6 Cross-Border Tourism-Policy Coordination in the Pacific Northwest Economic Region

Patricia Dewey Lambert

The economic impact of the travel and tourism sector is astounding. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the sector accounted for 10.4 percent of global gross domestic product in 2018, resulting in 319 million jobs—or 10 percent of global employment. Within this massive economic sector, North America accounted for $1.9 trillion in tourism spending, comprising 8.2 percent of the world market. The tourism industry is rapidly expanding due to increases in leisure time and discretionary income, less expensive travel, and travel information readily available on the Internet. It is also important to note that a large majority of international travel takes place within travellers’ own regions (intra-regional tourism), which represents 80 percent of all tourism (WTTC 2019). Intra-regional tourism has proven to be resilient in times of economic downturn and when foreign travellers shift their visitation patterns.

Yet despite this, tourism as an economic sector struggles with being marginalized by policy-makers and the general public due to lack of understanding about the inherent complexity of this industry. Tourism involves travelling as well as the provision of associated products, services, and facilities. As such, tourism is “an amalgam of industry sectors—a demand force and supply market, a personal experience and a complicated international phenomenon” (Edgell et al. 2008, 2). And the impact of travel and tourism far exceeds its economic impact. Tourism is significant to nations around the world for its potential to contribute to domestic policy goals, including employment, economic growth and development, peace and security, cultural preservation, and environmental protection (UNWTO 2018, 3). When properly developed, tourism offers a sustainable alternative for an industrial region’s communities to participate in as they evolve from natural resources and mining sectors, say, or from carbon-intensive industries. Unique and authentic experiences are indigenous by nature, and as such cannot be outsourced. In addition, as the tourism sector develops, a phenomenon referred to as “amenity migration” occurs—locals are able to benefit from the tourism attractions and access to more services like hotels, restaurants, cultural amenities, and local transportation options.

Around the world, a strong tourism industry needs strong tourism policy. Public policy may best be understood as a process resulting in a purposive set of political actions concerning the selection of goals, the methods for addressing them, and the allocation of necessary resources for accomplishing them. It is the sum of government activities and decisions, whether acting directly or through agents. When this course of action involves the plans that a particular country, region, locality, or destination intends to take when developing or promoting tourism, this is referred to as tourism policy. Best practices in tourism-policy development include a focus on destination marketing, planning, and sustainability, as well as being supportive of long-term goals in economic, environmental, and social development (Biederman et al. 2007; Edgell 1999; Goeldner and Ritchie 2006).

This chapter discusses policy developments in regional tourism in the cross-border Pacific Northwest. Within this “mega-region” of North America, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER) has existed since 1991 as a regional institution that provides a forum for binational information exchange and policy coordination. The PNWER is comprised of public- and private- sector representation from the ten states, provinces, and territories: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. The PNWER is at the forefront of institutions that have developed in the context of cross-border North American regionalism over the past several decades (Policy Research Institute 2005), and is viewed as “the gold standard in advancing US-Canada relations” (PNWER 2017, 4).

The main body of ongoing work within PNWER takes place within working groups, of which there were nineteen at the time of this writing. Working groups provide multiple well-organized forums within which leaders from the public and private sectors can meet on a regular basis to share information, discuss challenges and opportunities, and articulate problem-solving strategies. Figure 6.1 below offers a visual representation of the PNWER working-group structure.

Working Groups focus on key regional issues throughout the year. They are led by a public sector and private sector co-chair, along with one lead PNWER staff member, and include public, private, academic and non-profit stakeholders. […] Action items are developed by working groups at PNWER’s two annual meetings. They represent concrete actions the working group will take to advance the priorities of the group. These Action Items are approved by the Executive Committee. Action Items constitute the working groups’ and PNWER’s priority work through the year. (PNWER 2017, 18)

images — **Figure 6.1. pnwer Working-Group Structure.**

*Source:* www.pnwer.org/working-groups.html.

One PNWER working group focuses on tourism. This chapter addresses processes and outcomes of PNWER regional-policy cooperation in the tourism sector, focusing on the how more than on the what. Insight into the structure, actions, and decisions of the PNWER tourism working group offers excellent understanding of how an effective framework for ground-up policy agenda setting and policy formulation can be structured. The chapter begins with an overview of the tourism industry throughout the region, and then offers introductory information about the system of regional governance that exists within PNWER. The chapter then turns to an in-depth discussion of the work and impact of PNWER’s tourism working group in regional-policy issue identification, agenda setting, and policy formulation. Analysis proceeds by using the conceptual lens of the advocacy coalition framework (discussed below) to better understand the role and function of the working group in policy cooperation. The chapter concludes with several recommendations to further develop the PNWER tourism group as an advocacy coalition, seeking to build the tourism sector as a whole throughout the cross-border region.

