, retirees andreturn migrants, attracted largely by its quality of life.Any improvements in current understandings of tour-ism’s potential in the region need to take greateraccount of actors’ preferences and behaviours, shapedby their particular individual contexts. Thus, the mainobjective in this analysis is to examine the currentpolicy rhetoric, narrative building, and actor practices,and to consider if IRT can contribute to developingnew forms of rural governance above and beyondtraditional and nationally oriented administrative
frameworks in the English–Welsh border. More specifi-cally, the paper discusses the notion of IRT juxtaposedagainst the difficulties and opportunities inherent incross-border tourism contexts that offer new spacesof/for governance, cultural interaction, and economicdevelopment. The following discussion first summarizesexisting approaches to promoting rural tourism andactors’ perceptions of their effectiveness, and thenexamines possible pathways for integration embeddedin tourism programmes and strategies in the region.The paper concludes by highlighting some of the prac-tical challenges to developing cross-border tourisminitiatives.
‘CROSS-BORDER’ TOURISM CONTEXTS
AND INTEGRATED RURAL TOURISM
Broadly, cross-border tourism contexts, managed by thecombined territorial remits of local and regional auth-orities, are characterized by: (1) two different pathwaysof transformation; (2) the peripheral nature of theregion; (3) multidimensional asymmetries in policiesand practices; and (4) the co-existence of integrationand disintegration. For policy-makers, this translatesinto difficulties in capitalizing upon opportunities forintegration (tourism, labour migration, and shopping)and ameliorating disintegration (mental and economicdivide and disparate administrative structures), despitecommon cultural ground and a connectivity repertoiremanifest in several treaties and agreements (for example,Benelux, Suremind, and EUREGIO1) across Europeand elsewhere2 (HOUTUM, 1999; PERKMANN, 1999;HALL, 2000; NEWMAN, 2003). For example, thecross-border destination of Catalonia in Spain is charac-terized by a weakly developed ‘politics of bridge’ and arather traditional understanding of territorial politicalspace (HAKLI, 2004). This has left the region with asomewhat complex ‘interactive dynamics’ defined bythe co-existence of competitive and collaborative inter-dependence. Likewise, the case of Hungary illustratesan absence of cross-border destination developmentdespite INTERREG III3 funding being available tosupport collaborative health and spa, adventure, andshopping tourism (SZIVAS, 2005). BOCHER (2008)indicated that such political practice tensions stemfrom a conflict between existing traditional governmen-tal structures and new forms of regional governance,and from friction between two sets of actors: first,technocratic, planning-focused actors working withinterritorially fixed administrative structures; and secondly,more purpose-driven and flexible actors, workingoutside fixed government structures and whose territori-ality is composed of their varying spatial backgrounds(HERRSCHEL, 2005).
Indeed, increasingly, fluid network-based forms ofdecision-making, operating above, below, and withinthe cracks of interstate hierarchies and markets, are
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Border Region 1141
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
gaining precedence over relatively fixed forms ofnationally oriented, centrally planned policy interven-tion strategies (KRAMSCH, 2002). Also, with regionsincreasingly being cut loose from national systems ofeconomic regulation and required to compete againsteach other primarily on the basis of labour flexibility,there has been a proliferation of cooperative arrange-ments involving several actors at the same time, bothpublic and private, in varied phases of policy-making(PERKMANN, 2003; DER PENNON, 2005; PAINTER,2008). Thus, regional development agencies, localauthorities, chambers of commerce, and other interestgroups have become involved in ‘cross-border com-plexities and tensions, strategies and tactics, in theirrecognition of the unfolding, dynamic and overlappingnature of space’ ( JONES, 2009, p. 501).4 This broadlyentails addressing atypical policy challenges, such as:
. tackling the strategic uncertainty stemming fromthe involvement of diverse players and factions inachieving a more competitive, marketing-oriented,and business-focused dimension in the interest ofthe economy;
. consolidating the strategic capacity gained bycross-border bodies and their degree of autonomyvis-a-vis central state and other uthorities; and
. stabilizing cross-border contacts (both formal andinformal or ‘quasi-juridical’ arrangements amongthe participating authorities), that is, institution-building over time.
It is against this background that IRT is proposed as ameans not only of increasing regional competitivenessand sustainability through tourism projects and plans,but also of supporting the communal production ofknowledge, knowledge transfer, and the mutual adap-tation of those practices that are deemed ‘best’ to servethe actors’ interests (FABY, 2006; ILBERY and SAXENA,2009). Theoretically, the notion of IRTembodies inter-twined spatial and organizational aspects of relationality,manifest in formal and informal networks, shaped byboth ‘weak’ (low intimacy and infrequent interaction)and ‘strong’ (characterized by spatial proximity andkinship and friend-focused bonds) ties which enablereconciliation of divergent interests and cooperativedialogue (GRANOVETTER, 1973; AULA and HARMAA-
KORPI, 2008; DAVIDSON and LOCKWOOD, 2008;ILBERY and SAXENA, 2009). Implied within this rela-tional framework is the emphasis on overlapping andreciprocal ‘exchange of experiences’, with their shapesand forms determined by horizontal and vertical net-works within specific contexts such as local commu-nities and, more broadly, at regional, national, andinternational scales between different levels of govern-ment and among government and non-governmentactors from business/industry and civil society(HOOGHE and MARKS, 2003). Yet, showing points ofconnection does not imply erasing or eliding differ-ences, but rather acknowledges the role of multifaceted
cross-sector relationships, spatial meanings, and forms ofknowledge in shaping agendas for service provisionwithin institutional politics. Towards this end, a rela-tional perspective helps to understand various space–time configurations, emerging from the weavingtogether of localities in line with the precepts of net-works within which institutional actors simultaneouslyengage in activities of cooperation, resistance, andmodification, and how these relationships, played outat different spatial scales, enable certain outcomes andconstrain others (MURDOCH, 2006, pp. 56–77;MUTCH et al., 2006; TRUDEAU, 2008). However,policies and policy-making are also intensely and funda-mentally local, grounded, and territorially defined byfixity and flow, global contexts and place-specificities(and vice versa) (MCCANN and WARD, 2010). Insummary, the relational perspective inherent in IRThelps to understand ‘local’ interactions intertwinedwith brokering and bridging that draw wider circuitsof strategic knowledge into the region (UHL-BIEN,2006; ALLEN and COCHRANE, 2007).
