ABSTRACT “TOURISTS DON't SEE BORDERS”: DESTINATION MARKETING and (BIO)REGIONALISM in WESTERN OREGON by Samuel Louis Hollem

ABSTRACT

“TOURISTS DON’T SEE BORDERS”: DESTINATION MARKETING AND (BIO)REGIONALISM IN WESTERN OREGON

by Samuel Louis Holleman

Tourism professionals rely on the uniqueness of place to market and promote destinations in a growing, competitive industry. In many places, urban destinations are co-promoted with natural amenities. In tourism-dependent regions like the Pacific Northwest, such tourism marketing is not limited to individual destinations, but also involves collaboration at larger scales in an intricate network of connections between places. The major question that drove my research was how does destination marketing link places, both cultural and natural, across western Oregon? Through a combination of discourse analysis of travel websites and semi-structured interviews, I gathered information on how tourism professionals situate their own destinations within a wider, regional context and how urban and natural settings are co-promoted for tourism. This organizational structure may hint at evidence of a tourism bioregion, connecting people across the Pacific Northwest through the incorporation of the natural amenities into destination marketing. This research analyzes the geographic context of tourism collaboration, establishing the various scales at which connections in the tourism industry exist.

“TOURISTS DON’T SEE BORDERS”: DESTINATION MARKETING AND (BIO)REGIONALISM IN WESTERN OREGON

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Samuel Louis Holleman

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2018

Advisor: Dr. David Prytherch

Reader: Dr. Damon Scott

Reader: Dr. Stanley Toops

This Thesis titled

“TOURISTS DON’T SEE BORDERS”: DESTINATION MARKETING AND (BIO)REGIONALISM IN WESTERN OREGON

Samuel Louis Holleman

has been approved for publication by

College of Arts and Sciences

and

Department of Geography

______Dr. David Prytherch

______Dr. Damon Scott

______Dr. Stanley Toops

Table of Contents

Introduction … Page 1 Literature Review: Destination Marketing and (Bio)Regionalism … Page 4 Research Questions and Methods … Page 9 Study Area: The Beaver State … Page 12 Results: “A Rising Tide Lifts All Ships” … Page 14 Discussion … Page 31 Conclusion … Page 36 Bibliography … Page 38

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Locations of Interview Participants … Page 10 Table 2: Results of the Website Analysis … Pages 27-28

List of Figures

Figure 1: A proposed map of Cascadia bioregion … Page 13 Figure 2: Other regions visited by those who visited Central Oregon … Page 15 Figure 3: The Seven Regions of Travel Oregon (Map from Travel Oregon) … Page 16 Figure 4: The web linkages centered around Albany, Oregon’s travel website … Page 19 Figure 5: Map showing suggest departure sites to reach Bend… Page 21 Figure 6: Results of the post-interview mapping exercise … Page 23

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this thesis to the great people of Oregon, whose time and effort made this research possible.

Acknowledgements

I would first like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. David Prytherch, whose guidance and advice has been invaluable during this process. I would also like to acknowledge my other committee members, Dr. Stanley Toops and Dr. Damon Scott, as their comments and suggestions really helped my thesis take shape and develop in an effective manner. Debbi White deserves a special mention, as her patience with keeping me in order for two years at Miami was no small task. I would also like to thank Jeff and Marina, as we consulted and consoled together during our time working on our theses. Finally, a special thanks goes to my friend, Warren Leitner, who graciously offered me his couch to sleep on for the majority of my time in Oregon.

vii

Introduction As a place-based service, local tourism depends on a steady influx of visitors, making destination marketing critical for survival in a competitive market. The process of tourism promotion, however, often reveals more about a location than just what is attractive or popular for people from somewhere else to visit. Promoters want tourists to see places as they themselves do (Zhang, Decosta & McKercher, 2015). Furthermore, while destination marketing typically focuses on specific locales, the industry also connects places at wider geographic scales. Just as tourists are not limited to a single destination per trip, following itineraries connecting diverse places, tourism marketing is also not limited to only promoting local interests. Studying how tourism professionals collaborate and connect places, and the spatial networks that result, is thus important for understanding both destination marketing and its role in the representation and experience of wider regions. Few areas in the U.S. better exemplify interdependence of urban and natural destinations, and their marketing as distinct regions, as the Pacific Northwest. In Oregon, rich with amenities ranging from the City of Portland to rugged coastlines and the snow-capped Cascades, the tourism industry accounted for over $11 billion in revenue in 2016 (Travel Oregon, 2018). While tourism promotion is strongly place-based, it is not undertaken by local destination marketers alone. Travel Oregon seeks to promote and organize the state’s tourism industry through collaboration with local destination marketing organizations (DMOs), which are themselves grouped into what it calls “Oregon’s 7 Regions” based on the state’s geography (e.g. Oregon Coast and Willamette Valley). Such statewide coordination is not the only form of collaboration among localities. DMOs in the cities of Astoria, Seaside, and Cannon Beach have worked to promote a “North Coast” region. Indeed, so strong is the perception of regional difference in the Pacific Northwest, cultural and natural, that some advocate a “bioregion” known as Cascadia (Cascadia Now 2018). Much has been written on both tourism and tourism collaboration (Hall, 2013; Bramwell & Lane, 2000), yet more research is needed on such collaborations among DMOs. And while research has explored collaboration between urban centers and rural peripheries, or among international player (Ioannides, Nielsen, & Billing, 2006; Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-Iglesias, & Vinzón, 2017; Wong, Mistilis, & Dwyer, 2011), there is more work yet to be

1 done on how interurban tourism collaboration can link cities with each other and natural amenities, and the wider -- indeed regional -- geographical structures that may result. This thesis explores how destination marketers collaborate and connect places -- both urban and natural -- across wider scales, using Western Oregon as a case study of the wider Pacific Northwest. It asks how does destination marketing link places and regions, both cultural and natural, in western Oregon? I based my research around two major sub-questions, each with a specific methodology process to answer each question. They are: • How do tourism promoters collaborate and connect places across the region? • How are urban and natural landscapes co-promoted for tourism? This research therefore explores both the juxtaposition between competition and collaboration of destination marketing and the way cities and nature are connected in marketing practice. To understand regional connections in tourism marketing in Oregon, I employed a variety of methods. First, I analyzed the structure, imagery, and discourses (Santos, 2008) employed in prominent travel websites in Oregon -- ranging in scale from the statewide with Travel Oregon to individual localities -- to understand how they connect individual places, geographical connections between them, and how city and nature are represented. By focusing directly on what these destinations use to market themselves, I can better understand what trends may exist in destination marketing in Oregon. Second, I conducted semi-structured interviews (Secor, 2010) with tourism promoters in order to gain more in-depth and first-hand perspectives of the marketing process. Semi-structured interviews facilitate discussion, which allow for a more focused look on particular issues or aspects of destination marketing. Third, I employed mapping techniques -- including a participatory mapping exercise with tourism marketers (Chown et al, 1995) -- to explore the spatial relationships and geographic context of collaborative destination marketing efforts. Tourism in Oregon and elsewhere is a major industry, making marketing strategies a critical aspect in the economies and experiences of places and regions. This research seeks to contribute greater understanding of the relational and regional dimensions of destination marketing, highlighting the connections that exist between DMOs. Since most DMOs are primarily funded through local lodging taxes, their focus is inevitably local. But collaboration does exist between places and serves an important role in structuring the tourism industry of the state, with wider implications for how visitors -- and perhaps residents themselves -- perceive

2 and experience these places and their relation to each other. Exploring how destination marketing in Western Oregon connects and represents places, both urban and natural, has potential to illuminate the complex geographies of tourism promotion in amenity-rich and tourism-reliant regions -- what some might even call bioregions -- like the Pacific Northwest.

Literature Review: Destination Marketing and (Bio)Regionalism

Tourism Geography The field of tourism geography first rose to prominence in the 1930s with in depth analysis of recreational habits, later expanding with the development of efficient long-distance transportation that allowed for trips of greater length (Hall, 2013). A large portion of tourism geography studies today can be organized by their discussion of either the economic or cultural properties of the tourism industry. Firstly, tourism is an inherently economic function, as it involves the exchange of capital, encourages investment, and creates a demand for labor. Recent studies show that the tourism industry generates over $1 billion US dollars a year around the world, making it one of the largest industries in modern society (United Nations, 2012). A large portion of the tourism geography discussion relating to economics is focused on development, as many believe the tourism industry is a viable way to boost a local or even national economy (Saarinen, Rogerson, & Hall, 2017; Hall and Page, 2014). In addition to economic discussions, cultural analysis is also a prominent aspect of tourism geography, as academics focus on culture as a pull factor for potential tourists. Tourism geographers also analyze the impact that the tourism industry can have on the locals, calling the “authenticity” of an experience into question (Erb & Ong, 2017; Gelbman & Ron, 2009). This work is primarily situated within the latter of the two discussions, focusing primarily on how existing local culture impacts marketing strategies, which in turn highlight local culture for potential tourists. While economics is an important aspect of the Oregon tourism industry, it is not as prevalent in this study.