Tourism in the Cross-Border Economy of the Pacific Northwest

At each summer’s PNWER annual summit, Destination Greater Victoria staff present the annual “PNWER Tourism Dashboard.” The most recent of these publicly available on the PNWER website, from 2019, provides a concise overview of the economic impact of tourism throughout the region (see figs. 6.2 and 6.3). In 2018, tourism accounted for 779,530 jobs across the ten PNWER jurisdictions, and a total of 188,471,730 visitors spent roughly $71.4 billion in the region’s economy. Comparability of the data included in the annual dashboard is difficult because each jurisdiction is responsible for how it collects, analyzes, and presents its data. This results in significant variation in the figures included. For example, the extent of business and conference travel included in these annual figures varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and other anomalies exist—such as Idaho’s inclusion of day trips in its visitation numbers. There also is no data available on the percentage of each jurisdiction’s tourism expenditures that are committed to cross-border joint marketing efforts. The PNWER tourism working group is aware of the limitations of the data, and is seeking to develop more consistency in reporting so that the data is more reliably comparable.

Even when interpreted as a general overview of the tourism sector, the data presented in figures 6.2 and 6.3 suggest that there is little correlation between the population of the region’s ten jurisdictions and the relative levels of tourism-related employment and expenditure. For example, visitor volume appears to be higher relative to the population in three of the four US jurisdictions, especially Idaho and Montana. Visitor expenditures are proportionally higher to the population in the US jurisdictions, especially in Montana. Expenditure-to-visitor ratios vary considerably; they are comparatively high in the Northwest Territories and Alaska; above average in Washington, British Columbia, Yukon Territories, and Oregon; and below average in Montana, Alberta, Idaho, and Saskatchewan.

Each of the ten states, provinces, and territories engaged in PNWER has its own tourism councils, agencies, or ministries that promote tourism in the state/province/territory, cities, and in rural settings. The region’s largest urban centres are clustered only a few hours apart from each other in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor, but many other cities (such as Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Boise, and Anchorage) also possess a strong tourism draw and serve as regional centres. When prospective tourists think of this part of North America, however, they generally tend to think of the magnificent natural landscape, the rugged western frontier experience, and Indigenous cultures. Table 6.1 below lists the national parks, nationally designated historical sites, and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites found throughout the region. As is evident in the figure, many national parks and heritage sites cross the borders of the region’s states, provinces, and territory. Strong sub-sectors and sub-regions for tourism can be easily identified within PNWER, including the following:

Table 6.1. National Parks, National Heritage Destinations, and unesco World Heritage Sites in pnwer Jurisdictions

State, Province, or Territory	UNESCO World Heritage Sites	National Park (np) National Preserve (Preserve) National Monument (nm) National Recreation Area (nra)

Alaska	Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/ Tatschenshini-Alsek	Aniakchak (nm … Preserve) Bering Land Bridge (Preserve) Cape Krusenstern (nm) Denali (np … Preserve) Gates of the Arctic (np … Preserve) Glacier Bay (np … Preserve) Katmai (np … Preserve) Kenai Fjords (np) Kobuk Valley (np) Lake Clark (np … Preserve) Noatak (Preserve) Wrangell-St. Elias (np … Preserve) Yukon-Charley Rivers (Preserve)

Alberta	Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks Dinosaur Provincial Park Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Waterton Glacier International Peace Park Wood Buffalo National Park	Banff (np) Elk Island (np) Jasper (np) Waterton Lakes (np)

British Columbia	Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/ Tatschenshini-Alsek SGang Gwaay	Glacier (np) Kootenay (np) Mount Revelstoke (np) Yoho (np) Aleutian Islands World War ii National Historic Area Klondike Gold Rush (NHP) Sitka (nhp)

	Abbot Pass Refuge Cabin (NHS) Athabasca Pass (NHS) Banff Park Museum (NHS) Bar U Ranch (NHS) Cave and Basin (NHS) First Oil Well in Western Canada (NHS) Frog Lake (NHS) Jasper House (NHS)	Jasper Park Information Centre (NHS) Maligne Lake Chalet (NHS) Rocky Mountain House (NHS) Skoki Ski Lodge (NHS) Sulphur Mtn. Cosmic Ray Station (NHS) Yellowhead Pass (NHS)