The notion of IRTarises from research carried out aspart of the SPRITE (Supporting and Promoting Inte-grated Tourism in Europe’s Lagging Rural Regions(LRRs)) project, funded under the European Commis-sion’s ‘Quality of Life and Management of LivingResources programme’ (QLK5-CT-2000-01211).This focus on LRRs stems from a shift towards achiev-ing agricultural production compatible with environ-mental protection and countryside maintenance,manifest in the Agenda 2000 reforms, Rural Develop-ment Regulation 1257/99, the mid-term (2003)review of the CAP, and the recent CAP health check(2008). The premise is that, with appropriate assistanceand tools, LRRs can specialize around local clusters ofeconomic activity and exploit comparative advantagesinherent therein. Collectively, the SPRITE projectundertook research in twelve LRRs in six differentcountries: Spain, Greece, France, Ireland, the UK,and the Czech Republic. Within the UK, two areaswere chosen to examine different levels of tourism’sintegration with the local economy. The Lake Districtin Cumbria, a ‘more integrated’ region, is an interna-tionally recognized tourist destination, with hotels andrestaurants employing one in ten of those workingoutside agriculture; however, traditional clusters builtaround mining, metallurgy, and ship-building havedeclined and are fast disappearing (OFFICE FOR
NATIONAL STATISTICS (ONS), 2001). The secondregion, a ‘less integrated’ and little known cross-border area, is represented by the three counties ofHerefordshire, Shropshire, and Powys, which neigh-bour each other along the English–Welsh border.This paper focuses on the latter and less-integratedborder region (Fig. 1), chosen to help understand theimpact of regional and national differences on theevolution of integrated policy responses to tourismdevelopment.
1142 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
The current policy related to rural development andregeneration in England and Wales, administered bycentral agencies like DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly,but mainly delivered by the Government Offices ofthe Regions (GOs), the RDAs, the regional TouristBoards, the Forestry Commission and through thecommunity-based LEADER approach, is aimed atjointly conserving and enhancing a region’s assets(DEFRA, 2008; WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT,2008a). The tourism development teams in each ofthe three counties, aligned with economic developmentdepartments of the local authorities, provide support tolocal agencies such as the town councils, communitygroups, individual businesses and business associations.Thus, strategically the ground is set for a coordinatedresponse. Yet in practice, the policy environmentdemonstrates political and practical tensions inacknowledging and jointly addressing trans-bordereconomic and non-economic socio-spatial issues.Partly, this can be attributed to what previous research
suggests is ‘an attitude of getting closed-up on one’sown side of the border’, resulting in local lock-in situ-ations along with multilayered conflicts (MATTHIESEN
and BURKNER, 2001, p. 49). The paper exploresthese tensions and now discusses the study regionand the research methods employed to collect primarydata.
INTRODUCING THE STUDY REGION AND
METHODS
The English–Welsh cross-border area is neither ‘deepcountry nor urban’ as rural areas merge seamlesslyinto small towns, resulting in close inter-links betweentheir economies and social structures. It emerges asone of the most disadvantaged regions in the UKbased on different socio-economic criteria, includinggross domestic product per head, rate of unemploy-ment, and the percentage of those earning less than
Fig. 1. The English–Welsh border regionSource: Based on Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping # Crown Copyright
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Border Region 1143
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
£250 per week (ONS, 2003). With fewer than 200persons per km2 in Herefordshire and Shropshire andonly 25 persons per km2 in Powys, it is a sparselypopulated region (ONS, 1999).
Many of the more remote parts of the region weredesignated as an Objective 2 Programme5 Area,heavily dependent upon agriculture and, in particular,on livestock. This sector generates the lowest agricul-tural incomes in the UK and has seen a heavy fall innet farm incomes over the last ten years (ONS, 2000).Declining farm (and allied trade) incomes, decreasingrural employment opportunities, limited public trans-port services, and poor access to information technol-ogy and education have impacted upon the settlementpatterns in the three counties, which show a bias infavour of market towns. However, in recent years, thequality of the ‘Marcher’ (border) landscape has begunto be appreciated with the result that many formeragricultural and industrial labourers’ cottages havebeen taken over as commuter, retirement or holidayhomes around the larger towns of Hereford, Chester,Shrewsbury, and Telford (ROWLEY, 2001).
Given the longitudinal nature of the research, quali-tative methods were adopted to examine closely theprocesses behind these wider socio-economic changesand to observe and assess variations in respondents’cross-border perspectives over the course of time.Twenty-one respondents from twenty institutions,6
chosen to reflect different spatial scales of tourisminitiatives and rural development policies, wereincluded in the surveys (Table 1). The participantsbelonged to a range of backgrounds and occupieddifferent positions within the institutions. For instance,those interviewed included: the two heads of divisionresponsible for rural development and tourism supportwithin the two RDAs – Advantage West Midlands(AWM) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA);the Department for Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS)7 representative at the Government OfficeWest Midlands (GOWM) and the Division ExecutiveOfficer for rural development and diversification atthe Government Office Wales (GOW); the heads ofthe Tourist Boards – Visit Heart of England (VHE)and Visit Mid-Wales Tourism Partnership (MWTP) –chosen to gain a strategic perspective on tourism pro-motion and networking; the project coordinators ofthe regeneration partnerships – Herefordshire Partner-ship (HP), the Shropshire Partnership (SP), SouthShropshire Regeneration Partnership (SSP), thePowys Regeneration Partnership (PRP), and Mid-Wales Regional Partnership (MWRP); the Heads ofthe Economic Development Division and theTourism Development Officers8 from the three coun-ties, to explain some of the practical challenges andopportunities innate in the collaborative initiativesthat local authorities have launched to work closelywith local entrepreneurs and community groups; andcountryside officers from environmental agencies such
as the (former) Countryside Agency9 (CA) and Coun-tryside Council for Wales (CCW).