Tourism and Marketing As the tourism industry continues to grow, so too does the competition among destinations for visitors. Therefore, marketing strategies are incredibly important as the images used in campaigns can serve as pull factors for potential tourists (Selby, 2004). As an essentially place- based industry, it is critical for tourism professionals to incorporate and highlight the local culture and landscape in their promotions and marketing strategies (Dredge and Jenkins, 2003). Since there is such a strong relationship between tourism marketing and the destination, some even argue that the process of the former can actually create meaning for the given location (Delyser, 2004; Soica, 2016). These marketing strategies are inherently complex due to the

4 sophistication of the consumer; they are traveling to a place due to a unique desire to see a particular aspect of the city and will therefore have an inherently different experience than someone else (Page, 1995). All of this amounts to promoters “selling the city”, essentially commodifying the local culture as a means of influencing decisions of potential tourists (Law, 2002). Tourism promoters focus heavily on the landscape as a potential selling point for potential tourists. The cultural landscape is the manifestation of human culture on the built environment, the physical “materialization” of discourses about what societies find valuable (Schein, 1997). Essentially, the cultural landscape is the “unwitting autobiography” of human society (Lewis, 1979). Landscapes are rooted in the local culture, and as social constructs they tell an important story that can be traced back to identity and sense of place (Mitchell, 2002). Tourism’s dedication to marketability can lead to more profound impacts on the cultural landscape as cities can alter their own landscape for the direct purpose of attracting tourists, transforming (and sometimes reinventing) the cultural landscape to not only better display the cultural values of the given population, but also provide better service to those attempting to partake in that culture (Kenny and Zimmerman, 2003). Destination marketing has an important role not only in promoting amenities for tourists, but also connecting and representing places. As a result, it is critical to analyze these marketing materials as a way of understanding the local culture and how natives read the landscape. The imagery used in these promotional materials and travel brochures help set a particular destination apart, and even ahead, from a potential competitor. Tourism destination imaging (TDI) is a commonly studied aspect of the tourism industry, as it attempts to highlight what features of a locale are most commonly used as references or associations (Pan & Li, 2011). In some instances, the perceptions, or “myths”, that surround a destination are critical to the local tourism marketing strategy, as professionals use these connotations as the basis for advertisement (Zhang et al, 2015). By applying these common ideas regarding a destination, stakeholders can better provide an authentic experience for tourists (Tiberghien, Bremner, & Milne, 2017). The perception that potential tourists have in regards to a particular destination is critical for marketing, but this does not mean that said perceptions are concrete or permanent. Through branding techniques by local tourism professionals, cities can actually improve their reputations among tourists (Nelson, 2015).

However, as cities use culture and the human landscape for tourism promotion and subsequent economic gain, some fear they are actually commodifying the factors that make them unique (Harvey, 2002). The negative ramifications of commodification of culture for the sake of tourism is noted in a variety of settings across the globe (Kanai, 2014; Tretter, 2009). Cultural promotion is certainly a tightrope, as it challenges destination marketers to seek more sustainable forms of tourism that enhance rather than damage local cultures or environments. One strategy is to rely on local culture for tourism promotion, emphasizing pre-established practices that locals value and appreciate, in a respectful manner that avoids perception of cultural or natural exploitation. Essentially, these examples show the power that stakeholders and tourism professionals have on the industry, as the create these marketing strategies based on how they view the destination. These challenges can be exacerbated because destination marketing is in a very real sense competitive. Since DMOs are funded through city lodging taxes, provided through a finite number of visitors, they must ensure a certain level of competition even with other organizations they are collaborating with (Wang and Krakover, 2008). But competition does not tell the whole story, as collaborative efforts do have a place in the world of destination marketing. Some view collaboration as a gateway to success in developing and maintaining a strong tourism industry, as a combined effort can help build an industry that would struggle otherwise. These collaborative efforts can be seen taking effect at various scales. Two of the most common forms of this collaborative effort involve either international players or a functional relationship between an urban setting and its rural periphery. Most of the international collaborations are focused on regional promotion, ensuring a growing tourism industry will be sustainable for the area and beneficial to all involved (Frost and Shanka, 2000; Ioannides et al, 2006; Wong et al, 2011). Therefore, the model of coopetition is applicable in describing the relationship of DMOs in Oregon. A hybrid of competition and cooperation, coopetition is built around the idea of working together but still ensuring personal gain. Originally a business model, it has since been applied to the tourism industry and is certainly in use in the state of Oregon.

Regionalism (and Bioregionalism) in Destination Marketing To the degree tourism promotion transcends the local, fostering and representing connections among places at wider scale, such interconnectedness may involve spatial relations

6 and structure that might be termed ‘regional.’ Multiple types of regions exist, each predicated on various functions or sources of connectivity (Dahlman, 2012). Defining regions can be a complex process, as often times the separation of one region from another is a dynamic idea (Prytherch, 2010). It is important to remember that regions centered on economic or social relationships do not always “converge neatly around territories and jurisdictions formally administers” (Jonas, 2011, Page 263). When discussing regionalism, it is important to focus on or highlight the aspect or ideal that binds those together and forms regional boundaries; this is what separates one region from the next. Regional identity can be built around a number of diverse ideals (Koptseva and Kirko, 2015). One source of regional identity can be the ideas of nature and interactions with the physical landscape, an important concept for the purposes of this paper (Paasi, 2003). Such geographical relationships among places are increasingly understood to be a key to tourism economies, and the success of destination marketing efforts to organize and promote them. In New Zealand, for example, as the government shifted away from neo-liberal policies in the late 1990s, it turned towards regional organizations to construct and manage the tourism industry. This involved creating destination marketing strategies influenced by local culture and decision making (Shone and Memon, 2008). Regional organization in tourism allows for the synthesis of particular local amenities or practices, with the combined effort of providing certain opportunities that would otherwise be extremely difficult to produce. The multi-scalar aspect of regionalism is also prevalent in the tourism industry, as “tourism regions” can exist at a national, state, and local levels. As a result, a tourism region is “the manifestation of politics and policy making” (Dredge, 2005). In those regions where urban and natural amenities are of comparable prominence, a recurring theme of these marketing strategies is centered around the environment, as cities use surrounding natural landscapes to promote urban destinations. Ecotourism, for example, involves people traveling to a particular destination for the specific reason of admiring and appreciating a well-conserved natural landscape (Orams, 1995). Ecotourism can produce economic benefits for a local population, but it can also help promote conservation to try and ensure sustainability for the physical environment. Much of the ecotourism literature deals with making this practice as sustainable as possible, for the benefits of both the local people but the environment as well (Chiu et al, 2014). While it may seem somewhat contradictory for the physical environment to

7 feature so prominently in “urban” marketing strategies, there is literature to support the idea that the two can coexist for the benefits of tourism (Higham and Lück, 2002; Prytherch, 2002; Wu et al. 2010). Where there are very strong geographic connections among places both urban and natural, and network of collaboration and common representations of regional difference, one might consider such destination marketing to be akin to “bioregionalism,” a concept that attempts to describe shared cultural identity co-constructed with surrounding natural landscapes (Moreno 2015). A relatively new terminology, bioregionalism refers to two “terrains,” one of geological specificity and one of an individual consciousness, which coincide at the bioregional level to explain differences in human culture and customs, especially regarding the physical landscape (Alexander, 1996), thus helping shed light on some of the major societal issues resulting from human-environment interactions (Evanoff, 2011). In contrast to global interconnectedness, bioregionalism can be interpreted as a political project preferring to focus on the locality of place and potential livelihood in that setting. Essentially, “bioregionalism seeks to penetrate, inform and reinhabit the interstices of contemporary political economy, turning states and counties into biomes and watersheds, changing not only the boundaries of governance, but the boundaries of perception as well” (Thomashaw, 1999, Page 121). While tourism and the environment are often discussed in relation to ecotourism, or even urban “eco-entrepreneurialism” (Prytherch, 2002), more research is needed to explore the relationship between tourism and bioregionalism. What does exist does not differ much from discussions of ecotourism, as it focuses on issues of sustainability and conservation (Moss et al, 2000; Payne et al, 2008). This has led some to adopt a locavism ideology, that, in accordance with bioregionalism, tourism should also be conducted both locally and in an environmentally friendly way. This ideology can be somewhat limited, however, as it relies heavily on marketing the local as exciting to the local population, which can be a difficult process in areas that lack an abundance of natural amenities (Hollenhorst et al, 2014). More research is needed to explore how destination marketing can connect different places, urban and natural, to create a network of geographical relations that are regional -- and perhaps bioregional.

