University contributions to co-creating sustainable tourism destinations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of university-stakeholder collaborative activities in time.

Source: authors’ elaboration

Table 1. Adapting the destination marketing alliance framework.

Model Constructs (Wang & Xiang, 2007)	Elements	Data
Precondition Environmental forces (social, economic, organisational, technological) generate the impetus for stakeholders to consider collaborations.	Competition Economic conditions Organisation support Technology	2007-2013: real regional GDP declined by 5.3% following economic crisis in 2008. OECD (2011) recommended Marche become more knowledge-intensive and innovative through university-business cooperation. OECD (2011) suggested integrating agricultural and tourism industries to exploit entrepreneurship opportunities in the region (Cavicchi et al., 2013).
Motivation – strategy oriented Businesses and organisations start collaborative relationships due to different motivations, which can range from social, to economic, to strategic. Main motivations generally belong to three macro-categories: strategy; transaction; learning.	Motivation Strategy- oriented · Expand market ·Develop product portfolio Transaction cost-oriented · Efficiency · Economic scale & scope Learning-oriented · Expand capability · Broaden knowledge base	Pushed by the economic crises, in 2009 and 2010 many regional entrepreneurs were reflecting on new collaborative strategies and methods to boost the development of tourism and the local economy under a regional umbrella-brand. University started to organise open debates and workshops including entrepreneurs, public administrators, consultants, researchers and students to analyse opportunities and problems in creating networks and strategies. A previous study (Rinaldi & Cavicchi, 2016) tracked the evolution of a cooperative attempt to build a regional umbrella-brand following these open debates. Once Gastronomic Cities was activated many stakeholders participated to another EU project carried out by the local University, which supported closer cooperation between university and local stakeholders.
Collaboration Process Communication: Assembling and ordering Implementation: Trust Commitment: evaluation and transformation	Assembling: issue identification; partner selection. Ordering: common problems and related goals definition; programme development. Implementation: assign roles; execute programs Evaluation: assess predefined goals; check against expectations Transformation: evolve into stronger partnerships; finish completely.	Data collection Stage 1. Gastronomic City project: a) URBACT Local Support Group (ULSG) facilitation meetings; b) students’ work Stage 2. Post-Gastronomic Cities: a) first round of interviews with project champions right after the end of the project; b) second round of interviews with project champions 2 years after the end of the project; c) academic staff perspectives on facilitators and barriers of university-stakeholder cooperation
Outcomes	Strategy realisation · Increased product portfolio; Destination competitiveness Organisation learning · Knowledge transfer · Organisation innovation Social capital building · Relationship building	A number of activities involving local stakeholders and the university were held after the project ended. Collaboration is still active at the time of writing (2019), demonstrating Gastronomic Cities is a sustainable project according to the EC (2006) definition. The most significant post-project activities were: 3 International student competitions (one per year) on Place branding and Mediterranean Diet involving over 50 participants per edition from different universities in Italy and Europe; 2 EU projects: one focused on Food and one focused on Wine.

Source: authors’ elaboration.

Table

	Stage 1 – Gastronomic Cities project https://urbact.eu/gastronomic-cities	Stage 2 – Post Gastronomic Cities project - Project ‘champion’ interviews
Focus	Recollects activities between the university and stakeholders within project timeframe (2013-2015).	Comprised one-on-one semi-structured interviews with heavily invested regional and academic stakeholders.
Materials and methods	Part a) ULSG facilitation meetings. The lead tourism researcher, a post-doctoral student, three PhD students, and two international visiting scholars : Facilitated three stakeholder meetings. Different stakeholders (journalists, wine and food producers, agri-tourism owners, chefs and historians) emerged as the most active and engaged – representing a Laboratory for Mediterranean Diet (LMD). Administered a Survey amongst stakeholders determining activities to include in the LAP. Part b) Students’ work. Congruent with the university’s mission of engagement, this empirical phase of the case study leveraged the object of a universities’ first mission of teaching (Trencher et al., 2013). A problem-based learning (PBL) constructivist approach was deployed:. mobilised by inviting practitioners into contact situations with students whereby they can provide a range of problems, or issues, they are facing which activated the ‘PBL cycle’. Details on PBL method and students presentations are reported in Appendix 2.	First round of interviews with project champions: (post-project to investigate impact) Nine stakeholders were interviewed by lead author; questioned on involvement of other stakeholders as incentive or disincentive to participate; pros and cons of university’s involvement; whether university’s involvement contributed towards common purpose; if process was inclusive; perceptions of whether stakeholders contributed equitably. Second round of interviews with project champions (two years post-project). Five from nine first round participants interviewed. Interviews focused on: whether collaboration achieved its goals; if results were better or worse than expectations; contribution towards forming a stronger alliance among stakeholders and with university; interpretation of collaboration with university (changes over time); importance of trust (and change over time); how collaboration process changed stakeholder perceived roles; LMD role in region and university collaboration. Academic staff perspectives: (involved during and after Gastronomic Cities). Eight academic staff (internal to the university and international scholars) interviewed (by first two authors). Purpose: to identify co-creation process facilitators and barriers. Interviews audio-recorded/transcribed verbatim and manually thematically analysed. Wang and Xiang (2007) model framed deductive analysis - inductively attentive to emergent themes. Cross-member checking quality assured analysis.

Source: authors’ elaboration.

Figure 2. Co-creation for sustainable destination branding model.

Source: authors’ elaboration

Table

Group	Problem identified	Target group addressed	Objective(s)	Activities
Red	Education and training needs: underdeveloped competence in food service and tourism professionalism.	Food service professionals; tourism professionals in Marche region.	Creation of a Tourism Learning Area (TLA) by developing a multi-stakeholder working group ensuring participation of public authorities, businesses, associations and civil society.	Identify and address specific learning needs through formal and informal education.
Green	Communication and trust issues.	Local stakeholders	Using web tools to increase and support teamwork, ultimately contributing to increase trust and support cooperation.	The students proposed team-building activities that should be pursued through web tools: the institution of a website and a private area for stakeholders’ exchange. The website would serve communication purposes, while the private areas would support stakeholders’ coordination and planning of activities. Students offered suggestions for team-building practices and indicated different options to attract funding (EU and regional calls; local banks sponsorship; membership fee, etc.)

Source: authors’ elaboration.

Wang, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2007). Toward a theoretical framework of collaborative destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507302384

 Google Scholar

Cavicchi, A., Rinaldi, C., & Corsi, M. (2013). Higher education institutions as managers of wicked problems: Place branding and rural development in Marche region. Italy, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(A), 51–68.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rinaldi, C., & Cavicchi, A. (2016). Cooperative behaviour and place branding: a longitudinal case study in Italy. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-02-2016-0012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trencher, G. P., Yarime, M., & Kharrazi, A. (2013). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar