1. Combinatorial knowledge dynamics and regional development An explorative case study of food tourism in North Jutland, Denmark Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk

2. Specialisation or variety? Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk Combinatorial knowledge dynamics and related variety  From (cumulative) clusters to (combinatorial) related variety  Empirical studies: regions more likely to expand into related activities, experiencing knowledge spill-overs and growth (Asheim et al. 2011, Frenken 2007) Regional development platforms  Lahti (Harmaakorpi, 2006), Bavaria, Skåne, Styria (Cooke, 2012), Tuscany (Lazzeretti, 2010)  Identifying and promoting potential future cross-sectoral synergies

3. Related variety: From pre-conditions to practices 1 Two streams in the current literature 1.Quantitative studies measuring degrees of variety in regions (preconditions), correlating these with economic outcomes (e.g. employment growth)  Assumption: optimal cognitive distance between sectors  Close enough for understanding, far enough to learn 2.Qualitative case studies of individual cross-sectoral regional initiatives  Story-telling around individual cases, focusing on successful outcomes and so far less detail about process Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk

4. Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk Related variety: From pre-conditions to practices 2 Is ‘relatedness’ enough?  Process of combination/boundary crossing is often not straightforward, even within sectors/firms  Knowledge is sticky because it is embedded in practices (e.g. Carlile 2002, Beckhy 2003)  Assessment of relatedness may not be enough  Successful cross-sectoral innovation requires not just transfer of knowledge but transformation of existing practices/creation of new practices

5. Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk Why?  Branding, boost local food production, extend tourist season Taking a practice perspective  Key and marginal actors  Sayings and doings  Practical concerns  Temporal organization Interviews & Observation  food producers, retailers, policymakers CASE STUDY Food tourism platform in North Jutland

6. Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk Feeding TouristsFood Tourism Producing FoodIndustrial production of standardized foodstuffs Maximise profits [Some small artisan producers] Small-scale, traditional, creative, local Often ‘lifestyle’ businesses RetailingSupermarkets/national wholesalers Local food market Food network to link producers with restaurants Still no joint distribution CateringSelf-catering (bringing food from home) Occasional eating out Limited seasonality, pre-fab ingredients Signature dishes with local ingredients Story-telling menu Promoting Tourism Summer season Families Promotion Branding region with food Extended season Older wealthier couples Developing initiatives

7. Laura James – laura.james@humangeo.su.se Henrik Halkier– halkier@cgs.aau.dk Key Findings and perspectives  Focus on changing practices of retailing, branding and promoting  Support for marginalised food production practices, but small scale  Some practices ‘too difficult’ to change/link together: buying practices of supermarkets and restaurants  Focus on visible practices & new temporality (outside main season) rather than localising food chain  Deeper understanding of processes of knowledge combination in order to understand difficult/successful cross-sectoral initiatives  Not knowledge transfer but transformation of (knowledgeable) practices