{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0173337535455405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.19921875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Studying the Development of Tourism Destinations : Analytical reflections based on a pilot study of six winter sports areas in the Swedish mountain area

This study is a pilot study within the framework of the project ”The production system of tourism in six winter sports areas in the Swedish mountains”. As this is a first part of a larger encompassing project which aims to highlight the production system of tourism on the basis of different types of tourism destinations. The aim of the study is to identify critical questions which can be linked to the overall framework of the project and to generate productive inquiries for coming quantitative and qualitative studies as well as make it easier to find suitable theoretical references. The study focuses the following research questions: • Is it reasonable to claim that tourism in a wintersport destination, i.e. Åre, can be viewed as a dynamic cluster, which brings strategic resources to the area and increases its competitiveness, compared with other tourist areas? Furthermore, is a wintersport destination dominated by core tourism, i.e. Sälenfjällen, a sufficient prerequisite for the area to be viewed as a dynamic cluster? Or does the lack of complementing activities mean that the area lacks necessary elements to be seen as an industrial district in the touristic sense, and thereby gain the competitive advantages which comes with being a cluster? • Another question of interest is how the development of the tourism areas is influenced by differences in the availability of resources such as infrastructure, the surrounding countryside, culture and entrepreneurship as well as tourism and recreation policies and other ‘governmental policies’. It is well known that these resources are necessary for a successful tourism destination, but are they adequate? Can good availability of one of these resources compensate for the lack of availability in others? • Are systems of production for tourism powerless without large actors? One interesting point here is whether, compared to small firms, large actors are good at exploiting the existing opportunities but less good at renewal and adepted to new trends, or are that destinations which are dominated by large actors without a well functioning interaction with small actors becoming powerless in the long term? • What is the effect on the other actors in a system of production when private, resource-strong actors become established as owners of strategic core tourism? How are the inventories of problems and resources as well as the mobilisation of resources affected at the tourist destination? Does it mean obstacles to growth for small and medium-sized firms? How does it affect the development at the community level? These questions point to more narrow empirical inquires mainly qualitative in character. They also give reason to belive that the theoretical referenses we have considered so far are fruitful; i.e. ‘organisational ecology’ systems theory, mobilisation and network approaches as well as cluster approaches. The study also indicate that theories of culture and organisational learning may be needed for a more thorough analysis.