Research Questions and Methods The major question that drove my research was how does destination marketing link places and regions, both cultural and natural, in western Oregon? I based my research around two major sub-questions, each with a specific methodology process to answer each question. They are: • How do collaborative efforts between cities impact tourism marketing? • How are urban and natural landscapes co-promoted for tourism? My research builds upon existing literature by emphasizing the regional scale of collaborative efforts. Much of the literature on collaborative tourism revolves around either a large- or small- scale analysis, but not between cities comprising a region. The second sub-question explores how such relationships link urban and natural places, perhaps helping represent and socially construct what might be called the ‘bioregion’ of the Pacific Northwest. To better understand the connections among destination marketing organizations, I conducted semi-structured interviews with tourism professionals across western Oregon in the summer of 2017. Interviews have been proven as an effective method of gaining knowledge and insight from professionals or practitioners in a relevant field, including tourism (Kvale, 1996; Smith, 1995; Yuksel et al, 1999). Since tourism collaboration is so prevalent in Oregon, many towns and cities that I visited had some sort of bureau or visitor center with a professional staff that I could meet with. As with any interview, however, it was important to seek out the appropriate member of staff to make sure I received the most valuable information that I could; their work and expertise had to be relevant to my own research (Secor, 2010). A large part of my research was centered on tourism marketing strategies, so gaining the knowledge of those behind the actual promotion of the local tourism industry was critical. Questions I asked included: • How are your local marketing efforts connected to other places and the wider region? • What urban and natural landscapes are you seeking to promote, and how? How may the city and nature connect in your marketing/promotion? Specifically, I primarily interviewed those responsible for tourism marketing. Through interviewing those who operate tourism websites, brochure publishers, and even city officials connected to commerce, I gained a better understanding of how those in western Oregon are actively seeking to increase tourism flows to the city. In total, eleven (11) interviews were conducted. The eleven interview participants can be categorized as so:

Profession Region Location(s)

Destination The Coast (x3), Mt. Hood/Columbia Astoria, Bend, Clackamas Marketing River Gorge (x2), Willamette Valley County, Corvallis, the Dalles, Organization (x2), Central Oregon, Southern Eugene, Medford, Tillamook, Professional Oregon Seaside

Park Executive Greater Portland Portland

Private Tour Greater Portland Portland Operator Table 1: Locations of Interview Participants To better understand how the city and nature are co-promoted for tourism, I employed discourse analysis, starting with travel websites advertising the various cities of western Oregon. In classifying these internet sites as “discourse”, I was able to analyze their content to gain a better understanding of what meaning is being attached to certain attractions or locations within Portland (Dixon 2010). Discourse analysis has been proven to be an effective method in tourism research, especially in regards to marketing strategies and promotional material (Nelson, 2015; Santos et al, 2008; Stamou and Paraskevopoulos, 2004). By looking at syntax and word usage, I was able to develop a better understanding of the “how” of urban marketing campaigns, not just the “what”. To conduct this analysis, I recorded how the websites in question discuss natural settings, their prominence on each website, and the word usage of each specific promotion. I used these results to make maps as visual aids, as explained below (Goodrich, 2008). Knowing what the promoters and professionals are trying to market in their campaigns is important, but it does not tell the whole story. Discourse analysis allowed me to grasp the level of importance that these natural feature and physical landscapes have on the culture and identity on the local population. In total, thirteen (13) websites were analyzed. I largely conducted this analysis after traveling to Oregon. To understand the spatial relationship between places and destination marketing organizations, I asked interviewees to participate in a mapping exercise and then showed the results through geographic information systems (GIS) software. For geographers, maps can be useful tools that help to visualize research results and subsequent arguments (Hanna, 2012). By providing a visual aid to accompany my research, I was able to better convey my findings and results from my summer of research. Concept mapping served as a useful tool, as it specifically allowed for qualitative data, in this case interview results, to be quantified and subsequently

10 mapped (Kane and Rosas, 2012). I tabulated the results of the interviews as a way of quantifying the otherwise qualitative data (Goodrich, 2008). These maps are cognitive maps, or those based on mental representation. I asked my interview subjects to draw lines between various nodes on a map of Oregon, illustrating their perceived connectivity of various cities and attractions. These maps were combined to create one main map showing the relative importance of particular places based on the results of the individual responses. There is a legacy of using cognitive maps in geography, particularly in urban studies (Chown et al, 1995).

Study Area: The Beaver State Oregon is a prime place to study tourism collaboration and the influence of nature on tourism marketing strategies. Situated in the Pacific Northwest, it is bordered by Washington to the north, Idaho to the west, and California and Nevada to the south. Western Oregon has a diverse geographic layout, as one can travel from the coast, through two mountain ranges and a fertile valley, to high desert all in a day’s drive. As a result, destinations in Oregon are centered between diverse physical landscapes, which can be enjoyed by locals and marketed for tourists. Primarily, the research conducted was centered in western Oregon, from the Cascade mountains to the coast. All interviews were conducted in cities in this part of the state, except for one conducted over the phone. Additionally, all of the websites analyzed were created and maintained by representatives of cities in Western Oregon. Tourism is an important economic activity for this part of the country, as the state of Oregon alone boasts an $11.3 billion-dollar tourism industry (Travel Oregon, 2018). As a result, the already important functions of destination marketing are even more critical for the state and its success in a competitive market. From travel websites around the state, one can quickly see the prevalence of tourism collaboration within Oregon. The Pacific Northwest region is distinct based on both physical and cultural boundaries, creating a unique yet strong regional identity for its inhabitants. Indeed, it has been represented by some as a bioregion called “Cascadia,” said to encompass the entire state of Washington and most of Oregon and the Canadian province of British Columbia. Some variations stretch as far north as Alaska, as far south as northern California, and as far east as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Moothart, 2016).

Figure 1: Proposed map of the Cascadia bioregion (Map originally produced by Yes Cascadia)

As the name suggests, the boundary for Cascadia is based heavily on the Cascade mountains, stretching from British Columbia all the way to California, dotting the landscapes of Oregon and Washington with prominent peaks including Mt. Rainier and Mt. Hood. However, these mountains are not the only physical feature that defines Cascadia and its spirit. The Pacific Ocean, which defines the western border of the bioregion regardless of interpretation, is an important landmark that features prominently in tourism promotion. One of the most famous icons of the region is the Douglas Fir tree, which dots the landscape of the region and can be seen on the Cascadia “national” flag in front of the green, white, and blue backdrop. It is important to consider the political aspects of bioregionalism, which can clearly be seen in Cascadia. This dedication to the local can become more than just eating locally grown food or shopping at local stores, it can become an ideology of independence all together. For example, the Cascadia Now! page defines their own bioregion as “a positive and inclusive, place-based inter-dependence movement to break down boundaries and borders that are arbitrary or negative”. This, in turn, allows the people of Cascadia to serve as a model for the rest of the world of how to be locally focused and sustainable (Cascadia Now!, 2018). While this research does not focus on the independence movement associated with Cascadian bioregionalism, it is important to highlight how the ideology of bioregionalism has moved beyond a cultural identity and manifested into a political movement.

Results: “A Rising Tide Lifts All Ships”

The State Level: Travel Oregon and Its Regional Collaboration Although tourism collaboration exists at multiple levels in Oregon, its organization starts at the state level. Created by the state legislature in 2003, the Oregon Tourism Commission is tasked with organizing and strengthening the tourism industry across the state. Funded by a statewide 1.8% lodging tax, the Oregon Tourism Commission, which operates as Travel Oregon, employs a variety of functions, including marketing, product development, and Welcome Centers to maintain a $11.3 billion-dollar industry (Travel Oregon, 2016). The history of Travel Oregon has a deep connection with these local DMOs that it organizes, as they were the ones who pushed for the particular legislation needed to form the organization. Before this, the tourism commission operated with lottery money that they had to argue for allocation each year (Visit Corvallis, personal communication, June 28, 2017). Travel Oregon itself can be considered a destination marketing organization, just at a much larger scale. Up until this point, DMOs have primarily been discussed in the context of local destinations, i.e. cities. Considering the criteria analyzed, such as public funding, the functions of Travel Oregon certainly qualify the organization as a DMO. In addition to their own marketing practices, one of the most important functions of Travel Oregon is the oversight it provides to both regional and local destination marketing organizations around the state. Travel Oregon is a key organizer in statewide collaboration, as they provide the necessary infrastructure to allow the regional organizations to thrive. The interviewed tourism professional in The Dalles provided a glimpse of how this process plays out: We meet on a monthly basis and we have a budget from Travel Oregon that is just for the region, and then we decide what we want to do. What markets do we want to be in? How do we want to market ourselves?

