csf ppp tourism

Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

7 Weiermair, Peters, Frehse

Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)©2008 by Institute for International Management and Technology. All Rights Reserved.

Sustainable competitiveness in tourism calls for meaningful and appropriatemanagement approaches in order to prevent the exploitation of non-renewableresources. Generally where mass tourism is practiced, resources tend to be over-consumed and hence nature can be harmed. Thus, a major goal of sustainabletourism is to find a balance between resource use and consumer preferences orneeds. A tourism nation won’t achieve international competitive advantages throughstrict prohibitions of resource use but rather through conservation-consciousconsumption. Tourism is on the one hand strongly influenced by governmentalregulation and on the other hand driven by private, often also short term, interests.The following paper attempts to analyse core benefits and problems of privatepublic partnerships (PPPs) in the tourism industry. The purpose is to deriveprinciples and management imperatives for the formation of private-publicpartnerships in tourism. In order to evaluate the above mentioned principles wehave selected two PPP examples of Austria’s Alpine tourism development. Thefirst case involves the development of the ‘Mountain Beach Water and Nature Park’in the Western Austrian Alps, the second case study evaluates the cable waydevelopment project ‘Muttersberg’ of the Silvretta Nova Group in Vorarlberg(Austria). After a presentation and critical discussion of the case studies, the lastpart of the paper will conclude with recommendations for PPP practices in tourismand leisure and highlight implications for future research in the field of tourism -development, -financing and -cooperation.

Klaus Weiermair Mike Peters Joerg Frehse

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: PREREQUISITES ANDKEY SUCCESS FACTORS

B efore discussing specific aspects and details ofpublic-private partnerships in tourism a fewdefinitions may be in order: Companies which hold both private

and public (government owned) assets are usually labelled mixedcompanies. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are specific types of co-ownership and/or co-operation between public institutions and privateenterprises which are formed due to some synergetic advantages andwhich usually share both risks and profits. Usually, the foundation is acontractual agreement between the public sector and profit orientedorganisations. The majority of public-private partnerships are to be

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNER-SHIP:CASES IN ALPINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT


8 Success Factors for Public

found in the development, financing and implementation andmanagement of infrastructures (Muhm, 1998). Hence, many examplesof private public partnerships can be found in the construction industry(e.g. highway construction, train stations, etc.), in energy industrieswhere high cost/risk power plants have to be erected or in the area ofwaste management. Other, infrastructure projects in the field of leisureand tourism are e.g. mega sports events such as Olympic Games orworld championships, national parks, a national CRS or the creation ofa new museum or art gallery.

PPPs cannot be interpreted as just another form of privatization;for governments in these projects usually still assert a high influenceand control over properties and management processes. Forms of PPPscan vary appreciably: e.g. service or management contracts, wherepublic property is managed through private institutions, or BOTs (Build,Operate, Transfer) which are long-term contracts to construct and runpublic and privately owned infrastructure. A full list of possibleconfigurations can be seen below in table 1.

Table 1: Forms of Public-private Partnerships

Management and Maintenance

Ownership and Infrastructure

Investment in Infrastructure

Commercial Risk

Duration

Service Contracts

Public and private public public public 1-2 years

Management Contracts

Private public public Public 3-5 years

Leasing Private public public Public and private

8-15 years

BOTs (Build, Operate, Transfer)

Private Public and private

Private Private 20-30 years

Licensing Private public Private Private 25-30 years Disinvestment Private Private or

public and private

Private Private Unlimited (or limited by licensing)

(Source: Gruber, 2003)

PPPs often represent policy solutions to market failures, a conceptwhich effectively underpins and is germane to a large set of resourcequestions in environmental economics. Here, the inability of markets(where normally demand and supply are determined by price) inproviding specific and optimal environmental goods arises essentiallyfrom the public good nature of air, land and/or water resources. The



economic literature discusses three forms of market failure (Sinclair &Stabler, 1997: 178):l Public goods: The natural and some man-made environments

cannot be excluded from public (free) consumption or enjoyment.Examples range from street lighting to access to mountains orbeaches. Typically, the private sector has little or no incentive tosupply such goods or services as it is difficult to exclude freeriders. The free rider problem remains even where a partialexclusion is possible: e.g. some individuals may consume thesegoods or services based on a voluntary scheme. In short, inadequate quantities, the private sector has no incentives to supplysuch goods or services.

l Externalities: They are an inseparable consequence of the natureof public goods. Free access frequently leads to an over-use anddeterioration (e.g. erosion of footpaths, ski runs, fragile ecosystems,pollution, waste etc.).

l Distribution: Another market failure is the distribution problem.The Rio declaration in 1992 has identified concern for poorernations of the world and the differences in opportunities and lifestyleof the rich and poor. Intra and intergenerational inequalities aretypical distribution problems: private investments usually ignoredistributional issues, particularly as regards their environmentalimpact. Intra-generational conflicts in tourism are well known, e.g.in the form of construction of roads or tourism entertainment parkswhere the benefit accrues only to a fraction of society. Distributionalmarket failures can also occur between two generations wherepresent market activities of private enterprises are not consideringthe effects of their action upon later generations.

l Information asymmetries: The new economy boom in the U.S. hasshown the powerful role of information transfer across and amongmarket players (Stiglitz, 2004). We speak of market failures in thiscontext when growth motives of private enterprises lead toasymmetries in the access of important (and normally) availablemarket information. In the beginning of the millennium a numberof corrective and control mechanisms were reinstalled in the U.S.to avoid further misinformation (e.g. from entrepreneurs or stock-exchange experts to shareholders). Government regulations may



be called for to maintain efficient supply/demand structures in themarketplace (Stiglitz, 2002).

l Prohibitive costs and risks of economic development to individualinvestors with possible positive market externalities to laterinvestments/projects.

It is probably fair to say, that without PPPs serious negative externalsocial and ecological effects will result. Private investment often isonly short term oriented and does not consider the exploitation andoveruse of resources. On the other hand governments are not able toprovide up-to-date and consumer oriented (friendly) tourism productsor services. Other reasons for PPPs in the fields of tourism are–l To improve the competitive situation and gain competitive

advantages: these are prerequisites for the development of tourismdestinations which are often supported by the government.Increasing costs of quality control (e.g. in the case of beaches orforests) force public institutions to co-operate with private enterpriseswhich can either be specialised in controlling sustainabilityprinciples in growing tourism destinations or can be entrepreneurialstakeholders in tourism such as hotel enterprises who have alreadyinternalised quality control mechanisms for public goods. In eithercase, social and ecological sustainability can be seen as thedeterminant for the creation and maintenance of internationalcompetitive advantage.

l To overcome finance problems: both private enterprises and publicinstitutions may face severe capital shortages. The advantages ofcooperation are obvious as private enterprises can profit fromgovernment supported strategies to raise capital at lower cost andpublic institutions can profit from professional management in termsof know-how in business plan developments, market know-how,human resource management or simply business logistics.

l To transfer know-how: public institutions should know more aboutthe microeconomic motives of the market place and aboutentrepreneurial behaviour. Without this knowledge concerninginternal processes in tourism enterprises governments can hardlydevelop efficient and effective strategies to support innovation andenterprise growth. PPPs can also work as intermediaries as they are



able to transfer know-how which may have been developed byuniversities or other public research institutions. Especiallyentrepreneurs in small enterprises seek easy accessible, tailor-madeand understandable know-how. For instance, PPPs can focus onknow-how transfer between private-public partners such as privatepublic marketing and market research institutions and publicinstitutions.

l To increase professionalism and productivity: cooperation ingeneral can lead to an increase of professionalism and productivitybecause results and progress can be controlled by the two partiesinvolved. Thus, in a number of European nations, PPPs in the energysector such as gas, electricity or waste management have improvedtheir services and product quality as they have become morecustomer oriented organisations.

l To reduce administration: public institutions can use PPPs as aninstrument to outsource administrative activities which can be carriedout cheaper and more efficiently by private enterprises. E.g. thewhole postal system including the collection and analysis ofstatistical data or the organisation of tourism events are typical areasof public institutional outsourcing.