Some of these respondents also played a major role inthe discussions of a specially convened consultationpanel for the SPRITE project. As a participatorymethod, the use of panels is well known in health andmulti-agency groups (CONVERY et al., 2005). Localagencies (for example, mayors of Town Councils,Bishop’s Castle (TCBC) and Knighton (TCK)) werechosen to help understand their role in the threeselected study sub-regions (Fig. 1), identified througha mapping exercise using tourism brochures, directories,and websites, and demonstrating clusters of tourismactivities and resources. For instance, around the villagesof sub-region 1, Pembridge and Eardisland in NorthHerefordshire, there is a thriving food and drinksector. The half-timbered houses dating back to theyear 1200 provide an added cultural dimension to thetourism product in these medieval black-and-whitevillages.
The second, cross-border sub-region was chosen toexplore the impact of a national border on local andregional policies in the two market towns of Bishop’sCastle and Knighton. Planned in the thirteenthcentury by the Bishops of Hereford, Bishop’s Castle isa small, old-fashioned border town in south-westShropshire that attracts a large number of walkers.There is significant employment in the food andtimber industries. Knighton, or Tref-y-clawdd inWelsh, meaning ‘the town on the dyke’, straddles theeighth-century border built by Welsh King Offabetween England and Wales, a boundary that roughlycorresponds to the national border line between Walesand England today. The ability of the two markettowns to attract tourists has been increasing with awidening of the range of specialist shopping opportu-nities and a rise in festivals and events supported andrevived by both businesses and residents.
Finally, the third sub-region, Builth Wells and theLlewelyn Country, comprises the villages of Cilmeri,Aberdew, and the small market town of Builth Wells,all of which are being marketed, mainly to ramblers,as ‘The Llewelyn Country’, after Prince Llewelyn, thelast Prince of Wales.
The definition of IRT, being linked explicitly to theeconomic, social, cultural, natural, and human struc-tures of the region in which it takes place, was explainedto respondents. During the interviews10 (each lastingapproximately 60–90 minutes), which were recordedand transcribed, and the transcripts coded and analysed,they were then asked to list projects/initiatives they per-ceived as good examples of tourism either promoting orcapable of promoting integration at economic, social,cultural, natural, and human levels (MILES and HUBER-
MAN, 1994; CHARMAZ, 2006, pp. 17–80). This sparkedoff discussion on opportunities and challenges to devel-oping IRT. During the initial stages of analysis, almostevery word of transcription was coded (open coding).
1144 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
Table 1. Agencies included in the survey
Institutions England Wales
Number of
respondents Substantive focus Spatial reach
Government Offices GOWMa,b GOW 2 Providing a regional focus for the Department for Cul-
ture, Media and Sports’ (DCMS) policies on sport,
arts, museums and galleries, libraries and archives,
heritage and architecture, the creative industries
(music, film, and broadcasting), tourism, the lottery,
and licensing and gambling (see http://www.gos.
gov.uk)
Regional/local (links are
regularly forged with
government pro-
grammes at local level)
RDAs AWMa WDA 2 Providing strategic leadership, bringing together views
of the people who live and work in each region, and
combining these with a unique set of business and
economic insights to make the most of the opportu-
nities that globalisation brings (see http://www.
englandsrdas.com; and http://www.wales.gov.uk)
Regional (strategies apply
across county
boundaries)
Regeneration Partnerships
(non-statutory, voluntary,
often referred to as local
strategic partnerships)
HP, SP, SSPa PRP, MWRPa 5 Devising and implementing strategies with local
Next a set of thematic or summary codes was developed(axial coding) focusing on both agencies’ and respon-dents’ potential role in developing IRT. The final iter-ation of coding the texts (selective coding) focusedon: (1) respondents’ perceptions of their agencies’ rolein promoting cross-border integration in general andIRT in particular; (2) the nature of formal and informalcross-border networking that they reported; and (3) thespatial reach of policies impacting on rural tourism(gauged also from the information available on agencies’websites, their annual reports, and management plans).
In addition to the qualitative interviews, respondentswere invited to two regional seminars organized duringdata collection and evaluation phases of the research.The purpose of the first regional seminar (attended bya small group of fifteen) was to explain the role thatcross-border integration in general and IRT in particu-lar could play in the region’s economy, citing examplesfrom other contexts (for example, MAYE and ILBERY,2006),11 to present preliminary findings and to refineresearch questions in the light of participants’ responses.A summary of the key findings from the surveys withdifferent actor-groups mentioned above was presentedin the second regional seminar, which also includedpresentations from the regional Tourist Boards and theRDAs. Approximately fifty people attended thesecond regional seminar, including twelve intervieweerespondents. The proceedings were recorded and tran-scribed, and mainly highlighted the willingness ofrepresentatives from local and regional institutions oneither side of the border to work jointly on integratedand complementary policies to support the region’sgrowth as a destination. Also, in order to comprehendfully the boundary-producing performances of policyand to read between the lines of political discourse,the data-collection processes were documented in theextensive interviewer notes that accompanied the inter-view schedule. These allowed the interviewers to recordtheir reflections, opinions, and experiences of theresearch process (GOODWIN and O’CONNER, 2006).Using these, together with the data from the surveys,regional seminars, agencies’ websites, annual reports,management plans, and local and regional broadsheets,this paper now presents existing policy approaches topromoting rural tourism, the pathways for integrationavailable to them, and the practical challenges policy-makers face in developing tourism programmes andinitiatives across the border.