By providing the budget from an oversight position, Travel Oregon can help to ensure the success of the regional organizations they have created. This monetary help can provide more opportunities for marketing or helps pay for the accompanying media. Possibly the most important aspect of this particular process, however, is the dedication to locally focused and locally created marketing strategies. Travel Oregon understands that the destination marketing organizations located within each region have a better understanding of what works at the local scale, so they allow these DMOs to drive to conversation of what to do as a region. Since they

14 are more familiar with the local amenities and understand how to come together as a cohesive unit, Travel Oregon is willing to take a step back and allow these local DMOs to drive the marketing strategies for the region. Travel Oregon also works closely with both regional and local destination marketing organizations in the state to help plan trips for incoming visitors. While speaking with the same tourism professional in The Dalles, they discussed this process, saying Travel Oregon will come to them to organize an itinerary for these potential guests (The Dalles, personal communication, June 27, 2017). This again is a great example of the relationship between the three levels of tourism organization in the state of Oregon. Travel Oregon, the state level, will direct these visitors to the Columbia River Gorge, the regional level, but let the specific DMOs, the local level, suggest how they spend their time. Travel Oregon is also critical for the state’s tourism industry as they provide important statistics and analytics to highlight what is actually happening within the state. On the industry page on their website, Travel Oregon provides reports on the industry both statewide and region- wide, containing important figures showing the results from years prior. One important statistic these reports show is the success of marketing, which was $237 in revenue generated for every $1 spent on marketing in 2016 for Travel Oregon. These reports also show which regions hosted the most visitors, where these same visitors originated from, and what other regions these visitors went to while in Oregon. An example of this last report can be seen below:

Figure 2: Other regions visited by those who visited Central Oregon (Travel Oregon, 2018)

This chart shows the percentage at which visitors to Central Oregon also visited other regions in the state of Oregon. Information like this is critical to an industry that is built around collaboration, as it gives professionals a better understanding of what visitors to the state do while in Oregon (Travel Oregon, 2016).

A Regional (and Sub-regional) Approach to Tourism Promotion

Direct Collaboration between Destination Marketing Organizations To keep the tourism industry organized, Travel Oregon has broken up the state into seven smaller regions to allow for more specialized and focused operations.

Figure 3: The Seven Regions of Travel Oregon (Map from Travel Oregon) Within the wider region of the Pacific Northwest and the scale of the state, these distinct subregions function as destination marketing organizations themselves, each featuring a website that then connects to the websites of individual DMOs located with the particular region (Travel Oregon, 2016). Most of these regional DMOs have their own headquarters that drive the marketing and collaboration efforts, such as Tillamook for Coastal Oregon or Sunriver for

Central Oregon. These specific types of destination marketing organizations serve an important purpose, as they can provide both a broad enough overview to get a potential visitor interested in the region, but also link themselves to specific destinations within the region to allow these customers to decide where to visit, similar to the functions of Travel Oregon. In most cases, regional collaboration is conducted intentionally by tourism professionals at these destination marketing organizations. After conducting interviews with tourism professionals, it became clear that these DMO operators in Oregon view collaboration in a positive manner. Most spoke highly of the beneficial relationships between their own destination marketing organization and other DMOs in the area, with a particular emphasis on the relationship between their destination and the accompanying regional marketing organization. For example, during an interview, a tourism professional in Medford discussed their positive relationship with the Southern Oregon Visitors Association (SOVA), the regional organization created by Travel Oregon (Eli Matthews, personal communication, October 27, 2018). This particular professional discussed the frequency at which they collaborated with the SOVA, which happens to be headquartered in Medford. This is not meant to say that the only reason a good relationship exists between Travel Medford and SOVA because they are headquartered in the same city, as plenty of other interviewed professionals discussed the positive relationship between their own DMO and the accompanying regional organization. The interview with a tourism professional in The Dalles highlighted the function of these tourism regions, in this case the Mt. Hood and Columbia River Gorge region. Although the professional was a representative of The Dalles, they shared insights on the positive relationship their organization had with this regional DMO. They discussed how the annual budget from Travel Oregon was used to ensure that all destinations within the region were involved in tourism planning for the area and that everyone was benefitting from the industry. One big issue they discussed was congestion, and how the DMO worked very hard to prevent this from overtaking the region, as the actual destinations are somewhat centered along the Columbia River (The Dalles, personal communication, June 27, 2017). This example not only shows the positive relationship these regional destination marketing organizations have with local DMOs, but also gives some insight on the functioning relationship between the two. Beyond the collaboration organized by Travel Oregon and the smaller regional marketing organizations, local DMOs also collaborate on their own accord. The DMOs of Seaside, Cannon

Beach, and Astoria have begun pooling financial resources together for the purpose of co- promotion. Formed in 2011, they refer to themselves as the “North Coast”, as these are the three northernmost DMOs along the coast. This organization operates separately from the People’s Coast, which is the official regional marketing organization for the coastal region as defined by Travel Oregon. The logic behind this partnership is that by co-promoting these destinations, they can better benefit from their shared proximity. If Cannon Beach were hosting a concert or event, they are more than willing to send some of their overnight visitors to Seaside or Astoria. The pooling of funds has also allowed them to expand their marketing potential, including television spots that would have otherwise been outside of their price range (John Rahl, personal communication, June 8, 2017; Travel Astoria, personal communication, June 28, 2017). It is clear that the people of the North Coast understand the mutually beneficial relationship of collaborative tourism efforts. Interviews with tourism professionals in both Seaside and Astoria corroborate this belief, as they both discussed the benefits this partnership has brought to their own destinations. This example shows a slight difference in regional collaboration than the one before, as this region is created entirely by participating DMOs. The example from The Dalles relates to a region determined by Travel Oregon, so while the functions are similar, there are some differences. The Mt. Hood and Columbia River Gorge region receives an annual budget from the state, while the “North Coast” is more about pooling money in a collective effort. Collaboration amongst tourism professionals and DMOs in Oregon is not always as complex as organizing destinations into specific regions and joint-effort marketing products. Sometimes, it can be as simple as hyperlinks on a website. Tourism professionals in Oregon use website linkages as a form of marketing other locations, a process which, in turn, connects these destination marketing organizations together. Most, if not all, DMOs in Oregon have an accompanying website that includes travel information, local attractions, and suggested itineraries. Interestingly, these same websites also promote and advertise for other destination marketing organizations. Usually, cross-marketed DMOs are either close geographically (i.e. connecting the Willamette Valley to the Oregon Coast) or hold significance for transportation (i.e. many people would travel to Portland first before exploring the rest of the state). An example of these website links can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 4: The web linkages centered around Albany, Oregon’s travel website

The case of Albany, Oregon shows exactly how these web linkages can work. The website’s primary function is to promote the city of Albany, located in the Willamette Valley, and its nearby attractions. It is the responsibility of the DMO to make the city in question more attraction to potential visitors, so it is logical for the local tourism professionals to include nearby attractions into its marketing strategy. The decision to include other sites with their own DMOs, however, may not appear so logical. This is the product of Oregon’s dedication to collaboration within its tourism industry, meaning DMOs are encouraged to establishing a functional working relationship with each other. As a result, cities such as Albany link their own DMO website to that of other sites in the state (Albany Visitors, 2018). As the model shows, the Albany marketing website also promotes other cities including Salem, counties including Linn and Lane, and even other regions including Greater Portland and Coastal Oregon. These are not a one-way connection, however, as the model also shows how some these various sites promote Albany on their own travel websites. This is why the key differentiates between one-way and two-way connections, as sometimes websites will link themselves with another DMO without this action being reciprocated. This does not mean that the two organizations do not work together, it just

19 simply shows that sometimes website linkages are not done by both parties involved. While this model applies specifically to Albany, results show that these types of connections are applicable to many marketing websites across the state of Oregon. This, in turn, confirms the prevalence of the collaborative efforts in Oregon.

