ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 2021 61 1 0 1 0 1 6 6 1 8 5 1 7 7 9 ISSN 1581-6613 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA • GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK • 61-1 • 2021 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 61-1 • 2021 Contents Danijela Strle, Matej Ogrin Latent cooling of atmosphere as an indicator of lowered snow line: Case study from Planica and Vrata valleys 7 Vera graOV ac MataSSi, ana talan Recent marriage and childbearing trends in Croatia and Slovenia: A comparative review 25 constantin niStOr, ionuț SăVuleScu, Bogdan-andrei Mihai, liliana Zaharia, Marina Vîrghileanu, Sorin caraBlaiSă The impact of large dams on fluvial sedimentation: The Iron Gates Reservoir on the Danube River 41 Jolanta Jóźwik, Dorota DyMek Spatial diversity of ecological stability in different types of spatial units: Case study of Poland 57 Danijel iV aJnšič, David Pintarič, Veno Jaša gruJić, igor ŽiBerna A spatial decision support system for traffic accident prevention in different weather conditions 75 Special issue: Gastronomy, territory and tourism nika raZPOtnik ViSkOVić, Blaž kOMac Gastronomy tourism: A brief introduction 95 Maja tOPOle, Primož PiPan, Primož gašPerič, Matjaž geršič, Peter kuMer Culinary events in the Slovenian countryside: Visitors’ motives, satisfaction, and views on sustainability 107 Mateja šMiD hriBar, nika raZPOtnik ViSkOVić, David BOle Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences 127 carlos Ferna nDeS, greg richarDS Developing gastronomic practices in the Minho region of Portugal 141 špela leDinek lOZeJ Labelling, certification and branding of cheeses in the southeastern Alps (Italy, Slovenia): Montasio, Bovec, Tolminc and Mohant cheese 153 Saša POlJak iStenič, Jasna Fakin BaJec Luxury food tour: Perspectives and dilemmas on the »luxurification« of local culture in tourism product 169 nika raZP Ot nik ViSkOVić Gastronomy as a social catalyst in the creative place-making process 185 naslovnica 61-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:05 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 2021 61 1 0 1 0 1 6 6 1 8 5 1 7 7 9 ISSN 1581-6613 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA • GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK • 61-1 • 2021 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 61-1 • 2021 Contents Danijela Strle, Matej Ogrin Latent cooling of atmosphere as an indicator of lowered snow line: Case study from Planica and Vrata valleys 7 Vera graOV ac MataSSi, ana talan Recent marriage and childbearing trends in Croatia and Slovenia: A comparative review 25 constantin niStOr, ionuț SăVuleScu, Bogdan-andrei Mihai, liliana Zaharia, Marina Vîrghileanu, Sorin caraBlaiSă The impact of large dams on fluvial sedimentation: The Iron Gates Reservoir on the Danube River 41 Jolanta Jóźwik, Dorota DyMek Spatial diversity of ecological stability in different types of spatial units: Case study of Poland 57 Danijel iV aJnšič, David Pintarič, Veno Jaša gruJić, igor ŽiBerna A spatial decision support system for traffic accident prevention in different weather conditions 75 Special issue: Gastronomy, territory and tourism nika raZPOtnik ViSkOVić, Blaž kOMac Gastronomy tourism: A brief introduction 95 Maja tOPOle, Primož PiPan, Primož gašPerič, Matjaž geršič, Peter kuMer Culinary events in the Slovenian countryside: Visitors’ motives, satisfaction, and views on sustainability 107 Mateja šMiD hriBar, nika raZPOtnik ViSkOVić, David BOle Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences 127 carlos Ferna nDeS, greg richarDS Developing gastronomic practices in the Minho region of Portugal 141 špela leDinek lOZeJ Labelling, certification and branding of cheeses in the southeastern Alps (Italy, Slovenia): Montasio, Bovec, Tolminc and Mohant cheese 153 Saša POlJak iStenič, Jasna Fakin BaJec Luxury food tour: Perspectives and dilemmas on the »luxurification« of local culture in tourism product 169 nika raZP Ot nik ViSkOVić Gastronomy as a social catalyst in the creative place-making process 185 naslovnica 61-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:05 Page 1 Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021, 127–140 MODELS OF STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN FOOD TOURISM EXPERIENCES Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole Food is an essential part of every tourism experience. TOMO JESENIČNIK 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 127 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences 128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.8756 UDC: 911.373:338.48-6:641/642(4-13) COBISS: 1.01 Mateja Šmid Hribar 1 , Nika Razpotnik Visković 1 , David Bole 1 Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences ABSTRACT: This study explores the role of stakeholders in creating and managing food tourism experi- ences. The main aim was to discover who participates in this process, why, and how. The research is based on interviews and participatory observation of twenty-two case studies mainly located in rural areas in eight Mediterranean countries. The paper focuses on two types of food experience: food events and food services with additional subtypes. The results reveal three models of stakeholder collaboration: one typ- ical for events, one typical for services, and one emphasizing more direct interaction between visitors and local communities. The findings show diversity in the connections among stakeholders, who have different motives and roles in food experiences. KEY WORDS: food tourism, gastronomy tourism, tourism experience, stakeholders, network, collaboration, Mediterranean Modeli sodelovanj deležnikov v kulinarični turistični izkušnji POVZETEK: Študija raziskuje vlogo deležnikov pri ustvarjanju in upravljanju kulinaričnih turističnih izkušenj. Glavni cilj je bil odkriti kdo, zakaj in kako sodeluje v tem procesu. Raziskave temeljijo na intervjujih in opa- zovanju z udeležbo v 22 študijskih primerih v pretežno podeželskih območjih v osmih sredozemskih državah. Osredotočili smo se na dve vrsti izkušenj: kulinarične prireditve in kulinarične storitve z njihovimi dodat- nimi podtipi. Naši rezultati kažejo na tri modele sodelovanja deležnikov: enega, značilnega za dogodke, drugega za storitve in tretjega, ki poudarja bolj neposreden stik med obiskovalci ter lokalno skupnostjo. Ugotovitve kažejo raznolikost povezav med deležniki, ki imajo različne motive in nastopajo v različnih vlogah. KLJUČNE BESEDE: kulinarični turizem, gastronomski turizem, turistična izkušnja, deležniki, mreža, sode- lovanje, Sredozemlje The paper was submitted for publication on June 4 th , 2020. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 4. junija 2020. 1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5445-0865) nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3584-8426) david.bole@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2773-0583) 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 128 1 Introduction Culinary tourism, food tourism, and gastronomy tourism are interchangeable terms associating food and tourism. The term culinary tourism is favored in North America, food tourism in Australia and Asia, and gastronomy tourism in Europe, although it seems that international organizations such as the World Food Travel Organization or the World Tourism Organization (hereafter: UNWTO) seem to prefer food tourism because the terms culinary tourism or gastronomy tourism have an »elitist ring« (Rachão et al. 2019, 35). This paper also uses the term food tourism. Although food is an essential part of every tourism experience, studies and typologies are difficult to come by. In a special report (OCTA & Skift 2015, 4) food tourism is characterized as »any tourism expe- rience in which one learns about, appreciates, and/or consumes food and drink that reflects the local, regional or national cuisine, heritage and culture.« The UNWTO has adopted the definition by Hall and Mitchell (2001), which identified the following activities of food tourism attracting visitors: primary and secondary food producers, food festivals, restaurants and specific locations for food tastings, and experiencing spe- cialist food production. This definition implies that food tourism involves many different stakeholders with different motives and roles in entrepreneurial food networks (Boesen, Sundbo and Sundbo 2016). This paper explores the role of stakeholders in creating and managing food tourism experiences: who participates in this process, why, and how. It investigates food tourism experiences in the Mediterranean area and addresses the following research questions: • Do different types of food experiences stimulate the creation of various stakeholder networks? Who are the stakeholders collaborating within food experiences, and what is their role in a specific type? • Which motives drive stakeholders to connect and set up a new food experience? What are the strengths and potential threats in their collaboration? The objective of this paper is thus to identify stakeholders involved in different types of food experi- ence, identify their motives for cooperation, and explore their role in the network. 2 Background Rural areas are well-positioned for cultural and food tourism. In addition to distinct cultural and social capital, they combine natural environments suited for tourism opportunities (Bole, Šmid Hribar and Pipan 2017). Food tourism in rural areas is increasingly being marketed with the goal of »reconnecting« with nature, resilience to globalization, a search for authenticity, freshness, and support for local producers and local products (Sidali, Kastenholz and Bianchi 2015; Ledinek Lozej 2020, 2021). In a way, food has become an ideal endogenous resource of rural territorial development, in which the knowledge of local gastronomy is either rediscovered or newly invented for economic gain or social wellbeing (Ray 1998). Food has become an attraction in its own right and a motivation for travel. Food tourism also depends on consumers’ socioeconomic characteristics, especially their educational profile and age group (Vuksanović et al. 2019). Hall and Sharples (2003) state that a visit to a restaurant is not food tourism in itself, but the desire to experience a particular type of food or the produce of a specific region, or to taste dishes prepared by a particular chef, could be motives for such travel. There is no definite typology of food tourism expe- riences; however, Smith and Xiao (2008) present a typology of food tourism resources, which could serve in understanding the variety of tourism experiences based on them (Table 1). They are divided into four groups: facilities, events, activities, and organizations. Certain resources fit better into a more experience- based economic model. In general, one can distinguish between three types, or »generations,« of research on food tourism expe- riences (Richards 2015). The first generation is where the main topic was how to engage consumers by designing experience elements to make tourism products that engage all five senses. The second genera- tion of research is marked by the emergence of the »foodie« – a conscious and experienced consumer, driven by a search for »authentic« and »exotic« culinary experiences. In the third generation of research, the tourist is seen as a co-creator of culinary experience with direct interaction between the consumer and the resi- dents (cooking classes at home, tours at food markets with local producers, etc.). This also requires great interconnectedness of local producers; in this vein, Richards (2015) advocates a more experience- and net- work-based approach instead of the atomized view of tourism gastronomy. Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 129 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 129 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences Another attempt to classify food tourism was provided by Bessière (2013), who linked gastronomy to heritage. According to her, gastronomy heritage is understood as collective memory and a cultural code connected with particular production and food modes, rooted in a territory, space, and time. Bessière dis- tinguished three basic forms of gastronomy heritage. The first is the traditional or artisanal form, in which stakeholders aim to conserve or preserve traditional heritage and have a strong territorial attachment. Second is the industrial form of gastronomy heritage promotion, in which heritage is promoted by one iconic or dominant production, such as a type of cheese or other products. The third form is heritage promoted around rural enterprises, in which new innovative tourist activities are centered on local producers and their farming activities. How different stakeholders are engaged in the creation of food experience can be understood through the supply chain theory, which »refers to the body of concepts, models, and relationships describing the linkages of producers and distributors in the context of the creation of a commodity« (Smith and Xiao 2008, 291). According to Atkin and Affonso (2004), each stakeholder enters the initiative with its level of contribution (high or low), level of risk (high or low), and level of expectations regarding the profit (high or low, and short- or long-term). Different expectations lead to more difficult management of the food experience and require a more skilled leader to manage potential conflict situations. Boesen, Sundbo, and Sundbo (2016) argue that the success of the collaborations within a network depends strongly on the action and attitude logics of actors, depending on their motivation to join the initiative. Actors’ actions are determined by either one logic or several logics in which one is dominant (Thornton and Ocasio 2008; Cloutier and Langley 2013). According to Boesen, Sundbo and Sundbo (2016; Table 2), it is not unusual for actors to follow different logics in different situations (networks or cooperation ini- tiatives) or to change their perspective at different stages of cooperation, especially in challenging situations such as resolving disagreements. If network members are able to adjust and shift between different log- ics, the initiative is easier to manage (Boesen, Sundbo and Sundbo 2016). If the pluralism of logic is too obvious and there is a lack of dynamism in actors’ behavior (willingness to compromise), initiatives need to undergo significant organizational changes or they fall apart. The success of the food experience thus depends significantly on the compatibility of the actor’s motives because this determines their ability to positively collaborate within the network (Mei, Lerfald and Brata 2017). Finally, it must be stressed that the stakeholders’ motives for collaboration in creating food experiences are not only economic in nature. In cases of other tourism activities, the main motivation for stakeholders’ 130 Table 1: Food tourism resources and products (adapted from Smith and Xiao 2008). Facilities Activities Events Organizations • Buildings/structures: • Consumption: dining, picnics, • Consumer shows: food and • Restaurant classifications or food-processing facilities, food purchase, pick-your-own wine shows, kitchen shows, certifications (Michelin, etc.), wineries, breweries, farmers’ operations product launches food/wine classifications and markets, stores, museums, • Touring: wine, agricultural • Festivals: food or wine festivals, associations (slow food, etc.) restaurants regions, city food districts harvest festivals • Land uses: farms, orchards, • Education/observation: cooking vineyards, food streets classes, wine tastings, chef • Routes: wine routes, food competitions, reading food routes, gourmet trails magazines and books Table 2: Overview of action and attitude logics and their components (Boltanski and Thevenot 1999; Boesen, Sundbo and Sundbo 2016). Logic Higher common principle and motives Worth attributes inspired Creativity, ingenuity, nonconformity Passionate, spontaneous Domestic Reputation, authority, hierarchy Discreet, trustworthy, honest Civic Collective interest, solidarity, equality Unitary, official Opinion Recognition, renown Reputed, visible Market Price, purchasing power Desirable, value industrial Productivity, efficiency, expertise Functional, reliable 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 130 collaboration is in local community-building, personal empowerment, and assuming responsibility for their own (local) development (Bole, Pipan and Komac 2013). In those cases, stakeholders go beyond only eco- nomic competitiveness and collaborate to pursue common principles and motives as well (Šmid Hribar and Ledinek Lozej 2013). 3 Methods This study analyzed twenty-two food experiences (Figure 1), mainly located in rural areas in eight Mediterranean countries. Sixteen cases were set up before the MEDFEST project (MEDFEST – MED culinary heritage experiences: How to create sustainable tourist destinations) in 2017, and six of them were newly created as a result of the same project during 2018 and 2019. 3.1 Existing food tourism experiences In selecting the sixteen food experiences for this study, the availability of data and accessibility of stake- holders for interviews were considered. The goal was to identify diverse types of food experiences (see 3.3; Capatti 2012; Richards 2012; Kumer et al. 2019) in eight Mediterranean countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain). For each selected experience, four to eight in-depth inter- views were conducted with organizers and other involved stakeholders (farmers, local tourism authorities, representatives of associations, and others). The questionnaire was structured in such a way as to collect data about the content of the culinary experience, territorial anchoring of the experience, organization of the stakeholders, and inclusion of experience in existing policies and strategies. Interviews were carried out between June and August 2017, and they were written into stories by the project partners (Kumer, Šmid Hribar and Razpotnik Visković 2018). 3.2 New food tourism experiences Six food experiences in this study are new ones. They were created in 2018 and 2019 as part of the MEDFEST project. The process has been followed from the beginning, gathering information about the content of the experience and tracking the involvement of the stakeholders. 3.3 Typology of food tourism experiences For the content analysis of food experiences, which tried to establish distinct types of food experiences, the following typology was used: • Events related to food: • Single-activity events (usually focused on one specific theme and one place); • Combined-activity events (a broader theme, various locations and multiple places in a wider region, throughout the year or season). • Services related to food: • Place-based services (linked to one location; e.g., a kitchen for workshops); • Tours (linked to several locations organized in an integrated activity). 