ANALYSING STRATEGIC, ADMINISTRA-
TIVE AND PERSONAL CHALLENGES TO
DEVELOPING INTEGRATED RURAL
TOURISM IN THE ENGLISH–WELSH
CROSS-BORDER REGION
The analysis first summarizes existing policy initiativesand respondents’ attitudes and efforts to develop
tourism programmes and initiatives in the region. Itthen underlines the multiple pathways for integrationimplicit in current policy rhetoric and actor practices.The discussion concludes by outlining some of thepractical challenges entrenched in mind-sets, as well asadministrative structures in both England and Walesthat considerably constrain the development of cross-border integration and IRT. Interview data suggestcounterintuitive aspects of engagement and partner-ships, an arena that is marked by conflict and mistrustamong actors and the parallel processes of exclusion.Despite this, the findings also reveal a gradual increasein stakeholder coalitions that are utilizing tools andtechniques of engagement which have worked in thepast, as well as adopting newer methods of dialogueand participation to broaden the scope of currentgroupings and increase public involvement. On thewhole, while there is a support for integratedapproaches to developing the region as a touristdestination, research also uncovers some of the practicalchallenges in translating this support into actualpractices.
Existing approaches to promoting rural tourism
Existing approaches to promoting rural tourism anddevelopment, with their emphasis on ‘participation’,seem set to continue the trends of the 1990s by promot-ing the concept of partnership as something of a panaceafor the difficulties and exclusionary politics that havepreviously dogged policy programmes (RACO, 2000).This has been facilitated in part by ‘functional restruc-turing’ which has devolved power to regional playerssuch as RDAs and GOs (FULLER et al., 2004). Thus,Advantage West Midlands in England is closely involvedin the identification and formation of ‘clusters’ or colla-borative networks that can be used to develop opportu-nities for linking environmental assets to tourism(AWM, 2005). Similarly in Wales, the WDA, since itsreorganization in 1998, identifies a key role for itselfin the ‘social development of the region’ and ‘supportfor tourism growth areas’ through developing new net-works and communities of practice to achieve a sustain-able tourism framework (WDA, 2007). The emergenceof sub-regions (or clusters), largely defined by policypriorities, has resulted in a territorial cross-cuttingstructure defined by truncated administrative andhistoric boundaries and dense, localized inter-insti-tutional relationships designed to promote economicprosperity.
Many respondents regarded these sub-regionalbrands and tourism initiatives, informed by localopinion, as far more effective in bringing togetherdiverse interests and projects than large-scale projectscontrolled by outsiders. For instance, the sub-regionalagri-food partnership in Wales, supporting diversityand the modernization of traditional land-based indus-tries, especially farming, cuts across several counties
1146 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
and has linked Powys in partnership initiatives withCarmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, and Gwynedd inWest Wales. Similarly, the West Midlands RuralNetwork, focused on issues such as rural housing, trans-port, food and farming, tourism, and voluntary andcommunity sectors, has succeeded in linking groupsand organizations such as GOWM, AWM, Environ-ment Agency, VHE, and English Heritage, and cemen-ted ties between several agencies in Herefordshire andShropshire. Additionally, European Union-fundedsub-regional networks like LEADER+ have initiatedcross-cutting rural development projects in the regionaimed at providing assistance and support to businesses,individuals, and community groups (for example, Here-fordshire Rivers LEADER+ Programme, ShropshireHills LEADER, and Glasu or ‘rebirth’ in Powys).12
These sub-regional initiatives, guided by local priori-ties, have been successful to an extent in widening par-ticipation and partnerships amongst agencies operatingat different geographical scales. However, the problemwith programmes like LEADER+ is, as BOCHER
(2008) points out, that terms like ‘decentralization’and ‘self-coordination’ are often normatively used andfundamental snags such as weakly institutionalizednetworks or the different power potentials of theactors in them are usually sidelined. The failure ofinitiatives like LEADER+ to become a bridgingdevice across the border means that, as this respondentpointed out:
There is still this sort of England and Wales. It is a definite
national boundary. If we are looking at business develop-
ment or inward investment or building factories or
encouraging companies to move into the area, we are
competing with AWM.
(official from the WDA)
This ‘hostile brothers scenario’ (WEBB and COLLIS,2000, p. 863) extends at the local authority level too,as is evident here:
We have very little interaction with partners over the
border in Wales because of the sort of the political
set-up there. The National Assembly and the WDA
have quite different perspectives on the way they do
things to those that we have here. [. . .] It has always
been quite difficult to work across the two areas
because of having to work with programmes that are
geographically targeted in a quite ‘inward looking’ sort
of way. [. . .] So if we do actually do cross-border pro-
jects [. . .] it will be more by chance than by design
because the design is not actually to see ‘exchanging
ideas, making contacts and meeting people’ as an area
worth considering.
(Economic Development Department (EDS),
Shropshire County Council)
This respondent is obviously expressing personal frus-tration with how the current set-up translates into prac-tice because the official view of the council is toencourage
wide-ranging consultation and [. . .] work closely with our
stakeholders and other agencies through the Shropshire
Partnership.
(SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL, 2009, p. 18)
Similarly, the official view of the regional tourist boardsis in favour of participatory and integrated approaches toachieve innovative, well-connected, and enterprisingeconomies (LOCUM DESTINATION CONSULTING,2003, p. 6; REGIONAL MARKETING BOARD, HEART
OF ENGLAND, 2009, p. 5), but the practical difficultiesof achieving cross-border integration through IRTbecame apparent after interviewing the two respon-dents as
there is no specific rural tourism strategy. There have been
rural strategies at local level but never at regional level.
There’s a national rural tourism strategy. Of course it all
breaks down to whether you have the money to deliver
– that’s the problem with having a strategy and not
having the resource [. . .].
(Visit Heart of England (VHE))
Thus, it appears that the Tourist Boards cannot reallyinfluence implementation at the local level beyond pro-viding an overall framework. Also, it seems that thepolitics of identity as such plays a prominent, somewhatdeterministic, role. This is not particularly surprisinggiven the vast strategic differences across the border, asthis respondent from the Government Office forWales pointed out:
We don’t operate similar to the government offices in the
regions of England to cover the full range of tourism-
related functions. We in this office cover only the agricul-
ture side at the moment, but in future as we grow in scale,
we hope to be similar to government offices in England
[. . .] provide a wider range of services to the rural
community.
Despite the failure of GOs to engage in strategiccoordination across the border, there are parallels inpolicy-making circles when it comes to communityempowerment and participation-based systems. Forinstance, all three respondents from the economicdevelopment teams within the local authorities reported‘working-in partnerships’ and regular, informal inter-action with colleagues across the border as key to ‘direc-tion-setting’. However, at the implementation level,the locally focused participatory approaches haveencouraged new forms of parochialism and a narrowingof political and geographical imaginations for:
the structure of the organisation [. . .] together with the
disparate nature of the commercial sector in tourism
and its individual characteristics, mean that [. . .] you
would never get any better integration than you have
currently got.
(EDP1 (Economic Development, Powys))
Ironically, tourism appears to consolidate competitionand divisions rather than liquidate them.
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Border Region 1147
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
Pathways for integration
Nevertheless, signs of change have begun to appear.There is growing pressure on the local authorities toassume ‘a direct interventionist role’ that requires themto act as ‘community leaders’ and work closely withother agencies to develop overarching strategies thatpromote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. Thus, Herefordshire CountyCouncil is developing tailor-made support packagesand coordinating large-scale marketing events for localbusinesses and colleges as part of an initiative known asthe ‘Creative Industries in Herefordshire’. TheCouncil was awarded £87 300 from the Arts CouncilWest Midland’s ‘Grants for the Arts’ programme inDecember 2004 for the development of the creativeindustries in Herefordshire (ARTS COUNCIL
ENGLAND, 2006). This initiative has also led to newbids to the RDA and other funders, involving thecounties of Shropshire and Worcestershire, for studiospace and creative centres in the west of the region. Asimilar scheme, the ‘Cultural Enterprise’ initiative,funded by the Arts Council of Wales and the WelshDevelopment Agency, is currently underway in Powysand other counties in West Wales (POWYS COUNTY
COUNCIL, 2006). It is designed to deliver businesssupport to individuals and businesses that are not typi-cally reached by the mainstream business support provi-ders in Wales.13 Also, since the foot and mouthdevastation of 2001, diversification grants have gainedmomentum in all three counties with a view to trans-forming farms and outbuildings into a variety oftourism uses, from bed and breakfast (B&B) establish-ments to conference centres and setting up retail unitsthat jointly promote produce from Herefordshire,Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Powys (SHROPSHIRE
STAR, 2006). Whilst these initiatives have a limitedreach, they have the potential eventually to pave theway for greater cross-border collaboration in the future.
Also, the regeneration partnerships in the threecounties can be seen as an attempt to address integrationat a strategic level and spawn agency cooperation withprivate and voluntary sectors and community groups.Indeed, the regeneration partnership mechanisms in thethree counties were launched to forge a strong linkbetween the government’s competitiveness agenda andgroups of local authorities. Their impacts on the ruraleconomy of the region are manifest in incremental stepsthat take the form of ‘a number of programmes whichare small-scale but actually have quite a big impact atthe local level’ (South Shropshire Regeneration Partner-ship (SSP)). Typical examples include paying for a chil-dren’s play area in a rural isolated village or improvingthe central heating system in a village hall. Thus, alongsidethe working-in-partnership element, there is an effort totie into their regeneration projects those issues that peopleactually want addressed at the local level. However, as thisrespondent noted, the emphasis still is on
making clear what people have the choice over and what
they have got to take as given [. . .] have to give people a
framework rather than a straight jacket to work within.
You need to be very clear with people what is for them
to play for and what is going to be done to them.
(Advantage West Midlands (AWM))
The exact consequences of such a mind-set are difficultto envisage, but it can be argued that without consistentand constant local input, the politics of cross-border gov-ernance and regeneration are likely to suffer from ademocracy deficit. This is the case with Cataloniawhere ‘borderlanders’ feel short-changed by traditionalstate-centred policies (HAKLI, 2004). Several related cri-tiques are now beginning to emerge on the ambiguityinherent in partnership working and the validity of par-ticipatory democracy, particularly when unequal actor-groups are involved (BORTEL and MULLINS, 2009).
Certainly, the ‘strategic roadmap’ of the regenerationpartnerships in the three counties appears to limit localautonomy by virtue of being integrated into verticalperformance management systems that dictate andregulate outcomes to meet national targets.14 This hasmeant that rather than converging on cross-borderissues and initiatives, they seem to move on paralleltrajectories, primarily defined by county-specific con-cerns ‘which do not necessarily match up [. . .] happendifferently in different regions’ (Government OfficeWest Midlands (GOWM)). Thus, the real success ofthe regeneration framework lies primarily in pushingvaried interests in each of the three counties in acommon direction. Also, the European Union’sintervention through them has definitely lessened thesignificance of the territorial divide between theEnglish counties of Herefordshire and Shropshire. Animportant side result of such collaboration is, as thisrespondent noted:
we work quite closely with partners in Shropshire and
Worcestershire, particularly on European programmes
(e.g.) the West Midlands European Programme [. . .] to
make the best use of the schemes and the money. As we
are partners, we have an opportunity to say to them if
we are not going to spend the money that they could
use it and the same applies to them.