Website Linkages

Regionalism in tourism is not limited to complex networks of organizations and formal collaborations, however. Many travel websites in Oregon provide suggested ways to reach their city, in turn creating an informal region based on transportation. Transportation is critical for tourism, so these professionals working their respective destination marketing organizations must make relevant information readily available. For example, visitbend.com, the travel website for Bend, Oregon. This site has an entire page entitled “How To Get Here”, which contains various pages that provide important travel information to potential visitors. By listing travel distances or available flights, the DMO is creating a regional network of travel around Bend (Travel Bend, 2018). While some regions created by destination marketing are based upon two- way connections and a formal, collaborative effort amongst tourism professionals, this particular region is based more on one-way connections. Just because Bend is suggesting these particular destinations as people should travel from to visit, does not mean those same locations are sending people to Bend. This is an important difference to consider, as not all regionals in destination marketing function the same way.

Figure 5: Map showing suggest departure sites to reach Bend (www.visitbend.com)

By suggesting certain cities to leave from in order to reach Bend, they are placing themselves at the center of a tourism network. Obviously, they are not trying to limit themselves to just taking in tourists from inside this perimeter, as several cities in Oregon are well known tourist destinations at the national scale. However, this does show Bend’s understanding of potentially key markets and their dedication of showing potential visitors how they are situated in relationship to Bend. This section is more aimed at informing those who are more likely to visit on the best ways to do just that. Interestingly, Portland is included in this section for Bend, making it less about collaboration and more about a target market. While in Bend, I spoke with a representative of the local DMO and they specifically mentioned an ad campaign called “Save a Portlander”, which targeted those living in the greater Portland area who deal with the relatively bleak winter season the city is so famous for. The winter season in Bend features much more sunshine than that of Portland, which, when combined with the close proximity of a short car ride or flight, makes it an incredibly attractive place to visit (Valerie Warren, personal communication, June 13, 2017). This advertisement strategy would fall under the “Getting Away” aspect of destination marketing, a relatively common strategy in Oregon and possibly a product of the strong connections built through collaboration. Professionals in other cities such

21 as The Dalles also mentioned similar strategies of appealing to places with drastically different seasons. This highlights a unique feature of the regional aspects of the Oregon tourism industry. Strong collaboration does exist across regional borders within Oregon, but this does not mean that destinations do not look to other parts of the state to market themselves. Collaboration does not prevent DMOs from marketing across the state itself.

Representing Destination Connections In order to understand how individual tourism professionals perceive such connections between places, they were asked to participate in a mapping exercise. Participants were asked to draw lines connecting their own destination to other locations that were important to their own marketing strategies, be it in Oregon, the Pacific Northwest, or elsewhere. The connections shown range from a particular city or accompanying DMO that the professional worked closely with, a particular site or natural amenity that is heavily incorporated into a professional’s marketing strategy, or another region of the state that the professional often suggests a visitor go and experience. As the key explains, the lines are based on the frequency at which a tourism professional cited that particular connection. The results can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 6: Results of the post-interview mapping exercise

The results of the mapping exercise show that the Seven Regions of Oregon are important for collaboration. Certain regions can clearly be seen through these connections, such as the Oregon Coast, the Willamette Valley, and Central Oregon. The interviewed professional from Coastal Oregon discussed how they break the Coast up into a North, Central, and South division for more focused marketing strategies, and this can be seen as the lines go from Astoria to Tillamook, Lincoln City to Florence, and Reedsport to Brookings (Marcus Hinz, personal communication, June 15, 2017). While this particular example does not show the coast as one long connection from the Washington border to California, the various connections brought about by Coastal Oregon can clearly be seen. It is important to note that in this instance, the North Coast division differs from the connection organized by Astoria, Seaside, and Cannon Beach, the first being a logistical division for Coastal Oregon and the second being the combined effort by the cities in question. The Willamette Valley can also be seen by the various connections along the Interstate 5 corridor, ranging from south of Portland to north of Eugene. This includes cities such as Corvallis, Salem, and McMinnville, as well as the popular Wine Country. A third region can be seen is Central Oregon, which is centered around Bend. In this instance, the tourism professional in Bend situated the city more with the local natural amenities than with other cities around the state. They discussed that since the organization was funded primarily through lodging tax dollars, they were not as willing to collaborate with other DMOs around the state (Valerie Warren, personal communication, June 13, 2017). This reluctance can be seen on the map, as the connections in Central Oregon are more isolated when compared to other connections in Oregon. These connections do not solely follow the boundaries established by Travel Oregon, however, as certain examples exist across regions with the state. The most notable examples are DMOs situating themselves in relationship to the Oregon Coast, despite being in the Willamette Valley or Greater Portland. Portland can be connected to Astoria along the North Coast, just as the interviewed professional in Eugene connected the city to Florence. During the interview, this professional told me: The state of Oregon is recognized at an international level as a collaborative team … We understand that guests aren’t just coming to Eugene so if I don’t know Bend, if I don’t know Ashland, if I’m not familiar with the destinations on the coast then I’m not serving my own guests.

To this professional, it is important for Eugene to be situated within a larger context than just the Willamette Valley, as they reference destinations in Coastal Oregon, Central Oregon, and Southern Oregon (Eugene, Cascades, & Coast, personal communication, June 23, 2017). While the regions created by Travel Oregon are certainly important, they are not meant to limit tourism collaboration between destinations across regions. The data shows that the most commonly mentioned connection is from Portland to Seattle, meaning that even when the interviewer was a representative of a city other than Portland, they still found that connection incredibly important. Due to both the size and proximity of the two cities, people traveling between Seattle and Portland are critical for the rest of the state of Oregon. Since people use Portland as a springboard for the rest of the state, other destinations scattered across Oregon can benefit from a strong connection between Portland and Seattle, as those coming in from the Emerald City are likely to leave from Portland to see other areas of the state. This is why so many professionals around the state discuss the importance of the connection between Portland and Seattle, as it gives them the opportunity to expand their own base of visitors. The stronger the connection between their own site and Portland, and then Portland and Seattle, the greater the potential to have out of state visitors coming to their own destination.

The Local Level: Emphasizing What’s Around You Just as travel websites provide information on how to best get to their city, they also educate potential visitors on the best ways to spend their time once they have arrived. As previously discussed, these DMOs incorporate nearby attractions into their own marketing strategies to present themselves as more attractive destinations. In accordance with this strategy, DMOs provide suggested itineraries on their websites, connecting their own location with nearby amenities that may appeal to tourists. This list may include certain natural features like mountain recreation areas or state parks, tourist attractions that may not have an accompanying marketing organization. Continuing to use Bend as an example, their travel website provides information for the nearby Mt. Bachelor, a popular attraction for winter sports enthusiasts (Visit Bend, 2018). Just as DMOs used transportation information to connect themselves to other destinations, they use these itineraries to connect their own destination with nearby attractions and amenities. In effect, this set-up allows DMOs to function as a springboard for the local area, drawing in

25 visitors from outside the region and then sending them back out into the community to experience what the area has to offer. One of the most common examples of local promotion relates to natural amenities, as the integration of nature into urban marketing strategies is critical in Oregon. By analyzing travel websites managed by DMOs in Oregon, the prevalence of natural amenities becomes very clear. Most, if not all, websites feature scrolling banner photos, images that immediately draw the eye of a potential tourist. This space serves as the “first impression”, giving marketers a chance to capture the interest of potential tourists right away. As a result, it is critical for tourism professionals to use the most attractive and appealing images they can to represent their destination. In Oregon, DMOs are constantly using images of nature and outdoor activities in these banner photos to try and draw in visitors. Travel websites in Oregon use a diverse array of the nature shots for their banner photos, including mountain-scapes, waterfront scenes along the beach or river, vineyards, or forests. While these are not the only landscapes being represented by these photos, their prevalence cannot be understated. The results of this website analysis can be seen below:

City Website Things Gateway Local Tag Line Owner to Do Images Amenities (e.g.)

Albany City Theaters Victorian Linn County “See DMO Home Albany. (www.albanyvisitors.com) Outdoor Willamette Discover Recreation Covered Valley Oregon.” Bridge Mid-Valley River

Astoria City Museums People Highway 30 “Pure DMO Drinking Character” (www.travelastoria.com) Outdoor Oregon Recreation Beachfront Coast

Shops

Bend City Bend Ale Winter Mt. “Its Where DMO Trail Sports and Bachelor You Go to (www.visitbend.com) Snowy Three Play” Outdoor Landscapes Sisters Recreation

Corvallis City Outdoor Children N/A “Bike It. DMO Activities Playing in Hike It. (www.visitcorvallis.com) Leaves Enjoy It!” Wine Tours

The Dalles City Outdoor Charm Trail N/A “Simply CoC Activities Sunsational” (www.thedalleschamber.c Cityscape om) Historical Nature Tours Shots

Eugene/ County Outdoor Rivers County “Real Florence DMO Activities DMO Adventures. Covered Real Close.” (www.eugenecascadescoa LGBT Bridge st.com) Travel Coastal Highway

McMinnville City Wineries People Interactive “The Heart Walking Map of of Oregon (www.visitmcminnville.co Outdoor Through a wineries Wine m) Activities Vineyard Country”

Museums

City Website Things Gateway Local Tag Line Owner to Do Images Amenities (e.g.)