The choice of the form or contract depends upon the goals, amount ofinvestment, economic framework conditions and time frame of theproject. Six critical success factors of PPPs (see e.g. NCPPP, 2004) canbe distinguished:1. The Nature of the PPP: A successful partnership can result only if

there is commitment from “the top”. The most senior public officialsmust be actively involved in supporting the concept of PPPs andtaking a leadership role in the development of each givenpartnership. A well-informed political leader can play a critical rolein minimizing misperceptions about the value to the public of aneffectively developed partnership. Equally important, there shouldbe a statutory foundation for the implementation of each partnership.In addition, the nature of the PPP will critically influence its success.A PPP is successful when it can overcome market externalities (e.g.information asymmetries) and thus create as many incentives forprivate investors as possible so that they become potential and



stable long term market players. In several industries, publicinvolvement has become a familiar part of the industrial landscape.

2. Involvement of the public sector: Once a partnership has beenestablished, the public-sector can remain actively involved in the projector program. On-going monitoring of the performance of the partnershipmay become important in assuring its success. This monitoring can bedone on a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly basis for different reasonsand aspects of each partnership (frequencies are often defined in thebusiness plan and/or the contract).

3. Size and timing: PPP contracts tend to be long term contracts. However,they should clearly involve product or project changes according tothe project life cycle. Thus, sensitivity analysis according to varyingcycle development can help to determine as to when publicinvolvement should be increased or decreased. In general, at thebeginning of the project life cycle due to high risk public partnersshould be stronger than in the later phases of the product life cycle.The older PPPs are where the private engagement should have replacedgovernment and thus, public partners should withdraw theirinvolvement to recreate incentives for entrepreneurs in the market place.

4. Business plan: the partners must know what they can expect fromthe cooperation before project start. A carefully developed plan(often done with the assistance of an outside expert in this field)will substantially increase the probability of success of thepartnership. This plan most often will take the form of an extensive,detailed contract, clearly describing the responsibilities of both thepublic and private partners. In addition to attempting to foreseeareas of respective responsibilities, a good plan or contract willinclude a clearly defined method of dispute resolution (as not allcontingencies can be foreseen).

5. Stakeholder communication: More people will be affected by apartnership than just the public officials and the private-sectorpartner. Affected employees, part of the public receiving the service,the press, appropriate labour unions and relevant interest groupswill all have opinions, and frequently significant misconceptionsabout a partnership and its value to all the public can arise. It isimportant to communicate openly and candidly with thesestakeholders to minimize potential resistance to establishing andmaintaining a partnership.



6. Composition of individuals in charge and partner selections: The“lowest bid” is not always the best choice for selecting a partner. The“best value” in a partner is critical in a long-term relationship that iscentral to a successful partnership. A candidate’s experience in thespecific area of partnership being considered is an important factor inidentifying the right partner. Decisions in PPPs are often made withincommittees or they are supported by advisory boards. Here lobbyingand/or personal characteristics and networks play an important rolefor the success and market/customer orientation of the PPPs.

A prerequisite for successful PPPs is a heightened awareness of theadvantages of PPPs. Until today only a few industries have gainedexperiences with PPPs while other industries still do not even considerany form of co-operation with the public sector and vice versa . Ifawareness is given, a number of differences between public and privateenterprises may cause distrust in advance or the incompatibility ofcooperating organisations due to conflicting basic values and enterprisestructures: e.g. different personnel systems (worker attitudes, careerstructures, etc.), varying task and work contexts, and differentorganisational structures (Bozeman, 1989). Similar prerequisites alongthose lines are (Muhm, 1998: 14):l Formulation of decision making structures and responsibilities and