3.4 Content analysis and models Content analysis of food experiences was performed based on interviews, study visits, and detailed pro- ject reports. The following information indicating the main characteristics of the food experiences was obtained: inclusion of the stakeholders and the main holder(s), their motives and roles in the network, approaches taken, and type of financial support. The term holder refers to the institution, association, entre- preneur, network, or other entity that organizes a food tourism experience, and can be public, private or mixed when there are more than one holder involved. Based on collected data for previous and new food Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 131 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 131 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences experiences, an overview table of twenty-two food experiences was created (Table 3) as well as a matrix of stakeholders’ roles and networks (Figure 2). In addition, the models of stakeholder networks were created with a classification of experiences based on who the holder of the experience is and who participates (which group of stakeholders), what the main actions are in creating the experience, and what their role is in the experience. 4 Results 4.1 Types of food tourism experiences and stakeholders involved The food tourism experiences analyzed (hereafter: experiences) can mainly be divided into two main and distinguishing types, which can be further subdivided into two subtypes. Of the twenty-two experi- ences, almost half (10; 45%) are food events, which were divided into events with single activities (6; 27%) and events with combined activities (4; 18%). The remaining experiences (12; 55%) were classified as food- related services; seven of them (32%) fit into place-based services, and five (23%) exist as tours. Sixteen experiences were created earlier, and six were set up during the project, which made it possible to gain insight into their creation. All the latter experiences received start-up investments. In the older experi- ences, the food events observed depend on longer financial support and are all financed by public authorities (see Table 3 and Figure 2). On the other hand, all but one of the food services (the Castelnaudary Cassoulet Route) received start-up investment, but they can continue with their financial resources. Half of the cre- ators of food services invested their own resources. Interestingly, the majority of events (8; 80%) are managed by more than one holder usually two to three public or public and private institutions are involved in a top-down approach. Exceptions are the event Sant Ermengol Fair, where the initiative came from a citizen, but was later led by the municipality and there- fore classified as a »mixed approach,« and the Onion Festival, which was initiated and led by a local association. In contrast, most of the services (9; 75%) are managed by a single, often private holder using a bottom-up approach. 132 Xatheri Festivol Pie Festival Onion Festival From Farm to Fork Tourist Farm Butul Homestead Belajevi Sant Ermengol Fair Istrian True Days Eating Algarve Food Tour Aromatic & Healing Herbs Mar i Munt Culinary OÄers Welcome to the Countryside Castelnaudary Cassoulet Route Historical Commandaria Museum Cretan Miracle Diet and Cuisine Mushrooms and Wild Herbs Kras/Carso Food Tour Brkini Fruit Road Festival Honey Routes in Rural Larnaca Cooking Classes with Local Products Gastronomic rutes Menja't l’ Alt Urgell SPAIN TURKEY FRANCE ITALY ROMANIA GERMANY BULGARIA SERBIA AUSTRIA HUNGARY CZECH REP . POLAND GREECE PORTUGAL SLOV AKIA ALBANIA SLOVENIA CYPRUS MALTA Content by: Mateja Šmid Hribar Map by: Manca Volk Bahun Sources: Natural Earth data © 2020, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute 0 200 400 km Legend Food tourism events Food tourism services Figure 1: Locations of food tourism experiences in eight Mediterranean countries explored in this paper. 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 132 Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 133 Table 3: Food experiences by country, year of establishment, type and number of holders, type of financial support, and approach. Type, number Name Country Estab lished Type and number of holder Financial support Approach Events (10) Single activity (6) Aromatic & Healing Herbs Cyprus 2008 Mixed (3) Longer/ongoing Top-down Festivol italy 2006 Mixed (2) Longer/ongoing Top-down Sant Ermengol Fair Spain 1995 Public (1) Longer/ongoing Mixed Mushrooms and Wild Herbs* italy 1994† Mixed (2) Longer/ongoing Top-down Onion Festival italy 1981 Mixed (3) Longer/ongoing Bottom-up Pie Festival Greece 2012 Private (1) Longer/ongoing Top-down Combined activities (4) Welcome to the Countryside Spain 2016 Public (2) Longer/ongoing Top-down Brkini Fruit Road Festival Slovenia 2015 Mixed (6) Longer/ongoing Top-down Honey Routes in Rural Larnaca* Cyprus 2014 Mixed (2) Startup investments Top-down istrian Truffle Days Croatia 1994 Public (3) Longer/ongoing Top-down Services (12) Place-based (7) Cooking Classes with Local Products Croatia 2015 Public (1) Startup investments Top-down Cretan Miracle Diet and Cuisine Greece 2013 Private (1) No public support Bottom-up From Farm to Fork* Croatia 2019 Public (1) Startup investments Top-down Historical Commandaria Museum Cyprus 2010 Mixed (2) Startup investments Bottom-up Homestead Belajevi Slovenia 2013 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up Tourist Farm Butul Slovenia 1997 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up Xatheri Greece 2014 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up Tour (5) Castelnaudary Cassoulet Route France 2007 Public (2) Longer/ongoing Top-down Eating Algarve Food Tour Portugal 2016 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up Kras/Carso Food Tour* Slovenia 2019 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up Mar i Munt Culinary offers* France 2019 Public (2) Startup investments Top-down Gastronomy Routes Menja’t l’Alt Urgell* Spain 2019 Private (1) Startup investments Bottom-up * Experiences developed within the MEDFEST project † first developed in 1994, improved in 2018 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 133 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences 134 The main stakeholders involved in Mediterranean food experiences are public institutions, food producers, and private holders of food experiences. In-depth interviews showed that tourism