Adam Polko (p)

Leila Keibir

See extended abstract

João Romão (p), Kazuo Machino, Peter Nijkamp, Mayumi Okada

Adam Polko

The significant growth currently observed in wellness tourism opens new opportunities for the development of rural areas where resources for this type of travel can be found. Natural assets and cultural values can complement spa-related services to fulfill the needs and motivations of these travellers, contributing to offer a unique and differentiated experience (Diekmann, 2017). The rural region of East Hokkaido has the resources to undertake innovative initiatives within this segment, implying a creative approach to natural and cultural assets, as observed by Romão et al. (2017) and acknowledged by an official expert report (Government of Japan, 2017). These resources can be framed as “Common Pool Resources”, usually indivisible and with boundaries difficult to delineate, while characterized by subtractability and nonexcludability, as observed with other resources contributing for tourism destination attractiveness (Briassoulis, 2002). Problems of overuse, degradation, lack of incentive for preservation or unequal appropriation of benefits often emerge (Dietz et al., 2003).

The diversification of wellness tourism services implies a sustainable use of territorial resources and the achievement of socio-economic benefits for local communities, requiring a participatory management process (Della Corte and Aria, 2016), mobilizing accommodation and spa-service providers, institutions in charge of natural parks and cultural or educational facilities and representatives of local residents (including the indigenous Ainu communities). We suggest a governance model based on the principles for sustainable management of resources proposed by Ostrom (2008), implying collective-choice arrangements and systematic monitoring, while taking into consideration international guidelines for the utilization of natural and cultural resources in tourism activities (UNWTO, 2001; UNESCO, 2013) and coordination with Destination Management Organizations.

Briassoulis, H. (2002) Sustainable tourism and the question of Commons. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (4): 1065–1085.
Della Corte, V. and Aria, M. (2016) Coopetition and sustainable competitive advantage. Tourism Management 54: 524-540.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302: 1907-1912.
Government of Japan (2017) Recommendations for revitalizing spa areas. Ministry of Environment of Japan, Tokyo.
Ostrom, E. (2008) The challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment, 50(4): 8-21.
Romão, J., Machino, K. and Nijkamp, P. (2017) Assessment of Wellness Tourism Development in Hokkaido. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science. 1(1), 265-290.
Smith, M.K. and Diekmann, A. (2017) Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66: 1–13.
UNESCO (2013) Managing Cultural World Heritage. UNESCO, Paris.
UNWTO (2001) Global code of ethics for tourism. UNWTO, Madrid.

Frederic Wallet (p), Leila Kebir

João Romão

Today is an upsurge in initiatives based on the concept of "commons" in regional and urban planning, and territorial development. The use of this concept crystallizes several contemporary cross-cutting issues that mobilize local collectives, such as the energy transition, sustainable urban development, management of natural resources or public places, emergence of a circular economy, urban ecosystems, biodiversity, etc. Moreover, we observe a multitude of commons in contemporary society: more or less inclusive / excluding devices involve forms of pooling and shared management of resources (land, urban infrastructure, knowledge, etc.) that lie beyond the market and public management. They also refer in a more or less pronounced way of ethics and collective interest (cf. Thomas Aquinas) that exceed or add to the individual interest. In a context of shrinking public finances, these devices imply a redistribution of responsibilities structured largely around the user and the producer of the property for managing territorial resources.
These emerging phenomena questions the way in which the development of territories is conceived today. The economic and competitiveness dimensions (creation of knowledge, productive resources, etc.) now also combine societal and non-economic aspects (improvement of well-being and quality of life). It tends to become increasingly explicit in development strategies. These phenomena are also signs of an evolution of our society towards more collective and participative modes of exploitation and management of territorial resources in which stakeholders and in particular users are involved. These approaches seem today to reflect an aspiration towards a more localized, inclusive, sustainable and equitable development model; without ignoring the tensions and conflicting dimensions of development.
The objective of this paper is to identify what the notion of commons translates in terms of territorial development issues. In particular, it will identify the opportunities and importunities that it reveals in terms of governance. The first part proposes to return to the notion of common good in order to grasp the related conceptual issues. Then we present an analysis of the contributions of this notion to territorial development approaches. More specifically, we grasp the differences and similarities between commons and territorial resources, thus highlighting what the mobilization of this concept indicates in terms of issues. The third part addresses the challenges of territorial governance posed by contemporary forms of management in commons.