common strategic goalsl Stability of the public institutional framework: for private enterprises

revolving elections or the political life cycle constitute risk.l Analysis of cost-effectiveness and profitability.l Formulation of a risk-sharing model.Having fulfilled these basic requirements and thus having provided acommon ground for future decisions PPPs should be subjected tofeasibility studies. These include an evaluation of technical alternativesand investment alternatives as well as long term forecasting of marketdevelopments (e.g. to estimate customer potential, competition andpossible product/service substitutes). Simulations or the use of sensitivityanalysis are typical instruments of feasibility studies which allow toevaluate alternate potential PPP scenarios (Atteslander & Cromm, 2003).Specific DBFO (design/build/finance/operate) models tend to be themost efficient approaches to start with public-private co-operationscenarios: in this case potential partners have to conceptualize theirproject together. However, in reality DFBOs cannot easily be installed



because governments often have to publish invitations to bid and thusthe design and conceptualization often remains solely the concern ofthe private partners involved.

PPPS IN TOURISM

Public investment has been subject to a considerable debate during thebuild up phase of mass tourism. Reasons to reject public investmentsare (Tribe, 1999: 264):l Public sectors are not always able to interpret consumers’ wants

and thus fail to invest in future high potential markets.l The public sector is not able at ensuring efficient use of funds and

tends to allow waste.l Investments of the public sector cause an increase in taxation or

public borrowing.l Public sector investments ‘crowd’ out private sector investments.

In totally new tourism destinations, tourism developers usually facehurdles of growth, especially in the development phase of thedestination life cycle (Agarwal, 1994; Butler, 1980; Cooper, 1992;Haywood, 1986). Investments in the tourism destination infrastructureare strongly needed to secure minimum quality standards for bothtourists and residents alike.

AB

D

E

S tagnat ionConsol idat ion

Rejuvenat ion

Dec l ine

D e v e lopm e n t

Invo lvem e n t

E x p lorat ion

N u m b e rof tour ists

T i m e

Cri t icalrange o felemen ts o fcapaci ty

C

ear ly PPPs: in f rastructure ,b a s ic tourism facil it ies

later PPPs: sport /m u s ic(mega- )events , cu l ture e tc .

Source: Butler, 1980.Figure 1: The Destination Life Cycle



The varying phases of involvement and development arecharacterized by diverse and increasing stakeholders and profit seekinginvestors. During the early phases a number of islands and tourismdestinations of mass tourism (e.g. Pattaya, Thailand) have missedopportunities to implement PPPs. At the other end of the destinationproduct life cycle, in the later phases of consolidation or stagnationPPPs can also play a vital role in maintaining already eroding facilitiesand establish new products and services in the destination. Arejuvenation of the tourism destination can be encouraged throughstrong public-private partnerships because only long term and thusfuture oriented projects can affect overall competitiveness ofdestinations. Typical investment areas in these phases of the destinationlife cycle are increasing infrastructure and tourism enterprise zones,construction and design of experience zones, such as museums,entertainment areas and tourist activity centres (e.g. sports and adventureparks). Again, the success of these partnerships depends upon the aboveformulated principles of size, nature, timing and composition ofindividuals in committees or boards where main decisions will be made.After taking the enormous risk of tourism infrastructure investments atthe beginning of the tourism destination life cycle PPPs should graduallyevolve into more and more private initiatives which push the growthof the tourism industry. In a later phase of the life cycle entrepreneurialmarket mechanisms are able to cover risk and can initiate marketdynamics. Thus, the nature and the timing of PPPs determine the successof PPPs as they should only be installed where markets fail. Finally,decisions in PPPs are made in committees, advisory boards or otherbodies where individual characteristics and/or group compositions havea strong impact upon the quality of PPPs.