Medford City Outdoor Vineyard Crater Lake “Great Recreation Performance (www.travelmedford.org) Cyclist Shopping in s Daily” Theaters Jacksonville Festivals Theater

Mt. Hood Territory County Outdoor Picnics County “Explorers Recreation DMO Welcome” (www.mthoodterritory.co Mt. Hood m) Parks Historical Reenactme- nts

Portland City Parks Pastries Bordering “You Can, Regions In Portland” (www.travelportland.com) Voodoo Parks Doughnuts Fort Craft Beer Vancouver

Theaters Biking

Roseburg City Alcohol Lake Crater Lake “In the Heart of the (www.visitroseburg.com) Fishing Downtown Seven Land of the Area Feathers Umpqua” Covered Casino

Bridges Bike paths Umpqua Lighthouse

Salem City Outdoor Landscape Confederat- “Absolutely Recreation Shot ed Tribes Oregon!” (www.travelsalem.com) Site Downtown Waterfalls Historic Theaters Vineyard Sites

State Capital Heritage Tri County Center Area

Seaside City Outdoor People North Coast “Its Easy to Recreation Kayaking Seaside” (www.seasideor.com) People’s Shopping Coast Table 2: Results of the website analysis 28

The table shows the commonality of destination marketing organizations in Oregon using images of nature and recreational activities to try and influence potential visitors. Through these marketing strategies, DMOs are highlighting these particular aspects of the local culture because they understand that is what is successful. It is important to note that this analysis was conducted in November of 2017, so some of the banner images were seasonal. The taglines are worth noting, as they help to build the “ethos” around each destination, cementing what a tourist’s initial ideas about a place should be. These marketing strategies ultimately show how the destinations situate themselves within the context of the nearby natural amenities, creating a springboard effect with their surroundings. Tourism professionals in Oregon have created a system in which they bring tourists into the city, then spring them back out into nature by relying heavily on these natural amenities. This particular system creates a dependency on the destination, which allows for economic gain, while at the same time incorporating local culture in an effective way that is attractive to tourists. The interviews conducted with tourism professionals in Oregon corroborate this importance of nature. The professionals discussed the importance of nearby physical and natural amenities for the local tourism industry, highlighting the particular significance of outdoor enthusiasts. Tourism professionals are cognizant of their clienteles’ interests, which is why most travel websites provide information on outdoor activities such as hiking, kayaking, and camping. When introduced to the concept of the bioregion, almost all interviewed professionals agreed that it is not applicable, but very prevalent in Oregon. In an interview, a tour operator in Portland whose company is based around offering people outdoor “adventures” throughout the northwest corner of Oregon. In this interview, he discussed how people in Oregon strive for a “life-work” balance instead of a “work-life” balance, choosing to value their active lifestyles more than their employment (Skyler Lanning, personal communication, June 17, 2017). This company uses the word “adventure” somewhat loosely, and with good intention. They understand what emotions are conjured up with the use of the word; it can be enticing and engaging. Another prominent example of involving nature in destination marketing in Oregon was the focus on the local alcohol scene in a city. Many DMOs in Oregon highlight local alcohol production as it is an incredibly popular pull factor for tourists, with several cities featuring “Ale Trails” that allow visitors to visit each local brewery for a small token of accomplishment (Valerie Warren, personal communication, June 13, 2017). The Willamette Valley was recently

29 named the top wine producing region in the world, a title that many DMOs are boasting to help market themselves to potential visitors (Visit Corvallis, June 28, 2017). The local production of alcohol is more than just an industry for tourism, however, as it is a strong source of pride for the locals themselves. Not only is the alcohol itself produced in state, but many of the ingredients that go into the production are also grown in Oregon, meaning the state is involved every step of the way. Since the necessary crops for beer and wine production are often grown in Oregon, many view the alcohol industry as an extension of the relationship between those in Oregon and the physical landscape of the state. Just as the “Eat Local” movement has taken off in many parts of the world, the “Drink Local” scene is alive and well in the state of Oregon, a belief that now dominates the local tourism industry (Jared Lymon, personal communication, June 22, 2017).

Discussion The major question that drove my research was how does destination marketing link places and regions, both cultural and natural, in western Oregon? Results suggest that tourism collaboration, despite being based around a locality, is often conducted at a regional scale in western Oregon. By focusing on local amenities, such as natural landscapes, but situating themselves within a larger geographic context, these DMOs have created multiple scales of tourism marketing.

Working Together: The Success of Regional Collaboration Collaboration among tourism professionals and destination marketing organizations may seem contradictory to the nature of the industry, but this particular setup has proven to be effective for the state of Oregon. Most DMOs in Oregon are funded by a city lodging tax, which makes filling local hotels a top priority. As a result, one may wonder why one city would willing promote another when the tourist cannot be in two places in one. Well, that logic is exactly why professionals collaborate: tourists cannot visit two locations at once, but it is highly unlikely that they would limit their tour to just one destination. By collaborating with other destinations and promoting their own brand in another market, tourism professionals can create a sort of mental proximity for potential visitors. If a DMO can place the destination they market in conversation with another, it may entice potential visitors to include said destination in their trip. Applied to tourism by Wang and Krakover (2008), coopetition is a hybrid form of relationship between market entities. It is neither a competition between two entities nor it is a cooperation between the two: it is, essentially, a co-existence of the two. Destination marketing may be competitive, but also involves cooperation, as the example of the North Coast shows. In deciding to use their close proximity (less than an hour’s car ride from Astoria to Cannon Beach) to each other’s benefit as opposed to focusing on a possibly more competitive relationship, these DMOs engaged in coopetition (Wang and Krakover, 2008). Working together as the “North Coast”, these DMOs have removed any real competitive nature of their relationship, even going so far as to pool funds together and share grant money. However, just as this relationship is not competitive, it is not wholly cooperative, either. Although they work and market together, a large percentage of funding is still predicated on hotel occupancies, meaning they must still be hyper-focused on improving and promoting their

31 own brand. The importance of proximity in this example cannot be understated. Prevailing logic may propose that destinations this close together would be in direct competition with each other, yet this is not the case. This coopetition model can be applied to the state of Oregon’s travel industry, as the multi-scalar collaboration by tourism professionals creates a hybrid of cooperation and competition (Dredge, 2005). Collaboration is certainly prevalent in Oregon, but this does not completely remove any sort of competition amongst DMOs in the state. A destination marketing organization is inherently competitive, and as long as funding of these DMOs remains the way it is now, they will continue to compete for tourists. However, as the state of Oregon proves, this does not prevent collaboration from playing an important part in the overall success of the industry. Results show that there are multiple forms of collaboration that exist within Oregon. One example is the formal collaboration organized by Travel Oregon. From the state level to the local level, Travel Oregon promotes collaborative efforts amongst instate destination marketing organizations to help strengthen the tourism industry. This collaboration involves working together on marketing strategies, organization itineraries, and pooling money to ensure regional success. DMOs in Oregon are also known to organize their own collaborative efforts. Beyond this formal and informal collaboration amongst professionals, there is also web linkages that connect the travel websites of these DMOs, helping to situate one destination with others by telling potential tourists what other sites and amenities can be reached from their own destination. The multitude of ways in which tourism professionals in Oregon can and do collaborate shows the impact that these processes have on the industry for the state. Statistics provided by Travel Oregon show the positive impact the marketing strategies have on generating revenue for the state, and it is very likely that this is brought about as a result of the strong networks of collaboration that are present in Oregon. The prevalence of coopetition functions particularly well in Oregon, given the strong regional connections and identity that exist within the Pacific Northwest and so-called 'Cascadia’. If the concept of bioregionalism attempts to capture how cultural and political difference are linked to the natural environment, then this appears relevant to the experience of Western Oregon. The experience of Western Oregon exemplifies the concept of the bioregion, as people who live in a similar ecological region share a particular connectedness with each other, as the culture is driven by the physical geography of the area. The impacts of this communal

32 spirit can certainly be seen in Oregon, which is located within the Pacific Northwest bioregion, often called Cascadia (Cascadia Now!, 2018). The prominence of spirit of the bioregion in Oregon is definitely a contributing factor to the success of the state’s tourism model, which is centered on co-promotion and connectedness.