	Fisgard Lighthouse (NHS) Fort Langley (NHS) Ford Rodd Hill (NHS) Gitwangak Battle Hill (NHS) Gulf Islands (NHS) Gulf of Georgia Cannery (NHS) Gwaii Haanas (NHS) and Haida Heritage Site	Kicking Horse Pass (NHS) Kootenae House (NHS) Pacific Rim National Park (NHS) Rogers Pass (NHS) Stanley Park (NHS) The Butchart Gardens (NHS) Twin Falls Tea House (NHS)

Idaho	Yellowstone National Park	Craters of the Moon (NM … Preserve) Hagerman Fossil Beds (NM) Yellowstone (NP)

Montana	Waterton Glacier International Peace Park	Bighorn Canyon (NRA) Glacier (NP) Little Bighorn Battlefield (NM) Yellowstone (NP)

Northwest Territories	Nahanni National Park Wood Buffalo National Park	Aulavik (NP) Tuktut Nogait (NP) Wood Buffalo (NP)

Oregon		Crater Lake (NP) John Day Fossil Beds (NM) Oregon Caves (NM … Preserve)

Saskatchewan		Grasslands (NP) Prince Albert (NP)

Washington	Olympic National Park	Lake Roosevelt (NRA) Mount Rainier (NP) North Cascades (NP) Olympic (NP)

Yukon	Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatschenshini-Alsek	Ivvavik (NP) Kluane (NP AND NR) Vuntut (NP)

		California (nht) City of Rocks (nr) Ice Age Floods (ngt) Lewis & Clark (nht)	Minidoka (nhs) Nez Perce (nhp) Oregon (nht)

		Big Hole National Battlefield Fort Union Trading Post (nhs) Grant-Kohrs Ranch (nhs)	Ice Age Floods (ngt) Lewis and Clark (nht) Nez Perce (nhp)

		Nahanni National Park (nr) Nááts’ihch’oh National Park (nr) Saoyú-?ehdacho (nhs)

		California (nht) Fort Vancouver (nhs) Ice Age Floods (ngt) Lewis & Clark (nht)	Lewis and Clark (nhp) Nez Perce (nhp) Oregon (nht)

		Batoche (nhs) Battle of Tourond’s Coulee/ Fish Creek (nhs) Cypress Hills Massacre (nhs) Fort Battleford (nhs)	Fort Espérance (nhs) Fort Pelly (nhs) Fort Walsh (nhs) Frenchman Butte (nhs) Motherwell Homestead (nhs)

		Ebey’s Landing (nr) Fort Vancouver (nhs) Klondike Gold Rush – Seattle Unit (nhp) Lewis & Clark (nht) Lewis and Clark (nhp)	Manhattan Project (nhp) Minidoka (nhs) Nez Perce (nhp) Oregon (nht) San Juan Island (nhp) Whitman Mission (nhs)

		Chilkoot Trail (nhs) Dawson Historical Complex (nhs) Dredge No. 4 (nhs) Former Territorial Court House (nhs)	ss Keno (nhs) ss Klondike (nhs)

•Alaska cruises¹ (Alaska, British Columbia, Washington)

•Northern/Arctic tourism (Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories)

•Cascadia tourism (Oregon, Washington, British Columbia)

•Cross-border driving itineraries (International Selkirk Loop, the “Crown of the Continent”)

•Rocky Mountain tourism (British Columbia, Alberta, Montana)

•Indigenous/aboriginal tourism (distinct regions, tribes/nations, sites, and cultures)

•Western heritage tourism (such as the Oregon Trail, the Lewis and Clark expedition, the age of the gold rush)

•Themed tourism (such as culinary/vineyard tours, skiing, hiking, mountain biking, marine/fishing)

Tourists² are as diverse in their tourism values and goals as they are in their individual backgrounds and cultures. Frameworks for analyzing cultural tourists may be particularly helpful in identifying clusters of activities and interests for tourists throughout the Pacific Northwest. In the PNWER region, as in all regions of the world, cultural tourism can be viewed as an umbrella term for a wide range of related activities, including heritage tourism, ethnic tourism, arts tourism, even ecotourism. Cultural-heritage tourism refers to travel that endeavours to experience the places and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present, which includes irreplaceable historic, cultural, and natural attractions (National Trust for Historic Preservation 2010). The core concept of authenticity—which denotes the tourist value of visiting “the real thing”—is vital to this sub-field of tourism. The types of attractions that tend to appeal to different kinds of cultural tourists can be clustered as depicted in table 6.2.

