首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Tourism development strategy or just brown signage? Comparing road administration policies and designation procedures for official tourism routes in two Scandinavian countries
Institution:1. The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden;2. Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway;3. University of Stavanger, NO-4036 Stavanger, Norway;1. Orthopedic Service Line, Northshore LIJ Health System, New York, NY;2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY;1. Division of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan;2. Division of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan;3. Center for Environmental Innovation Design for Sustainability, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan;1. Department of Urban Planning/State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, China;2. School of Economics and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), China;3. Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Institute, China;4. Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
Abstract:This comparative study maps and explores planning and designation of official tourism, routes in two countries with quite similar planning traditions, responding to a deficiency in research, on tourism route planning and development. Based on personal semi-structured interviews with, public road planners and managers in Norway and Sweden, the paper illuminates establishment and, management of official tourism routes, with an emphasis on overall strategies, funding, and, stakeholder involvement. Results show that public road administration route planning procedures in, the two countries are quite different. In Norway, a top–down principle is basically employed, concerning initiatives and designation of routes. In Sweden, the principle is one of muddling through, giving street-level planners more opportunities for individual influence on route planning. Funding for, road stretches included in the Norwegian national route programme is earmarked, whereas Swedish, routes are financed from ordinary appropriations to the regional road administrations. In Norway, regular follow-up studies such as road user surveys are conducted. In Sweden, a dearth of, documentation of tourist interests and route assessments seemingly makes route development, susceptible in relation to regional road administrations’ economic priorities.
Keywords:Scenic byways  Drive tourism  Planning  Road administration  Narrative
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号