(Herefordshire Partnership (HP))
However, European Union-sponsored cooperation isrelatively recent and it is unreasonable to expect it tosucceed in the long-term without regional and localinstitutional support to grassroots-level cross-borderprojects having a ‘people-to-people’ dimension.
Practical challenges to achieving cross-border integration
One of the significant limitations of European Union-funded collaborative initiatives is that even if they areable to bring different parties together, they are unlikelyto exert any ‘real’ influence on policy-making unlesstheir proposals for integration are legislated and
1148 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
enforced by the governments. Further, LEIMBURGER’s(1998) premise, quite tenable in the context of thisresearch, is that
while economic benefits may result from such coordinated
activities, the psychological effects on the populations
concerned are probably more important.
(p. 18)
The respondents certainly alluded to psychologicalimpediments to integration:
Due to an abundance of the natural products – slate,
water, forestry, wind – we tend to be seen as an opportu-
nity for exploitation. We are used by the military for low
flying because of the low population density. Harvesting
the forestry as a result of which Wales is left with barren
landscapes. That does not augur well for the region as a
whole. The experience of exploitation over the years
remains with us. We are still perceived as a colonial
country. [. . .] Picking ourselves up and having a view of
the world which is of our own and not that which is
given to us by a colonising, neighbouring, larger bullying
power is a big psychological hurdle.
(EDP1)15
Accompanying these subjectively experienced impedi-ments, there are some ‘real’ temporal difficulties –different strategies working to dissimilar time-frames– for the Welsh agencies to link up with the Englishstrategies and policies. For instance, the WDA is along-established institution compared with AWM,which is to be scrapped under the new ConservativeGovernment which believes that the RDAs are artifi-cially created and do not represent real economic areasas the local authorities do (WALKER, 2008). TheMid-Wales Tourism Partnership, which is a DestinationManagement Partnership (DMP), is now nearly eightyears old, whereas in Herefordshire the DMP was setup only in April 2006. The Shropshire DMP was alsoonly set up early in 2007 and is the most recentlyestablished. Nevertheless, the Destination ManagementPartnerships (DMPs) are being viewed as essential indelivering the regional strategic objectives for develop-ing a sustainable and integrated vision for tourism asthey are seen to be ‘aligning itself with lots of otherthings’ (MWRP). Thus, agencies like CCW andNatural England (formerly the CA) that promotesustainable resource management are working closelywith the DMPs and the RDAs.
The general impression gathered throughout theresearch is that the process of ‘joining up’ across theborder remains largely social, achieved through socio-personal ties amongst respondents, who have workedin different capacities in various agencies in the threecounties and use their friendships to keep track of pro-gress on different policies and strategies. However, asFig. 2 demonstrates, the interaction between public/private sector actors – that can also be distinguishedas territorial and sectoral16 – varies depending onthe nature of ties, ranging from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’
(GRANOVETTER, 1973). Ties between the regenerationpartnerships and community groups/local businessescan be described as weak collaboration. Althoughrespondents expressed a very clear sense of connectionto the community, they appeared to be placed outsideit because of the way they conceptualized communitycapabilities, which is:
In terms of endurance, sticking power and level of under-
standing of what is involved, a lot of the groups have the
idea that things can work very quickly but they can’t see
that there is a huge amount of input needed and early
work that needs doing in developing projects. [. . .]
There is an element of naivety amongst community
groups and that may reflect the relative newness of
things from their perspective and they lack experience
and knowledge. They lack maturity.
(Powys Regeneration Partnership (PRP))
Similarly, the weak collaboration that the town councilsreported with regional agencies (GOs/RDAs/TouristBoards), local authorities, and tourism teams indicatestheir peripheral status in decision-making, as well astheir inability to alter decisions:
we don’t have the sort of power to actually do anything.
[. . .] We fill in forms, discuss things. We do have a right
to voice our opinions, nothing more than that. I think
you’ve got to have an overwhelming argument against
something before it will be changed, and I don’t know
whether it will be thoroughly changed.
(respondent from the Town Council, Bishop’s Castle)
It was interesting to note that local agencies communi-cate a more positive perspective on cross-borderintegration, not commonly prevalent at higher levels:
But instead of identifying ourselves as the English or the
Welsh, we generally regard ourselves as representative of
the best of both England and Wales as Knightonians are
a mix sort of people.
(respondent from the Town Council, Knighton).
On a positive note, convergence between territorialand sectoral competencies has meant that actors like the(former) Countryside Agency and the CountrysideCouncil for Wales, primarily territorial in nature andwith interests in conserving the environment, areworking in close partnerships with the Tourist Boardsand DMPs that are mainly sectoral. Thus, the respon-dent’s view was that
rather than stick to a rigid way of doing things [. . .] we are
trying to get away from the culture of rushing to meetings
and rushing out and actually sitting down – a) to go
through strategic documents and prepare an action plan
for the future; and b) to try and build up a bit more of
team working.
(Countryside Council for Wales (CCW))
However, exchanges between territorial and sectoralagencies are not without problems. For instance, thereare strong thoughts within the local authorities inrelation to branding. These are not always compatible
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Border Region 1149
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
with how local businesses and the Tourist Board wantthe area branded.