When considering the natural and cultural assets of the cross-border Pacific Northwest, one immediately sees great potential to expand the tourism industry throughout the region to include distinct clusters of historic, cultural, and natural attractions. Citizens and tourists alike think of the region as an “eco-oasis,” ideally poised to benefit from the ever-growing global demand for tourism. Excellent opportunities exist to responsibly meet tourism goals by curating natural and cultural environments, and by building upon the region’s strong economy and transportation infrastructure. The impetus for collaborating in sustainable tourism development across the Pacific Northwest’s diverse jurisdictions is, therefore, strong.

The Regional Public-Policy Governance Structure of PNWER

No region-wide channel for tourism-policy coordination currently exists outside of the PNWER, and the region is viewed by leadership of the tourism working group to be the right place for a “coalition of the willing” to tackle regional tourism-policy development. To understand how the PNWER tourism working group engages in policy cooperation, it is first necessary to profile the structure and operations of the PNWER as an institution of regional governance.

The PNWER is recognized for its potential to provide unique opportunities for investigating the public-policy impact of regional governance institutions and mechanisms (Policy Research Institute 2005, 2006, 2008). Building on extensive extant research on regional governance, Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly (2008, 108) hypothesizes that the prevalence, scope, and scale of four factors will lead to regional cross-border integration in North America: “(1) economic integration, (2) the convergence of socio-cultural values, (3) the formation of border-spanning institutions, and (4) the emergence of policy mechanisms that lead to policy parallelism.” This begs deeper analysis of the role of PNWER, the most successful institution of its kind across the continent, in leading and facilitating processes of regional governance involving all four of these factors. Further, if it is argued that institutions of regional governance facilitate policy coordination, it is necessary to investigate the institutional structure, design, processes, and instruments that allow an international organization like PNWER to perform this role.

Table 6.2. Clusters of Attractions and Amenities Appealing to Cultural Tourists: Typical Places/Activities of Interest

Type of Cultural Tourist	Historic Attractions	Cultural Attractions	Natural Attractions

Heritage tourist	Visits to castles, palaces, country houses, forts, battlefields, etc. Archeological sites Heritage trails Historical sites Gardens and parks	Monuments Architecture Museums Religious sites	National parks National monuments World Heritage sites Gardens and parks

Arts tourist		Theatre Concerts Galleries Festivals and events Literary sites	Arts events at sites of natural attractions

Creative tourist	Historic settings to inspire creative activity	Photography Painting Pottery Cookery Crafts Language learning	Natural settings to inspire creative activity

Urban-cultural tourist	Historic cities Regenerated industrial cities Waterfront developments	Arts and heritage attractions Shopping Nightlife

Rural-cultural tourist		Ecomuseums Sports engagement in rural settings and landscapes Coastal tourism activities	Village, farm or agritourism Cultural landscapes National parks Wine trails

Indigenouscultural tourist	Indigenous historic sites	Indigenous art museums Visits to cultural centres Arts and crafts participation Cultural performances Festivals	Indigenous landscapes and historic sites Indigenous culture centres in natural settings

Popular-cultural tourist	Industrial heritage sites	Theme parks Shopping malls Pop concerts Sporting events Media and film sets Fashion and design museums

Many types of cross-border organizations exist within North America, and a single institution may contain additional organizations, commissions, councils, and coalitions that exist to address specific areas of interest. Similarly, many types of bilateral processes and instruments are used within the institutions of US-Canada cross-border governance, as summarized in table 6.3.

The term public policy is generally defined as a course of government action or inaction in response to public problems. Because public policy is “made” by the decisions of a government or an equivalent authority, the study of the process by which those decisions are made constitutes a long tradition in public-policy research. Public-policy-making can be disaggregated into a series of discrete stages and sub-stages; the resulting sequence of stages is referred to as the policy cycle or the policy process. Public-policy researchers make choices in studying one or more stages in the policy cycle, actors, and institutions that constitute policy design and content, policy outcomes and impacts, or any number of other policy-relevant factors. Below is a common sequence of five stages used in studying a policy cycle:

Table 6.3. Multi-Level Governance in North American Regions: Organizational Forms, Bilateral Processes, and Instruments Used to Facilitate Cooperation

Types of Cross-Border Organizations	Bilateral Processes to Support Collaboration	Instruments Used to Facilitate Cooperation