In the tourism industry we find various forms of PPPs. Well knowncooperations between private and public enterprises are tourismmarketing associations. Especially in small and medium sized tourismdestinations they try to overcome lacking economies of scope and scaleof small hotels (Weiermair, 1999). Due to their size they won’t be ableto raise scale effects and thus, the information asymmetries occurdepending upon the size of tourism enterprises. Marketing andmarket research has to be coordinated in marketing association whichone on hand can internationally communicate common marketing



strategies of small structured tourism destinations and on the other handprocess statistical market research data and transfer it to tourism boardsor tourism destination interest groups.

A second field of PPPs in tourism are the above mentionedtraditional infrastructure projects for leisure and culture products andservices such as e.g. museums, cable ways, public spas and/or bathssince the 70s. Mega-leisure facilities became more and more importantsince the 70s, but theme parks, musical halls or sports eventinfrastructures can be seen as a part of today’s core tourism product(Smith, 1994). Finally, due to increasing qualification requirementswe find more and more PPP initiatives in the area of tourism know-how development or education and training (e.g. regional traininginitiatives in low-season periods). Government activities in the field ofe-tourism are also a part of the group of ‘software’ developing PPPs. Alast group of PPPs is the whole area of event and hallmark managementwhere we certainly find overlaps with the above mentioned areas ofPPPs. But the focus of PPPs here can be seen in relatively short termstrategic alliances where in many cases the private enterprise shares abigger part of the risk (sports and music events, folk festivals or newyears eve downtown parties fall into that category of PPPs) (Taurer,2003).

PPPS IN TOURISM: TWO ALPINE CASES

The following part will analyse two tourism PPP initiatives in Austriantourism to highlight implications for the identification of factorsinfluencing success or failure of PPPs. Throughout Western Austriasummer tourism has, for some time, found itself in the consolidation/decline phase of the destination life cycle calling for new products/services and new markets. In many of the alpine valleys, the tourismindustry is furthermore characterized by a small size configuration inthe form of many small size family enterprises. Thus, a major handicapin developing new products/services or conquering new markets liesin the high risk and cost of innovation for small individual enterprisescombined with negative externalities on account of innovation imitationand non-appropriability of innovation dividends. A further complicationfor new tourism projects typical of many alpine destinations in Austriacomes from a thick layer of public regulations concerning land use



instituted in part in response to sustaining the environment and also toprevent foreign direct investment. Given the smallness of firms anddestinations government/business and business/business relations arerooted in local culture and are highly informal and intense (often tendingto the extremes of close friendship or hostility).

Case 1: The Mountain Beach Water and Nature Park’ in the WesternAustrian Alps

All of the above mentioned conditions also pertain to the MontafonValley located in Vorarlberg, the most Western province of Austria,bordering Switzerland. In many local tourism boards and other tourismcommittee meetings with local government the idea of a “Mountainleisure and water theme park” was developed and the conceptualisationof which had already received a number of provincial innovationawards. The two biggest obstacles to realize the project were cost andrisk of financing a project of this size and changing land use bylaws tofacilitate the construction of the project. Clearly, a public-privateinitiative was needed. The local government changed the bylaws andfacilitated financing and control through the use ofl a provincial innovation fundl securing capital from the national tourism bank (a bank of last

resort for tourism enterprises providing a form of risk capital)l subsidiesl the creation of a private partnership (consisting of 140 shareholders

in the form of silent partners from local business) (Ehrlich & Ehrlich,2005).

After over 7 years of development and planning the park has openedand will now be converted soon into an all year round facility (untilnow it had been used only for the summer season). In addition toproviding fun and entertainment for existing notably younger tourists,it is planned to install a number of wellness attractions to account forthe aging of the tourist population and to cash in on the new trends ofhealth and wellness tourism. This second phase will again use the PPPform of organisation and financing thereby using private know-howalready existing customer base and financing thereby reducing theeconomic risk for the community. The destination can thus build itsinfrastructure and optimize the tourism product portfolio (alternative



leisure options under bad weather conditions in the Alps). Finally thePPP helps reduce the public budget and/or debt (Ehrlich & Ehrlich,2005).