and rural development agencies as part of public authorities are the driving force in the creation of food events, and that entre- preneurs, who are not necessarily farmers, play a significant role in the creation of food services. However, many other stakeholders are involved in the creation and organization of food experiences. They have dif- ferent motives and roles: they organize, manage, finance, promote, or only participate with their services or products. The following stakeholders were identified (Figure 2): • Public bodies are usually concerned with government, tourism, or development and are active at the local, regional, or national level (e.g., the local council, municipality, tourism organization, or regional development agency); their role is particularly crucial at food events, where they provide funding and publicity and are often the first initiator of the event. • Local agricultural producers either act individually or are organized in associations and cooperatives (e.g., farmers, bean producers, cheese makers, winemakers, beekeepers, fishermen, herb farmers, duck farmers, etc.). They supply the main ingredients and food-related products, and sometimes they initi- ate and finance food events. • Private food tourism experience creators are entrepreneurs (sometimes a family) or associations, some- times with a professional background in gastronomy or cultural heritage, but this is not necessary. They are central to the food services they create but are also often involved in food events. • Supporting experts and professionals (e.g., chefs, nutrition experts, brand makers, travel guides, or text writers) are essential because they often add a special value to individual experiences to make them more attractive. • Local private companies, small shops, restaurants, and hotels (e.g., dairies, truffle businesses, can- neries, etc.) offer products and additional services; in rare cases they also finance food experiences. • Tour operators and travel agencies are particularly involved in providing services in less accessible areas. • The research sector and schools are crucial for the transfer of knowledge, learning, and development. • Various chambers (e.g., chambers of commerce, trades, crafts, and agriculture) are also involved. • Other stakeholders involved include artists, active citizens, the press, protected areas, and museums. Three models of stakeholder networking were identified and defined (Figure 3). In Model 1, one or more public institutions that are already linked to each other and already acting as a driving force for development choose a topic that is significant for the area, and they achieve a common vision for orga- nization a food event. In later stages, they invite other stakeholders to participate, thereby expanding the network. In contrast, the model for services (Model 2) involves an entrepreneur creating an experience and making unique agreements with stakeholders that offer products or services. Key services could be based on the entrepreneurs’ knowledge, products, or location, or they might outsource to external stakeholders. The analysis revealed another approach to creating food services, which is represented in Model 3. In this case, it is an existing group of private food experience creators and/or local food producers and accom- modation providers that start creating new food services based on their previous collaboration and mutual trust. Based on the search for synergies among themselves, they create a range of food services arranged in different tourism activities. They might invite other national and international stakeholders to collab- orate, but they tend to be less open than the private entrepreneurs in Model 2. Because the private creators of the food experience in Models 2 and 3 invest their own resources, it is of great importance whether they can obtain additional funds for advertising and joint marketing, often provided by public authorities. 4.2 Motivation behind different types of food experiences The motives for launching the food experience were explained by the holders during interviews; they explained how the food experience began and how a stakeholder network was built around it. The motives were thus identified at the level of the food experience and not for each participating stakeholder, where differences might occur. The motives of different stakeholders may vary depending on the nature of the food experience and the related network, which means that the same stakeholders play different roles and have different 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 134 Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 135 Figure 2: Stakeholders involved in creating, financing, and organizing selected food tourism experiences. Figure 3: Models of stakeholder networks.p p. 136 motives in different food experiences (Figure 4). The most common identified motive for initiating food experiences by public authorities or tourism organizations is to increase the visibility of the tourist destinations, to safeguard heritage, to create networks with links between service providers and local pro- ducers, and to prolong tourist activities into the off-season period. Networking enables them to offer a common narrative and contribute to the diversification of tourist products and development of regional tourist ser- vices. The main motivation for an association of local producers or cooperatives to hold a food event is to participate in the effective promotion and wide recognition of a specific local product, diet, or culture. In the case of private entrepreneurs, direct economic benefit is the main motive, but not the only one. Through stories created around food experiences, many private holders educate visitors about the importance and valorization of food resources as stated by Topole et al. (2021). Promotion and wider recognition are also crucial aspects for them, and so it is important to include them in preexisting websites, leaflets, and joint market presentations supported by tourism organizations and public authorities. 