•General-purpose intergovernmental •Single-purpose intergovernmental •(typically an environmental or infrastructure focus) •Organization with a city orientation •Organization with a civil society orientation •Joint commission •Joint task force •Advisory council •Collaborative research institute •Think tank •Coalition	•Summits •Conferences •Symposiums •Colloquiums •Workshops •Forums •Institutes •Joint operations •Joint programs •Joint research projects •Joint training •Joint boards or panels •Exchange of personnel •Minister-secretary meetings •Meetings of legislators •Working-group meetings •Routine working-group communications	•Convention/accord •Joint declaration/resolution •Framework agreement •Mutual-recognition agreement •Commission protocol •Cooperation agreement •Memorandum of understanding •Memorandum of cooperation •Letter of intent •Strategic plan (mission, vision, goals) •Research report •Annual report •Newsletters/websites •white papers/grey literature •Routine workinggroup documents •Educational materials •Informational materials •Advocacy materials

1.agenda setting refers to the process by which problems come to the attention of governments;

2.policy formulation refers to the process by which policy options are formulated within government;

3.decision making refers to the process by which governments adopt a particular course of action or inaction;

4.policy implementation refers to the process by which governments put policies into effect; and

5.policy evaluation refers to the processes by which the results of policies are monitored by both state and societal actors. (Howlett and Ramesch 1995, 11)

The PNWER states that its first goal as an institution is to coordinate provincial and state policies throughout the region. This goal is clearly viewed as directly supporting PNWER’s mission to achieve continued economic growth while maintaining the region’s natural environment. This promotional rhetoric, however, strongly overstates what PNWER has the legal authority, or political clout, to accomplish. In practice, this international organization encourages incremental policy cooperation, which is a more general ground-up activity dependent on the cultivation of ongoing elite stakeholder buy-in.

The PNWER prominently positions itself as being “the preeminent binational advocate for regional state, provincial, and territorial issues” (PNWER 2017, 4). The term advocate is important here, as it suggests an institutional focus on the first several steps of the policy process—namely, agenda setting and policy formulation. Vital steps are taken by PNWER stakeholders to identify and define problems, prioritize policy areas for engagement, and articulate proposed solutions that ultimately lead to governmental policy formulation. The organizational structure, programmatic areas, and routine events established by PNWER emphasize opportunities for a wide array of stakeholders to identify shared problems and craft solutions. As an international institution that has structured itself top-down to include many of the organizational forms, collaborative processes, and instruments listed in table 6.3 above, PNWER provides an effective forum for encouraging stakeholder cooperation in policy agenda setting and formulation.

Analysis of the full array of organizational structures and systems used by PNWER goes beyond this chapter, in which we focus specifically on the working-group structure, goals, and action items. The PNWER working-group structure provides a participatory framework for diverse stakeholders in a public-policy-issue area to gather and formulate policy goals and action items relevant to the region as a whole. What we see with the working groups are public policies that are being made “by policy subsystems consisting of actors dealing with a public problem” (Howlett and Ramesh 1995, 51). The complex activities of policy actors in policy subsystems can be usefully studied by using the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith. “An advocacy coalition consists of actors from a variety of public and private institutions at all levels of government who share a set of basic beliefs (policy goals plus causal and other perceptions) and who seek to manipulate the rules, budgets, and personnel of government institutions in order to achieve these goals over time” (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1993, 5). In other words, ACF refers to “collections of actors sharing similar beliefs and coordinating their actions to achieve political goals” (Matti and Sanstrom 2011, 386). The general application of an ACF analysis begins with describing how like-minded actors are organized to govern and engage in an institution, which provides the structure within which to participate in the policy process.

In short, the ACF offers a lens for understanding how the exchange of values, norms, and learning may be facilitated among the public- and private-sector elites who participate in PNWER working groups. The main goal of all of PNWER’s programs, activities, and communication instruments is to facilitate engagement of leaders from the public and private sectors in policy agenda setting and policy formulation. Therefore, investigating the work of the PNWER tourism working group—which is only one of the working groups and other organizational forms within which citizens from throughout the region can engage in regional governance through PNWER—provides valuable insight into the operational efficacy of the most sophisticated institution of cross-border US-Canada governance that currently exists.

How PNWER’s Tourism Working Group Works

Within PNWER, according to its website, “The Tourism Working Group works to develop an interconnected tourism region and facilitate collaboration among industry partners in the Pacific Northwest and Western Canada.” The major ongoing focus areas of the working group are identified as (1) tourism marketing, (2) two-nation vacation, (3) security for border crossings, and (4) pre-clearance, which refers to procedures that allow tourists to pass through all border inspections before beginning their journey. The working group was also a major supporter of introducing “Harbour to Harbor” seaplane transportation service between Vancouver and Seattle, according to its website.