Case 2: Muttersberg’ mountain cable way project of the Silvretta NovaGroup in Vorarlberg (Austria)

Located in the same region near the city of Nueziders at the entrance tothe Montafon valley this cable way company had made operating lossesfor its owner, the community of Nueziders/Bludenz, since its inceptionin 1956. Confronted with the choice of either shutting down orrenovation/restructuring and continued operation through the communityof Bludenz the joint town council of Bludenz/Nueziders decided for aPPP. It approached a profitable private cable car company the SilvrettaNova Corporation Inc. and entered into a PPP arrangement. SilvrettaNova becomes a 100% owner of Muttersberg cableways bearing alleconomic risks. In turn the community became a silent partner withnon-voting shares to be sold back after a period of 5 years to the thanmerged new Muttersberg/Silvretta Nova corporation (Ehrlich & Ehrlich,2005).

The project foresaw the creation of a mountain stage (for concerts)and the building of a brand new mountain restaurant. Thanks to theproject, the number of visitors quadrupled from 56.000 to 250.000yielding a small positive direct contribution to the Silvretta corporationplus indirect synergies in the production and marketing of skiing andhiking products for the Silvretta/Montafon region through the creationof an all inclusive Montafon card (enabling tourists to use this card forall ski lifts and cable ways throughout the Montafon valley (Ehrlich &Ehrlich, 2005). Clearly the project created a win-win situation for allpartners.

Common critical elements for the success of the PPP in the two casesabove:l Both projects involved the enlargement and/or restructuring of

tourism infrastructure for which it was difficult to find privateinvestors.

l Financing over 2.5 Million Euro in the case of the mountain beachresort was achieved through a multitude of private and publicinvestors whilst the Muttersberg cable way company’s total project



cost of 10 Million euro were distributed between the communityof Bludenz (25%) and the private cable car company Muttersberg(75%).

l Ownership and control vary from 100% public ownership in thecase of the mountain beach resort (with contractually secured futurereductions) to the other extreme of 100% private ownership (witha small influence in decision making from the public sector) in thecase of the Muttersberg cable way company. Similarly, mountainbeach resort presently assumes only a very small business risk ascompared to the Muttersberg cable way company which assumesall business risk. The two cases illustrate very well the flexibility ofPPPs with respect to tailoring the distribution and/or assumption ofbusiness risks, ownership and financing depending on the economicspecifics of the case in terms of market externalities and overallrisk.

CONCLUSIONS

PPPs in tourism play an important role in countries where tourismdevelopment is in the early stages as infrastructure projects areaccompanied by high risks and a long time frame. To ensure againstthese risks governments have formulated a number of basic principlesto be fulfilled before PPPs can be taken into consideration. Afterstressing the advantages and problems of PPPs in tourism we concludewith a number of implications for PPPs and/or with policy prescriptions.l Framework conditions must be suitable: the economic and social

framework to invest in PPPs has to be stable. The industry inquestion has to have experience with the establishment of privateenterprises (‘corporatization’) and the market has to be open fornew and innovative market entrants. The private partner also hasto have sufficient freedom to work on a common project in anentrepreneurial manner while certain rules and incentives have tobe formulated in the PPP agreement to secure the fulfilment of thePPPs social goals.

l Competition in the market: only a competitive environment whichis open for many suppliers will lead to market oriented prices. Inthe case of infrastructure (e.g. road construction) we are often leftwith a monopoly situation. The call for international tenders help



to create a competitive situation (competition for the market) oralternatively benchmarking practices can help public partners tosimulate market conditions.

l A balanced agreement of performance: as mentioned above, riskallocation, performance criteria, control mechanisms, networkresponsibilities and services or problem scenarios have to becontractually formulated and adjusted among the partners(stakeholders).

l Participation and social goals: PPPs should always be transparentfor other interest groups and stakeholders and should always attemptto focus the improvement of socially disadvantaged populationgroups (Gruber, 2003).