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 135 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences 136 Tourism organisation Promotion + financial support Organizers + financiers Organizers + financiers Organizers + financiers Municipality Associations Development agency Local producers Research institutions, schools Create packages of food service Prepare a programe/service/products based on their own resources Mini network of private food experience creators and/or local food producers/ accomodation providers Model 3 Tourism organisation Promotion + financial support Municipality Associations Supporting professionals (designer, guide, photographer…) Supporting professionals (designer, guide, photographer…) Development agency Local producers Research institutions, schools Companies/tour operators/ restaurants/hotels Companies/tour operators/ restaurants/hotels Create a food service Get connected in new networks Prepare a programe/service/products based on their own resources Private food experience creator/ development agency Model 2 Volunteering, providing services and products Active citizens Additional associations Experts Private food experience holders Local producers Press/media Companies/ tour operators/ restaurants/hotels Create a common vision of food event Mini network of public authorities, tourism/development organization, association of producers Model 1 Legend: Holder of the experinece Activity Role Invite others and organize event Several internal meetings Several internal meetings fo find synergies 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 136 5 Discussion The investigation of the selected cases of food tourism experiences revealed that they were created for dif- ferent purposes, by different initiators, and for different target groups. The study identified two significantly different types with four subtypes. This typology can be closely related to the three generations of food tourism experiences presented by Richards (2015), in which the first generation can be associated with events (e.g., Festivol), the second generation with more personalized food experiences, such as services located in existing restaurants, development centers, and similar venues (e.g., Cooking Classes with Local Products), and the third generation with services that take place at home (e.g., Tourist Farm Butul, Belajevi Homestead, and Xatheri) and food tours for which direct interaction between the consumer and local producers prevails (e.g., Gastronomy Routes Menja’t l’Alt Urgell, Kras/Carso Food Tour). Food tours are a mixture of more tra- ditional tourist services, increasingly co-created by consumers, and are therefore a hybrid or mixture of the first and second generation, combining elements of the third generation of food experiences. The two main types of food experiences differ in terms of their motives, type of holders, and approaches, as presented in Chapter 4. It seems that food events are used when mostly public institutions, sometimes together with local associations, try to raise the visibility of local products (e.g., agricultural products) that are inherently linked to traditional agri-food productions and local identity. It is widely assumed that such recognition and valorization of local products will lead to favorable economic consequences in the long run – first, by increasing the added value of the products themselves and the overall tourist draw result- ing from these products, and, second, by increasing sales of these products, not only during the event at the venue, but also later (e.g., during a revisit to the location) or elsewhere (e.g., in supermarkets where this particular product can be purchased). In the case of services, on the other hand, organizers expect short- term and immediate economic benefits from dealing with visitors. Richards (2015) already noted that creating and managing food experiences requires a complex network of different stakeholders. This analysis sup- ports this argument because all experiences involve a large number of differently organized stakeholders (different roles), simplified here into three main models of stakeholder networks (Figure 3). According Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 137 Networking, creating partnership among actors Recognition, promotion,valorization Safeguarding heritage Inspired Domestic Civic Opinion Market Industrial LOGIC Knowledge transfer, educating Community building Creating links between service providers & visitors Support for local producers Raising awareness about cultural offer Additional channel for selling products Selling service MAIN MOTIVES Figure 4: Motives for initiating the food experience. 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 137 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences to the analysis, stakeholders connect with each other in different ways. This interaction depends on the type of food experience and the initial investment required (time, resources, etc.). From an organizational point of view, it is usually more demanding to organize a food event than food service, but an event only takes place once a year, whereas a service should be carried out or offered as often as possible. As shown in Figure 3 (Model 1), public institutions are more involved in the design of food events. The creation process is based on smaller, already existing institutional networks in which the holders have a common vision about the food experience and also share similar expectations. From this top-down posi- tion, they later invite other stakeholders to participate. On the other hand, food services are mainly organized by entrepreneurs. In this case (Model 2) as well, at least initially, communication flows in one direction, from the entrepreneur to other invited stakeholders. Over time, the entrepreneurs create their networks, work within these networks on various interrelated topics, and even exchange guests (e.g., Tourist Farm Butul and Belajevi Homestead; for more details, see Topole and Pipan 2020). The most complex and multilateral network (Model 3) is created when the holder is a network or group of highly motivated entrepreneurs, members of a local association, or cooperatives, who are networked among themselves, seeking synergies and able to offer unique food experience(s) due to their diversity. Such a net- work has been observed in the case of the Kras/Carso Food Tour, in which two stakeholders offer traditional food and two modern cuisines, another two stakeholders are wine producers, and one of them is very good at giving cooking classes. Such an approach can strengthen resilience among food experience holders, which is particularly important in a time