Details on the annual action items, summit agendas, and working-group session proceedings from summer 2014 to present are located on the PNWER website. Over the past five years, a coalition of private- and public-sector participants has come to take shape within this working group, resulting in the beginnings of robust region-wide data collection and policy agenda setting. The activities of the group concentrate mainly on information gathering and sharing, facilitating ease of travel throughout the region, and promoting opportunities for cross-border tourism marketing. Discussion topics at the working-group meetings also include addressing issues of tourism sustainability and resilience, as well as, for example, the more recent border challenges of marijuana legalization in some jurisdictions.

The group is currently led by co-chairs Representative Gael Tarleton (Washington State Legislature; public sector) and Dave Cowen (chief executive officer of Butchart Gardens; private sector). The role of the co-chairs is crucial in setting the annual agenda and action items for the working group. Participation in the working group varies from year to year, with no clear pattern of stakeholders representing states, provinces, territories, large cities, and small- or medium-sized cities. Participation from the public and private sector alike appears to be driven by individual or institutional interest rather than by the size of the jurisdiction or proximity to the international border. The working group also benefits from academic collaboration with research units at the University of Victoria and at Western Washington University’s Border Policy Research Institute.

The working group does not work in isolation from other PNWER working groups. For example, border issues of pre-clearance and perimeter security are developed in collaboration with leadership from the border issues and transportation working groups. Indeed, policy agenda setting and formulation related to regional travel and tourism must necessarily integrate with policy initiatives underway in multiple other working groups, such as economic development and workforce development. The tourism working group is currently seeking to become a “legislated” working committee of PNWER, whereby each jurisdiction will formally appoint a delegate to the committee for a two-year term. It is anticipated that, with more consistent membership, policy issues being addressed by the tourism working group can be more effectively synchronized with the initiatives of other PNWER working groups.

It is in the lists of annual action items for the tourism working group that one can best see the policy agenda setting taking shape. For example, the working group (in collaboration with others) has formulated advocacy for the development of synchronized application processes, particularly for the electronic system for travel authorization (or ESTA) in the United States and electronic travel authorization (or eTA) in Canada, and for tourist visas from key source markets. Similarly, the use of radio-frequency identification technology in travel documents is encouraged by the tourism working group for its potential to improve border security and facilitate travel (Border Policy Research Institute 2015). To support intra-regional tourism (and economic development more broadly), all PNWER working groups support participation in the NEXUS “trusted traveller” program, seen as “undoubtedly the most effective binational strategy for increasing security and mobility for travellers crossing the land border” (Border Policy Research Institute 2015, 2). The NEXUS program allows pre-screened travellers expedited processing when entering the United States and Canada. Program members use dedicated processing lanes at designated ports of entry, NEXUS kiosks when entering Canada by air, and Global Entry kiosks when entering the United States via Canadian pre-clearance airports. NEXUS members also receive expedited processing at marine reporting locations (US Customs and Border Protection, n.d.). To support ease of regional travel throughout the PNWER area, the tourism working group (with partners) is developing a simple-to-understand and trusted source of border information for travel to both the United States and Canada from all source markets.

A major focus on pre-clearance has been at the forefront of the tourism working group’s agenda setting and action items. The tourism industry in both nations suffers from the complexity and opacity of documentation procedures required of travellers to access tourist destinations and experiences throughout the region by air, sea, rail, and automobile. A main policy priority of this group is to develop mechanisms and user-friendly information to help visitors move safely, securely, and across multiple borders once they arrive in the region. With effective pre-clearance procedures in place by border-agency personnel outside the destination territory, tourists can pass through all required border inspections prior to boarding their aircraft, ship, or train, thereby greatly facilitating travel.

In addition to formulating policy and testing pilot programs that are intended to support the tourism industry, the tourism working group is focused on information sharing and advocacy to build tourism throughout the region. Admittedly, regional cooperation in tourism takes place in the context of ongoing competition for visitors among the region’s tourism destinations. However, a long-term strategic focus on regional collaboration for field-building purposes throughout the ten jurisdictions that comprise PNWER is crucial to the sustainability and strength of the sector. After all, travellers from around the world do not necessarily think of the borders within the region when planning their visits to the array of natural and cultural heritage sites listed in figure 6.3. As Dave Cowen of Butchart Gardens explains: “The PNWER region is an experience cluster with many strong brands within it” (personal communication, September 10, 2018). The states, provinces, and territories within PNWER tend to be quite competitive in their tourism marketing efforts, but a cooperative marketing strategy may ultimately lead to a stronger tourism sector throughout the region.