When using public-private cooperation as a tool in the management ofchange for tourism destinations much attention has to be drawn to thetiming of the partnership and the changing needs and problems of tourismproducts or enterprises along the product life cycle. Especially, in smallersized tourism markets such as the European Alpine markets publicinstitutions must support the private sector to allow them to developdynamic competitive advantages through learning leading to innovative/entrepreneurial products and services. Most ideally such learning shouldtake place as shared learning in networks orchestrated or facilitated bythe destination and supported by local governments (Weiermair, 1999).But public-private partnerships are evolving and shouldn’t be too muchgovernment based once tourism enterprises are put in the position todevelop unique core competencies and innovative capabilities todifferentiate themselves in the market place. Ideally, public private co-operation is easiest in times of industrial crisis, e.g., Bilbao’s rise to aninternational tourist destination with the newly built Guggenheim museumwould have been impossible had it not been for the industrial crisis whichthe city found itself in the 70s and 80s.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, S. (1994) ‘The resort cycle revisited: implications for resorts’ in C. P. Cooper & A.Lockwood (Eds), Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Volume5, Chichester, Wiley, pp. 194-208.

Atteslander, P. and Cromm, J. (2003) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, Berlin etal.: de Gruyter.



Bozeman, B. (1989) All Organizations are Public: Bridging Publick and Private OrganizationalTheories, San Francisco & London, Jossey-Bass.

Butler, R.W. (1980) ‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications formanagement of resources’, Canadian Geographer, 24:1, 5-12.

Cooper, C. (1992) ‘The life cycle concept and tourism’ in P. Johnson & B. Thomas (Eds),Choice and Demand in Tourism, London, Mansell, pp. 145-160.

Ehrlich, M. and Ehrlich, P. (2005) Public Private Partnerships: Erfolgsfaktoren und Problemeöffentlich-privater Kooperationen. Innsbruck, Diploma-Thesis.

Gruber, W. (2003) ‘Public private partnerships in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit desStaatssekretariats für Wirtschaft (seco)’, paper presented at the Symposisum of theWorking circle PPP, 18th of November 2003, Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft.

Haywood, K.M. (1986) ‘Can the tourist area life cycle be made operational?’, TourismManagement, 7:1, 154-167.

Muhm, W. (1998) Innovative Kooperationen für eine leistungsfähige Infrastruktur: eineBewertung des Potentials von Public Private Partnership. Wien: Beirat für Wirtschafts-und Sozialfragen. Die Sozialpartner Austria.

NCPPP (Online) (2004) National Council for Public Private Partnerships: How PartnershipsWorks, (Cited 2 September2004). Available from <www.ncppp.org/howpart/index.html>

Sinclair, M. and Stabler, M. J. (1997) The Economics of Tourism, London, Routledge.Smith, S.L. (1994) ‘The tourism product, Annals of Tourism Research, 21:3, 582-595.Stiglitz, J.E. (2002) Die Schatten der Globilasierung, Berlin, Siedler.Stiglitz, J.E. (2004) Die Roaring Nineties: der entzauberte Boom. Berlin: Siedler.Taurer, W. (2003) ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP) und Fondslösungen für Finanzierungen

im Tourismus’, paper presented at the Salzburger Tourismusforum, Strobl. November21st 2003.

Tribe, J. (1999) The Economics of Leisure and Tourism. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.Weiermair, K. (1999) ‘Partnerships in tourism as a tool for competitive advantage in tourist

SMEs’, Paper presented at the CISET International Conference “From Destination toDestination Marketing and Management”, Venice.

Klaus Weiermair, is Professor, University of Innsbruck, Departmentfor Strategic Management Marketing and Tourism, UniversitätsstrasseInnsbruck.

Mike Peters, is Associate Professor, University of Innsbruck,Department for Strategic Management Marketing and Tourism,Universitätsstrasse, Innsbruck.

Joerg Frehse, is Nusuite GmbH & Co KG, Nikolaistrasse, Munich.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

csf ppp tourism

Documents