of a crisis (such as the Covid-19 crisis). Even if they may not receive guests for a certain period of time, they can focus on the production of homemade products, agriculture and wine, virtual cooking classes, and so on. With this type of networking, selected stakeholders in the area no longer compete with each other but start to work together by creating fair opportunities for every- one in the network. The obstacle to such an approach, however, is that those involved are less open to external stakeholders when they need someone to coordinate and sell the food service they offer. In some of the cases observed in Slovenia, it seems extremely difficult or even impossible to join a network if you are not invited. The adaptability and resilience of the stakeholders engaged in food tourism are also reflected in their different and changing motives for participating in the networks. Taking a closer look at the producers gathered around the Kras/Carso Food Tour, their involvement can be observed in various food events in the region, where they share responsibility and commitment with many other regional tourism stakeholders. In this role, they raise the visibility of their destination, local characteristics, local products, and also their own products. However, involvement in the tour means more individual involvement and investment (in facilities, advertising, building sales channels, etc.), obliging those involved to bear direct costs of either success or failure. Further synthesizing types of collaboration in stakeholder networks, two types can be distinguished. The first one is more hierarchical and formal in the sense that a stakeholder is seen as a »leader« that makes connections and invites other participants based on his or her motives in creating food experiences. Usually, the top-down approach is used, and often a leading stakeholder is a public institution (e.g., Honey Routes in Rural Larnaca or From Farm to Fork). The second type of collaboration is more informal; there is no clear leader, and decision-making within a group is consensual. This is more common when the creators of the experience are members of associations or cooperatives such as the Kras/Carso Food Tour. Another important aspect of collaboration is when the existing networks are open to new stakeholders to join the existing initiatives. Again, some are more closed and operate within a well-established group of stakeholders with roles already assigned, and other experiences are open to stakeholders in the sense that they can freely join the network if they contribute to the experience (see Table 4). It remains to be explored which types 138 Table 4: Some examples of the type of collaboration and openness of stakeholder networks in selected food tourism experiences. Name of the experience Type of collaboration Openness Honey Routes in Rural Larnaca Formal / hierarchical Open Gastronomy Routes Menja’t l’Alt Urgell informal / consensus Open From Farm to Fork Formal / hierarchical Closed Kras/Carso Food Tour informal / consensus Closed 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 138 are more suitable for creating successful experiences in food tourism that contribute to local sustainable development. However, it is speculated that more informal and consensus-building decision-making and openness to other stakeholders can facilitate communication between stakeholders and reduce tensions. As stated by Boesen, Sundbo, and Sundbo (2016), this may ultimately lead to a better-fitting logic between stakeholders and better collaboration between them. The key message is that the mode of stakeholder collaboration greatly depends on the stakeholders’ motives and attitudes toward the development of local tourism. If the main motive is more general and long-term (e.g., promotion of the destination in general, or raising awareness about culinary heritage), the type of stakeholders involved and their ways of connecting are completely different: they rely more on cen- tral, top-down, and planned communication, usually initiated by a public institution that »invites« local producers to participate. If the motives are more specific and short-term (e.g., an additional channel for selling agricultural products or services), the stakeholders usually act in a more consensual, bottom-up process and can ensure more sustainable activation and enhancement of local food resources. This con- firms findings by Šmid Hribar and Ledinek Lozej (2013), who claimed that collaboration between various stakeholders, especially those with knowhow, can effectively secure, activate, and enhance financial and human local resources. 6 Conclusion This paper provides valuable insights into the origins and relationships between stakeholders involved in food experiences in the Mediterranean area and contributes to research on sustainable development of rural areas based on culinary heritage. Based on twenty-two food tourism experiences, three main conclusions can be drawn. First, by using top-down or bottom-up approaches, stakeholders tend to connect differently within networks. This is highly dependent on 1) types of experience and 2) the stakeholders’ motives and expec- tations. Stakeholders can be flexible: in one case they may be a holder of an experience that invites other stakeholders, whereas in another they only participate in the presentation of their services and products. Second, the motives for creating food tourism experiences are numerous and depend on the type of stakeholders involved. Motives range from raising awareness, safeguarding cultural heritage, communi- ty building, and knowledge transfer – all of which are significantly linked to food events organized by public institutions – to networking, finding additional sales channels, and extending tourist attractions into the off-season, which is usually presented among service providers and local producers. Third, this study identified three models of stakeholder networks, observing the hierarchy of stakeholders and their role in creating and managing experiences. The models suggest different forms of collaboration and indicate the directions in which collaboration can develop in future food tourism experiences. In Model 3, in which a holder is a small existing network of entrepreneurs and/or members of the local association and cooperatives, it was observed that collaboration seems to be less open to other stakeholders in the local area, at least in the beginning. Therefore, it needs to be further investigated under which conditions, when, and how stakeholders in the existing network would open up and be willing to involve external stakeholders in their food experiences, and how this would contribute to local territorial development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge financial support from the European Regional Development Fund for funding the project MEDFEST (MED culinary heritage experiences: how to create sustainable tourist destinations) and financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101). 