Analysis: Regional Tourism- Policy Cooperation within the PNWER

The tourism working group of the PNWER is essentially a regional ACF in action (see fig. 6.4). Within the working group, an array of elected officials, industry specialists, researchers, and other interest-group participants share a common set of beliefs and values in support of promoting tourism throughout the region. This group comprises mainly technical experts and policy specialists who are working behind the scenes to advance the field. Regional governance in the tourism-policy arena is gradually taking form within PNWER as various organizational entities, collaborative processes, and instruments of cooperation (see table 6.6) are implemented by the tourism working group. In this complex policy-making environment, the working-group stakeholders are focused on identifying the issues, problems, and challenges that negatively impact the tourism sector, and on formulating concrete policy agenda items and action steps to address these matters. As such, the working group as an advocacy coalition is gradually expanding its power in regional governance through its influence on the regional agenda-setting and policy-formulation stages of the policy process.

Tremendous potential exists for cross-border tourism policy cooperation and policy coordination through the work of this group. These two terms are distinguished by their top-down nature (implied by coordination), as compared with a more organic, ground-up process of cooperation across the constituent jurisdictions. The institutional structure of PNWER encourages the kind of incremental policy cooperation that can be seen taking shape in the tourism working group. Regional tourism collaborations and partnerships can manifest in many ways, ranging from regional border-policy coordination (such as with the NEXUS program administered by each country’s border agencies) to more casual partnerships among the sub-regions (e.g., Cascadia) or themed tourism (e.g., vineyard/culinary tours).

At present, the ground-up “coalition of the willing” approach to regional tourism governance—enabled by the top-down PNWER institutional structure and design—appears to be working in what is an early stage of regional policy coordination. With the investment of a small amount of financial resources and participants’ contribution of time over the past five years, the working group can boast of significant output in terms of information-sharing and policy formulation to reduce the barriers to regional travel. The working group’s documents clearly show that the members of this group see the potential for the PNWER jurisdictions to comprise a new tourism super-region, and become a vibrant, sustainable economic sector that could reach the $1 trillion mark in spending in the not-too-distant future. However, a much more extensive collaborative framework for policy coordination, the strategic alignment of government and industry, and the development of research and information will be necessary to scale up the regional tourism sector. Expansion of the coalition-of-the-willing approach to create a truly representative coalition will be necessary for developing regional strategies that have the potential to complement the competitive tourism marketing programs of each constituent state, province, territory, city, or sub-region.

With regard to further development of the PNWER tourism working group as an advocacy coalition seeking to formulate and coordinate policies that build the tourism industry throughout the region, the author offers five recommendations.

•First, the working group would benefit from “broader and deeper” participation from key stakeholders in the region. The working group continually seeks representation from each PNWER jurisdiction but strategic recruitment focused on the leadership of all state, provincial, and territory tourism councils and agencies would likely be most beneficial in the short term. In particular, broad participation in collecting and communicating data associated with the annual tourism dashboard may serve as an excellent step in promoting awareness of the working group through the regional travel and tourism industry. Steps should be taken as quickly as possible to improve the comparability of data in the annual tourism dashboard.

•Second, the working group has taken great strides in seeking to clearly express the unique tourism strengths (brands) throughout the region, but a larger-scale communication effort would be helpful. As noted, key themes for tourism packages and tourism promotion include natural heritage, natural recreation, cultural heritage, and Indigenous tourism. Many sub-themes and sub-regions also exist within the cross-border regions. PNWER can serve as a unique forum within which mutually beneficial cross-border tourism partnerships and coalitions can be created.

•Third, at present, collaborative regional tourism-promotion efforts seem to be targeted toward international source markets (i.e., tourism promotion to Asian or European tourists). Intra-regional tourism represents a much larger tourism group, and “the close-in market is the most reliable and cost-effective” for tourism promotion (Dave Cowen, personal communication, September 10, 2018). Developing intra-regional tourism also offers a sustainable approach to shock-proofing the industry from po- litical and economic pressures that impact long-haul travel. The PNWER tourism working group provides an ideal structure for strategic development of cross-border travel and tourism promotion for citizens of the ten PNWER states, provinces, and territory.