This lack of compatibility between sectoral andterritorial agencies came across in other interviews,especially with respondents from the Tourist Boardsand with those who were part of the DMPs. Theyexpressed dissatisfaction with the local authorities’narrow perception of tourism brands who viewedthem as inherently interwoven with administrativeboundaries, limiting the capacity of ‘bona fide tourismplayers’ to draw elaborate plans for marketing andpromoting the region as a whole. Whilst there was anacknowledgement of a greater community initiative
than in the past, there was an underlying theme ofuncertainty about how to look beyond the traditional‘boundaries’ (that is, relationship with colleagues andconnections established over many years) and adoptnewer approaches to achieve greater cross-borderintegration. What was especially interesting aboutrespondents engaged with DMPs, the regenerationpartnerships and economic development teams withinthe three local authorities was their more criticalstance and their questioning of the extent to whichthe current system was really capable of widening itsscope and softening its boundaries to encouragenewer perspectives on integration.
Fig. 2. Interface between public- and private-sector organizations in the English–Welsh border regionNote: A, Cooperation on issues (regeneration, funding, promotion, and marketing); B, creation of/support to;
C, membership of; and D, weak collaboration. GOs, Government Offices of the Regions; HP, Herefordshire Partnership;PRP, Powys Regeneration Partnership; RDAs, Regional Development Agencies; and SP, Shropshire Partnership
Source: Authors’ survey
1150 Brian Ilbery and Gunjan Saxena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
CONCLUSIONS
This research indicates that the ‘border’ betweenEngland and Wales continues to impede agencycooperation, resulting in spatially compartmentalizedpolicies and multilayered segregation, despite the factthat regional actors – the regeneration partnerships,the Tourist Boards, the Regional DevelopmentAgencies (RDAs), and the Destination ManagementPartnerships (DMPs) – are empowered to facilitatecoordination through the means of tourism. Critically,the implications of the findings lead one to ask a keyquestion. Can regional structures of governanceprovide enough capacity for local inclination towardsgreater integration across the border? Importantly, theresearch shows that ‘us versus them’ resistance tacticsare rather embedded in regional structures, wheretourism is viewed more as an occurrence that fosterscompetition between localities than as an opportunitycapable of deepening integration processes. Further,the relatively closed nature of local authorities’ policies,set in national institutional environments in Englandand Wales, has created separate political units that afew reported as incapable of developing a uniqueregional identity and a saleable market brand. Also,instilling trust across regional partners is difficultbecause there is a perception that power dynamicsbetween England and Wales are asymmetrical, makingsome sceptical of the cooperation agenda that is onlylikely to foster ‘a view of the world [. . .] which isgiven to us by a colonising, neighbouring, largerbullying power’ (EDP1).
Integrated rural tourism’s (IRT) usefulness as a policymodel lies in the fact that it embodies endogenous,territorial approaches to tourism development basedon network relationships that offer independencefrom traditional political boundaries and have success-fully brought about cross-border destination develop-ment in similar contexts (HARTMANN, 2006). Thus,both prior research and the socio-cultural and econ-omic opportunities innate in the region, together witha policy commitment to integration and participationin both England and Wales, support the concept ofIRT. Ideally, the historically rooted differences oneither side of the border, and the difficulties they haveengendered, call for a ‘borderless setting’ where terri-torial parallels can become the basis of fusion or atleast gradual openings to build an integrated visionand renew regional capabilities (HEIDENREICH, 2005;HEALEY, 2007). The opportunity certainly lies in capi-talizing on current cross-border social connections withcolleagues that many respondents mentioned duringthe interviews. Further research is needed to determinethe strength of these ‘weak’ ties and to gather evidenceon differences and similarities in mind-sets. Othercase studies have successfully demonstrated that enga-ging with actors as individuals, with experience andexpertise drawn from their working context, allows
the better attributes of network forms of coordinationto dominate (ROWE and DEVANNEY, 2003). Moreover,discourses on ‘best practices’ (EUROPEAN GOOD
PRACTICE INFORMATION SERVICE (EGPIS), 2004;ILBERY and SAXENA, 2009) in developing IRT in par-ticular places need to be acknowledged so that theycan challenge mainstream political rationalities andcreate opportunities for economic activity and diversity,something that also depends on sufficient populationlevels (demographic development) in the surroundingarea of influence and on proper accessibility, particularlyin sparsely populated rural border regions (ASSOCI-
ATION OF EUROPEAN BORDER REGIONS (AEBR),2007). In this regard, it would be helpful to gatheradded insights into the connection between policiesand actors’ values, experience exchange, and theirsocial networks. The observable influence of all thesecumulative factors on the progress achieved with IRTdevelopment, as well as the impact of sustainablegrowth processes in rapidly transitioning cross-borderrural economies, is still to be fully understood.
Acknowledgements – This paper is based on a colla-
borative programme of research funded under the European
Union’s Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources
programme (QLK5-CT-2000-01211 – SPRITE). The
research was undertaken by universities and research centres
in six countries: Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, the United
Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. The authors wish to
acknowledge the help of those participating in the interviews
as well as the anonymous referees for their constructive com-
ments on an earlier draft of this paper.
NOTES
1. The cross-border Benelux partnership comprises three
neighbouring countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Luxembourg, and was first formed in 1946 to promote
the free movement of workers, capital, services, and
goods in the region (O’DOWD, 2003). ‘Suremind’ is a
recently launched initiative aimed at facilitating a
broader range of multinational, multi-agency responses
to major incidents including maritime, air traffic, and
terrestrial misadventures. It builds on the previous
LinguaNet project (1994–1998) which was supported
by the European Commission as a six-nation
Framework 4 Telematics project with a budget in
excess of E2.5 million ( JOHNSON, 2003). The
EUREGIO project has contributed to the setting up of
networks, as well as to a direct transfer of know-how,
among partner institutions in the areas of Northern
Europe and the Baltic Sea Region, Central and Eastern
Europe, North-West Europe, and the region of the
Alps and the Danube (EUREGIO, 2008).