7 References Atkin, T., Affonso, J. 2004: Wine supply chain management. Wine: A Global Business. Elmsford. Bessière, J. 2013: ‘Heritagisation’ , a challenge for tourism promotion and regional development: an example of food heritage. Journal of Heritage Tourism 8-4. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.770861 Boesen, M., Sundbo, D., Sundbo, J. 2016: Local food and tourism: an entrepreneurial network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and T ourism 17-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1218629 Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-1, 2021 139 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 139 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, David Bole, Models of stakeholder collaboration in food tourism experiences Bole, D., Pipan, P ., Komac, B. 2013: Cultural values and sustainable rural development: A brief introduction. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53401 Bole, D., Šmid Hribar, M., Pipan, P . 2017: Participatory research in community development: A case study of creating cultural tourism products. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica 52-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/ 10.14712/23361980.2017.13 Boltanski, L., Thevenot, L. 1999: The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory 2-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136843199002003010 Capatti, A. 2012: Educating tourists in the art of gastronomy and culture in Italy. Food and the Tourism Experience, OEDC Studies on Tourism. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264171923-6-en Cloutier, C., Langley, A. 2013: The logic of institutional logics: Insights from French pragmatist sociology. Journal of Management Inquiry 22-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612469057 Hall, C. M., Mitchell, R. 2001: Wine and food tourism. Special Interest Tourism: Context and cases. Milton. Hall, C. M., Sharples, L. 2003: The consumption of experiences or the experience of consumption? Food Tourism Around The World Development, Management and Markets. Oxford. Kumer, P ., Pipan, P ., Šmid Hribar, M., Razpotnik Visković, N. 2019: The role of actors’ cooperation, local anchoring and innovation in creating culinary tourism experiences in the rural Slovenian Mediterranean. Geografski vestnik 91-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV91201 Kumer, P ., Šmid Hribar, M., Razpotnik Visković, N. (eds.) 2018: Catalogue of good practices of sustainable culinary heritage experiences in Mediterranean Area. Ljubljana. Internet: https://omp.zrc-sazu.si/ zalozba/catalog/book/900 (1. 3. 2020). Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2020: Znamčenje tolminskega sira. Traditiones 49-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ Traditio2020490304 Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2021: Labelling, certification and branding of cheeses in the southeastern Alps (Italy, Slovenia): Montasio, Bovec, Tolminc and Mohant cheese. Acta geographica Slovenica 61-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS.8746 Mei, X. Y ., Lerfald, M., Brata, H. O. 2017: Networking and collaboration between tourism and agriculture: food tourism experiences along the National T ourist Routes of Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 17-1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1262514 OCTA & Skift. The rise of food tourism: Special report. Toronto, 2015. Internet: https:/ /ontarioculinary.com/ the-rise-of-food-tourism-trend-report (27. 3. 2020). Rachão, S., Breda, Z., Fernandes, C., Joukes, V . 2019: Food tourism and regional development: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Tourism Research 21. Ray, C. 1998: Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 38-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00060 Richards, G. 2012: An overview of food and tourism trends and policies. Food and the Tourism Experience, OEDC Studies on Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264171923-6-en Richards, G. 2015: Evolving gastronomic experiences: From food to foodies to foodscapes. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism 1-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/216929715X14298190828796 Sidali, K. L., Kastenholz, E., Bianchi, R. 2015: Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: Combining the intimacy model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23-8,9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.836210 Smith, S. L. J., Xiao, H. 2008: Culinary tourism supply chains: A preliminary examination. Journal of Travel Research 46-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506303981 Šmid Hribar, M., Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2013: The role of identifying and managing cultural values in rural devel- opment. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53402 Thornton, P . H., Ocasio, W . 2008: Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Los Angeles. T opole, M., Pipan, P . 2020: Med tradicijami in inovacijami: Butični kulinarični turizem v zaledju sredozemskih turističnih krajev. Traditiones 49-3. DOI: 10.3986/Traditio2020490305 Topole, M., Pipan, P ., Gašperič, P ., Geršič, M., Kumer, P . 2021: Culinary Events in the Slovenian Countryside: Visitors’ Motives, Satisfaction, and Views on Sustainability. Acta geographica Slovenica 61-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7617 Vuksanović, N. D., Tešanović, D., Kalenjuk, B., Portić, M. 2019. Gender, age and education differences in food consumption within a region: Case studies of Belgrade and Novi Sad (Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5160 140 61-1-special issue_acta49-1.qxd 28.7.2021 8:11 Page 140