•Fourth, the rapid spread of the covid-19 virus in 2020 through travel and tourism has spotlighted the need for closer cross-border cooperation for response and resilience in dealing with regional and international public-health emergencies. These developments point both to shared vulnerabilities of particular sub-sectors, not least airlines, cruise ships, and mass-tourism venues, but also challenges of effective collaboration between decentralized industry sub-sectors and the multiple public-health jurisdictions potentially affected by such events. PNWER’s extensive experience in promoting emergency-management preparedness and networks of cooperation across the region could provide helpful resources in bridging these policy communities.

•Fifth, it is the right time for the working group, in collaboration with its academic partners, to develop a long-term research agenda. Many reference books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and other resources exist that could assist the working-group members in identifying the policy-issue areas that are most pressing and relevant in support of advancing the regional tourism sector.

•Sixth, given the emphasis on environmental sustainability that pervades governance of all the PNWER jurisdictions (and as is embedded in the PNWER mission statement), regional tourism leaders should actively pursue a research agenda, government policies, and industry practices that will promote the region as a global leader in sustainable tourism. The region is already at the forefront of this field with the IMPACT Sustainability Travel & Tourism Conference and is well poised to develop globally relevant leadership in this area.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dave Cowen, chief executive officer of the Butchart Gardens in Victoria, British Columbia, and co-chair of the tourism working group for his valuable input in developing and reviewing this chapter. The author is also grateful to the editors for their insights and suggestions.

References

Biederman, P. S., J. Lai, J. M. Laitamaki, H. M., Messerli, P. D., Nyheim, and S. C. Plog. 2007. Travel and Tourism: An Industry Primer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Border Policy Research Institute. 2015. “A Business Case for Increasing RFID at the Canada-US Land Border.” Border Policy Research Institute Publications 101. https://cedar.wwu.edu/bpri_publications/101.

Brunet-Jailly, E. 2008. “Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-US Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border Regions.” Canadian Political Science Review 2 (2): 104–124.

Edgell, D. L., Sr. 1999. Tourism Policy: The Next Millennium. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Edgell, D. L., Sr., M. D. Allen, G. Smith, and J. R. Swanson. 2008. Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. New York: Elsevier.

Goeldner, C. A., and J. R. B. Ritchie. 2006. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. 10th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C., and P. A. Sabatier. 1993. “The Study of Public Policy Processes.” In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, edited by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

Matti, S., and A. Sanstrom. 2011. “The Rationale Determining Advocacy Coalitions: Examining Coordination Networks and Corresponding Beliefs.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 385–410.

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER). 2017. Annual Report 2017. http://www.pnwer.org/uploads/2/3/2/9/23295822/2017_pnwer_annual_report_-_reduced_size.pdf.

——–. “About.” Working Groups. http://www.pnwer.org/working-groups.html.

——–. “Background and History.” http://www.pnwer.org/mission.html.

——–. “Tourism.” Working Groups. http://www.pnwer.org/tourism.html.

——–. 2015. “Tourism Marketing Panel.” http://www.pnwer.org/2015-presentations-action-items.html.

Policy Research Institute. 2008. The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada and the United States: Reaping the Promise and Public Value of Cross-Border Regional Relationships–Final Report. Government of Canada, Policy Research Institute, Ottawa.

——–. 2006. The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions–Roundtables Synthesis Report. Government of Canada, Policy Research Institute, Ottawa.

——–. 2005. The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions–Interim Report. Government of Canada, Policy Research Institute, Ottawa.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2010. “Cultural Heritage Tourism 2010 Fact Sheet.” https://ctmainstreet.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/C-2010-CHT-FactSheet.pdf.

Smith, M. 2003. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London: Routledge.

Tourism Victoria. 2019. “IMPACT Sustainability Travel & Tourism Conference Proceedings 2019.” Impact Resources. https://www.tourismvictoria.com/impact/resources.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 2018. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 Edition. http://www2.unwto.org/publication/unwto-tourism-highlights-2018-edition.

Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier, and K. McQueen. 2009. “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 121–141.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 2019. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2019 World. https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions-2019/world2019.pdf.

1Cruise tourism in Alaska accounts for approximately 1.5 million visitors per year, and is growing at roughly three to five percent annually.

2Destination Canada’s Explorer Quotient toolkit is an especially useful instrument for segmenting, targeting, and positioning tourism attractions. A presentation that explains this tourism marketing tool is available at https://www.destinationbc.ca/content/uploads/2018/07/eq-Presentation_full.pdf.