Representing Themselves Through Tourism: Co-promotion of Urban and Natural Landscapes The research makes clear the important of co-promotion of urban and natural amenities by tourism professionals in the state of Oregon. Almost every DMO or travel website analyzed shows, in some capacity, a dedication to involving both of these two components into their marketing scheme. This co-promotion occurs at both large and small scales, relative to the location of the city. A DMO could market an amenity as close as a few miles away, just as Bend promotes Mt. Bachelor, or an amenity that is over one hundred miles away, just as cities in the Willamette Valley discuss their relative location to the Oregon Coast (Visit Bend, 2018; Eugene Cascades and Coast, 2018). This shows that tourism professionals in Oregon are well aware of the primary assets the state has to offer and comprehends the importance of incorporating these amenities into their marketing plan. It is important to remember that these natural amenities are being promoted, in part, by destination marketing organizations centered in urban areas. From a functional standpoint, cities in Oregon can serve as springboards to the surrounding natural amenities by bringing people in from further distances, then sending them back out into the natural surroundings. This relationship is the heart of the co-promotion of urban and natural settings for tourism in Oregon. It is important to note, however, that these promotional activities are not done solely for economic gain or success in the competitive tourism market. What is promoted by tourism professionals in Oregon is also valued, at a personal level, by tourism professionals in Oregon. Results show that a large percentage of what tourists engage in while in Oregon are also activities that locals do themselves. Many tourism professionals interviewed discussed a willingness to promote “themselves”, meaning they wanted to share their own love of the natural Oregon landscape with tourists. One interviewee told me that tourism professionals in Oregon want to “build, invest, and market who they are” (Marcus Hinz, personal communication, June 15, 2017). The frequency at which the interviewed professionals provided similar opinions on the tourism industry in Oregon supports the argument that this is a statewide phenomenon. As a

33 result, the travel industry in Oregon is able to avoid some of the pitfalls associated with the modern tourism industry. Authenticity is critical in tourism, as tourists want their experiences to mirror that of the local (Tiberghien, Bremner, & Milne, 2017). By forming the industry around the established culture, the state of Oregon has created a system in which visitors can truly feel like an Oregonian. This also shows that Oregon has situated themselves to avoid taking advantage of this culture, as they view the industry as a way to share experiences, not sell them (Law, 2002). In contemporary writings on tourism, there is a heightened focus on authenticity and commoditization (Kanai 2014; Tretter 2009). By not only employing locals as tourism professionals but also specifically highlighting their own interests and appreciations of the local landscape, both urban and natural, the state of Oregon boasts a meaningful tourism industry. In some instances, tourism is used to create meaning in a particular destination, giving a city a certain niche that it can use in marketing (Nelson, 2015). In Oregon, however, the meaning already exists, and through respectful incorporation into the marketing strategies, strengthens the tourism industry.

Tourism and Bioregionalism in Oregon and Beyond This aspect of Oregon’s tourism industry can be connected to the concept of the bioregion. Even though the industry is very well connected, it would not be enough for Travel Oregon to decide for the regions and local DMOs to focus on the surrounding natural amenities; it needs to be a part of the existing culture of a destination. That is certainly the case in Oregon, as the local culture is heavily predicated on outdoor activities and involving oneself in nature. As one tourism professional told me, people love to go “from asphalt to dirt” (Visit Corvallis, personal communication, June 28, 2017). Since Oregon boasts a certain culture of its residents based on the ecological surroundings that define it as a distance part of the world, this helps cement the possibility of a bioregion existing in the Pacific Northwest. This co-promotion of urban and natural is so successful for Oregon’s tourism industry because of the feeling of authenticity that comes with taking part in the same outdoor activities that locals do, which is can absolutely be traced back to the Cascadia bioregion. As a tour operator in Portland told me: We strive for a ‘life-work’ balance where we prioritize life… So when are hiring, we tend to hire people who are out there exploring nature on their own, they’re hiking on Mt. Hood, they’re hiking in the Gorge, they’re wine tasting in the

Valley… So when they see the opportunity to show tourists about the natural wonders we have here, it's an easy extension for them.

The appreciation for nature is absolutely a part of the local culture, which connects directly to this concept of the bioregion (Skyler Lanning, personal communication, June 17, 2017). The collective admiration for the natural amenities local to the Pacific Northwest helps to create this sense of individualism that is so key to the Cascadian identity. Despite the importance of the locality in destination marketing, tourism professionals in Oregon place great emphasis on collaboration with other destination marketing organizations. These collaborations can often exist at regional scales, either formal regions created by the state for the specific purpose of collaborating or organic regions created by the DMOs themselves.

Conclusion

This research explored how tourism may be collaborative and regional in nature, and the possibilities of such regional collaboration reflecting and reinforcing the wider (bio)region. The state of Oregon boasts a strong tourism industry, due in large part to the efforts of tourism professionals and destination marketing organizations all across the state. Results show that there are a multitude of ways tourism professionals in Oregon collaborate, and the accompanying statistics suggest this is strengthening the industry. A complex system of collaborative efforts and web linkages brings these destinations together in a unique way. The marketing strategies employed by these organizations in Oregon often incorporate local natural amenities, even though the DMOs are primarily centered on urban areas throughout the state. The prevalence of both collaborative efforts and the importance of nature help to strengthen the industry in Oregon; a belief shared by tourism professionals in Oregon. The focus on nature and natural amenities is critical to understanding Oregon’s tourism industry, as they play such an important role in marketing strategies employed by professionals and their DMOs. It is evident that a strong sense of regionalism already exists within the Oregon tourism industry, as DMOs collaborate both formally and informally at regional levels. Furthermore, Oregon is situated within the Pacific Northwest, the heart of the proposed bioregion of “Cascadia”. If bioregionalism can be said to capture people particular area are bound together socially and culturally by the physical landscapes, creating a sense of difference from places elsewhere, then it’s clear tourism marketing in western Oregon is not only regional but also bioregional in character. And not only reflecting existing discourses of bioregional difference in the Pacific Northwest, the shared representations and collaborative strategies of destination marketers in Western Oregon may well play a role in how visitors -- and perhaps also decision-makers and residents -- perceive connectivity and difference in region a rich in linked urban and natural amenities. Ultimately, my aim was to analyze and explain the peculiarities of the Oregon tourism industry by developing a comprehension of the intricacies of collaboration among destination marketing organizations and the strategies employed by these DMOs. The results show that regional collaboration is both prevalent and successful for the tourism industry in Oregon, as DMOs organize and partake in the collective marketing effort. Despite the competitive nature of destination marketing, these tourism professionals understand that a strong, statewide industry is 36 good for all parties involved. Tourism professionals in Oregon have collaborated to construct a cohesive network of relationships, which highlight -- for visitors, residents, and marketers themselves -- the inextricable connections between places urban and natural. Interpreted geographically, we see how individual places (e.g. Seaside) are linked with each other to constitute a set of nested scales from the sub-region (e.g. the North Coast), the state (e.g. Oregon), and the wider bioregion (e.g. the Pacific Northwest). Tourism, like regionalism, is relational. And in places where the tourism industry and regional difference are as reliant on natural landscapes as they are on cities, such destination marketing may be said to be bioregional. The possible implications for tourism research and practice merit further study, but perhaps Western Oregon was not a bad place to start.

Bibliography

Albany Visitors. (2018) What to do. Retrieved from http://albanyvisitors.com/what-to-do/.

Alexander, Don. (1996) Bioregionalism: The Need for a Firmer Theoretical Foundation. Trumpeter. Pages 2-7.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (Eds). (2000) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice, and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Cascadia Now! (2018) Welcome to Cascadia! Retrieved from https://www.cascadianow.org/.

Chiu, Yen-Ting Helena et al. (2014) Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Ecotourism: Antecedents and Implications. Tourism Management 40. Pages 321-329.

Chown, Eric et al. (1995) Prototypes, Location, and Associative Networks (PLAN): Towards a Unified Theory of Cognitive Mapping. Cognitive Science 19. Pages 1-51.

Dahlman, Carl. (2012) Regionalism. In Gallaher, Carolyn et al, Key Concepts in Political Geography (Pages 210-222). London: Sage Publications.

Delyser, Dydia. (2004) Ramona Memories: Fiction, Tourist Practices, and Placing the Past in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93 (4). Pages 886-908.

Dixon, Deborah P. (2010) Analyzing Meaning. In Basil Gomez and John Paul Jones III, Research Methods in Geography (392-408). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dredge, D. (2005) Local Versus State-Driven Production of ‘the Region’: Regional Tourism Policy in the Hunter, New South Wales, Australia, in: A. Rainnie & M. Grobbelaar (Eds) New Regionalism in Australia( Pages. 299–319) Burlington: Ashgate.