2. KLIOT et al. (2001) discussed the growing significance of
collaborative arrangements impacting on the shared use
of international water resources and providing a platform
for institutions jointly to discuss solutions to their water
conflicts. Similarly, with the implementation of cross-
Integrated Rural Tourism in the English–Welsh Border Region 1151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
isco
nsin
- M
adis
on]
at 1
6:50
10
Sept
embe
r 20
14
border programmes and the introduction of a joint
marketing initiative to promote the island of Ireland
as a single tourist destination, the level of cooperation
has substantially increased over the last two decades
(GREER, 2002).
3. INTERREG III is a European Union-funded pro-
gramme that helps Europe’s regions form partnerships
to work together on common projects. By sharing
knowledge and experience, these partnerships enable
the regions involved to develop new solutions to econ-
omic, social, and environmental challenges.
4. The idea is that politics does not have to be territorially
bounded because ‘place’ (city, region or rural area) is
continuously being made, unmade, and remade by con-
tinual, open-ended change, wrought by the incessant
regrouping/overlapping of networks and the mutating
relationships contained within them (AMIN et al., 2003,
pp. 20–98).
5. This refers to the previous European Union structural
funds period 2000–2006, where Objective 2-denoted
regions affected by rural or industrial restructuring,
rather than the current 2007–2013 funding period
under which new Objective 2 programmes are called
‘Regional Competitive and Employment’ and focus on
increasing regional competitiveness and employment,
which is under the new Objective 3 on regions in
Europe. Presently, Powys County Council is seeking
support through these new programmes for various
complementary economic regeneration projects within
the Severn Valley. Similarly, both Herefordshire and
Shropshire Councils are using these programmes to
fund actions aimed at improving agriculture, forestry,
and the environment, promoting rural diversification
in regeneration zones, and developing clusters (for
example, food and drink, environmental technology
and tourism and leisure) (SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL,
2009; HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL, 2009).
6. It is worth noting that since most interviews involved
relatively informal, relaxed discussion based around
project themes, respondents’ bias was ‘tested’ against
the information available from agencies’ websites,
annual reports, and management plans. Also, their
responses were cross-referenced with data collected
from surveys with other actor-groups – for example,
tourists (100), excluding residents and including day
visitors and second-home owners; gatekeepers (ten),
including those individuals and agencies that market
the region and provide information to tourists; businesses
(fifty-one), from a mix of sectors such as accommo-
dation, hospitality, travel and transport, and retail; resource
controllers (twenty), mainly from the non-profit sector,
but which play an important buffering role in environ-
mental, social, cultural, economic, and political issues at
destinations (SAXENA and ILBERY, 2008); and residents
(fifty), both old (longer-term) and new residents (inco-
mers). In some cases, respondents themselves clarified
when a response reflected their personal opinion and
wanted it to be treated as such. Respondents from
other actor-groups either work closely with agencies
included in the surveys or are impacted directly/indirectly by their policies.
7. It is based in London.
8. All three are part of the Destination Management
Partnerships (DMPs), also referred to as Destination
Management Organisations (DMO), that have been set
up to act as catalysts and facilitators for tourism
development.
9. The Countryside Agency no longer exists. In 2006, parts
of it were assimilated into what is now known as the
Commission for Rural Communities and the rest into
Natural England.
10. The choice of the interview protocol and interview ques-
tions was adapted to suit the characteristics of the insti-
tutions selected. The transcripts were carefully read to
identify major themes. The themes were revised after
annotating the first few (approximately five) interview
transcripts and were explored for consistency within and
between accounts. Some themes (such as administrative
challenges to achieving integration) were identified at an
early stage of analysis, whilst others (such as psychological
impediments to integration and cooperation) emerged
only later. Once a theme (for example, the significance
of social networks) was identified from some interviews,
the data were reanalysed to establish whether it figured
in other transcripts, and in what context, and to look for
counter examples (SEALE, 1999, pp. 99–127). Data retrie-
vals were carried out on the basis of themes, summaries
written for each, and tabulations made of interviewee
characteristics in relation to these. The data excerpts
used in this analysis were chosen as representative of the
themes and counter-examples provided.
11. This research ran parallel to the SPRITE project at the
time of the regional seminar.
12. Herefordshire Rivers LEADER+ programme was
initiated under the previous funding period 2000–2006
to support local community activity that found new
ways to enhance, interpret, utilize, and record the
natural environment and historical resources of the coun-
tryside. The programme has now ended and has been
replaced by a new scheme called ‘VITAL Herefordshire
LEADER Programme’ (effective from 2009 to 2013),
the main priority of which is to ameliorate social exclu-
sion caused by poverty and rural isolation. In contrast,
Shropshire Hills LEADER is ongoing and hopes to
improve well-being through better access to services,
support, places, transport, and facilities throughout the
Shropshire Hills by 2013. Also, Glasu in Powys, which
focuses mainly on encouraging confidence in renewable
energy and sustainable practices, is still active and part
funded through the Rural Development Plan for Wales
2008–2013, which is financed by the European Union
and the Welsh Assembly Government as well as by
Powys County Council.
13. See http://www.cultural-enterprise.com/.
14. See http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk; http://www.
shropshireenterprise.co.uk; and http://www.powysprp.
org.uk/.
15. Again, this is a respondent’s personal perception rather
than the view of Powys County Council.
16. ‘Sectoral’ organizations are characterized by remits
limited to one or a few sectors, while ‘territorial’ organ-
izations are defined by a global remit addressing all or
most of the issues in a specific geographical area,
through a function of government or through objectives