Dredge, Dianne and John Jenkins. (2003) Destination Place Identity and Regional Tourism Policy. Tourism Geographies 5 (4). Pages 383-407.

Erb, M, & Ong, C. (2017) Theming Asia: Culture, Nature, and Heritage in a Transforming Environment. Tourism Geographies 19 (2). Pages 143-167.

Eugene, Cascades, Coast. (2018) Things To Do. Retrieved from https://www.eugenecascadescoast.org/things-to-do/.

Evanoff, Richard. (2011) Bioregionalism and Global Ethics: A Transactional Approach to Achieving Ecological Sustainability, Social Justice, and Human Well-Being. New York: Routledge.

Frost, F and Shanka T. (2000) Regionalism in Tourism: The Case for Kenya and Ethiopia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 11 (1). Pages 35-58.

Gelbman, A, & Ron, A. (2009) Heritage and Cultural Tourism: The Present and Future of the Past. Tourism Geographies 11 (1). Pages 127-129.

Goodrich, Melanie. (2008) A Coding Methodology for Open-Ended Survey Questions. New York University Department of Politics.

Hall, C. (2013) “Framing Tourism Geography: Notes from the Underground.” Annals of Tourism Research, 43. Pages 601-623.

Hall, C, & Page, S. (Eds.). (2014) The Geography of Tourism and Planning. New York: Routledge.

Hanna, Stephen P. (2010) Maps and Diagrams. In Basil Gomez and John Paul Jones III, Research Methods in Geography (259-278). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Harvey, David. (2002) The Art of Rent: Globalization, Monopoly, and the Commodification of Culture. Socialist Register. Pages 93-110.

Higham, James and Michael Lück. (2002) Urban Ecotourism: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Ecotourism 1 (1). Pages 36-51.

Hollenhorst, S et al. (2014) The Trouble With Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 39 (3). Pages 305-319.

Ioannides, Dimitri, Per Ake Nielsen, and Peter Billing. (2006) Transboundary Collaboration in Tourism: The Case of the Bothnian Arc. Tourism Geographies 8 (2). Pages 122-142.

Jonas, A. (2011) Region and Place: Regionalism in Question. Progress in Human Geography 36 (2). Pages 263-272.

Kanai, Miguel. (2014) Buenos Aires, Capital of Tango: Tourism, Redevelopment and the Cultural Politics of Neoliberal Urbanism. Urban Geography 35 (8). Pages 1111-1117.

Kane, Mary and Scott Rosas. (2012) Quality and Rigor of the Concept Mapping Methodology: A Pooled Study Analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 35 (2). Pages 236-245.

Kenny, Judith and Jeffrey Zimmerman. (2003) Constructing the ‘Genuine American City’: Neo-Traditionalism, New Urbanism, and Neo-Liberalism in the Remaking of Downtown Milwaukee. Cultural Geographies 11. Pages 74-98.

Koptseva, N and Kirko, V. (2015) The Impact of Global Transformations on the Processes of Regional and Ethnic Identity of Indigenous Peoples Siberian Arctic. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6 (3). Pages 217-224.

Kvale, Steiner. (1996) “Thematizing and Designing an Interview Study”. In An Introduction to Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pages 83-108.

Law, Christopher M. (2002) Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and the Growth of Large Cities. New York: Continuum.

Lewis, P. F. (1979). Axioms for Reading the Landscape. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes 23. Pages 167-187.

Mitchell, Don. (2002) Cultural Landscapes: the Dialectical Landscape- Recent Landscape Research in Human Geography. Progress in Human Geography 26 (3). Pages 381-9.

Moothart, Ryan C. (2016) Towards Cascadia. Minneapolis, MN: Mill City Press, Inc.

Moreno, Elise. (2015) A Case for Bioregionalism in Place-Based Research. Melbourne Journal of Politics 37. Pages 43-60.

Moss, Laurence A.G. et al. (2000) Tourism in Bioregional Context: Approaching Ecosystemic Practice in the Sumava, Czech Republic. In P.M. Goode et al’s Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions. Oxfordshire: CABI.

Nelson, Velvet. (2015) Place Reputation: Representing Houston, Texas as a Creative Destination Through Culinary Culture. Tourism Geographies 17 (2). Pages 192-207

Orams, Mark. (1995) Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism. Tourism Management 16 (1). Pages 3-8)

Paasi, Anssi. (2003) Region and Place: Regional Identity in Question. Progress in Human Geography 27 (4). Pages 475-485.

Page, Stephen. (1995) Urban Tourism. New York: Routledge.

Pan, Bing and Xiang Li. (2011) The Long Tail of Destination and Marketing Image. Annals of Tourism Research 38. Pages 132-152.

Payne, R.J. et al. (2008) Tourism, Sustainability, and the Social Milieux in Lake Superior’s North Shore and Islands. In McCool and Moisey Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability. Oxfordshire: CABI.

Prytherch, David. (2002) Selling the Eco-Entrepreneurial City: Natural Wonders and Urban Stratagems in Tucson, Arizona. Urban Geography 23 (8). Pages 771-793.

Prytherch, David. (2010) ‘Vertebrating’ the Region as Networked Space of Flows: Learning from the Spatial Grammar Catalanist Territoriality. Environment and Planning A 42. Pages 1537-1554.

Saarinen, J, Rogerson, C, & Hall, C. (2014) Geographies of Tourism Development and Planning. Tourism Geographies 19 (3). Pages 30-317.

Santos, Carla Almeida et al. (2008) Reimagining Chinatown: An Analysis of Tourism Discourse. Tourism Management 29. Pages 1002-1012.

Schein, Richard H. (1997) “The Place for Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting an American Scene.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87 (4). Pages 660-680.

Secor, Anna J. (2010) Social Surveys, Interviews, and Focus Groups. In Basil Gomez and John Paul Jones III, Research Methods in Geography (194-205). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Selby, Martin. (2004) Understanding Urban Tourism: Image, Culture, and Experience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shone, M and Memon, P. (2008) Tourism, Public Policy, and Regional Development: A Turn from Neo-Liberalism to New Regionalism. Local Economy 23 (4). Pages 290-304.

Smith, Stephen L.J. (1995) Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. Essex: Harlow.

Soica, Simona. (2016) Tourism as Practice of Making Meaning. Annals of Tourism Research 61. Pages 96-110.

Stamou, Anastasia G and Stephanos Paraskevopoulos. (2004) Images of Nature by Tourism and Environmentalism Discourse in Visitors Books: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Ecotourism. Discourse and Society 15 (1). Pages 105-129.

Thomashaw, Mitchell. (1999) Towards a Cosmopolitan Bioregionalism. In Michael Vincent McGinnis (eds.) Bioregionalism (Pages 121-132). London: Routledge.

Tiberghien, Guillame, Hammish Bremner, and Simon Milne. (2017) Performance and Visitors’ Perceptions of Authenticity in Eco-Cultural Tourism. Tourism Geographies 19 (2). Pages 287-300.

Travel Oregon. (2018) Oregon’s 7 Regions. Retrieved from https://traveloregon.com/places-to-go/regions/.

Tretter, Eliot. (2009) The Cultures of Capitalism: Glasgow and the Monopoly of Culture. Antipode 41 (1). Pages 111-132.

United Nations. World Tourism Organization. (2012). International Tourism Receipts Surpass US $1 Trillion in 2011 (RN: 12027).

Visit Bend. (2018) How to Get to Bend, Oregon. Retrieved from https://www.visitbend.com/Bend_Oregon_Map/.

Wang, Youcheng and Shaul Krakover. (2008) Destination Marketing: Competition, Cooperation, or Coopetition? Inernational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (2). Pages 126-141.

Wong, Emma PY, Nina Mistilis, and Larry Dwyer. (2011) A Framework for Analyzing Intergovernmental Collaboration - The Case of ASEAN Tourism. Tourism Management 32. Pages 367-376.

Wu, Yi-Yen et al. (2010) Urban Ecotourism: Defining and Assessing Dimensions Using Fuzzy Number Construction. Tourism Management 31. Pages 739-743.

Yes Cascadia. (2018) Yes Cascadia: Break In Case of Emergency: Retrieved from http://www.yescascadia.org/.

Yuksel, Fisun et al. (1999) Stakeholder Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management 20. Pages 351-360.

Zhang, Carol X, Patrick L’Espoir Decosta, and Bob McKercher. (2015) Politics and Tourism Promotion: Hong Kong’s Myth Making. Annals of Tourism Research 54. Pages 156-171.