Search results

During the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland, there was much debate about the future broader political direction of the country but little discussion about its impact on Scottish tourism. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss the impact of the different future political options from a tourism perspective.

From the literature, four main political drivers were identified, and using Scotland as a reference, they were used in discussions with six experts to explore how tourism could develop under different political options. The outcomes from these discussions were combined by the researcher to develop in conjunction with the experts an agreed discussion note. This discussion note formed the basis for the exploration of the impact on tourism under four different future political options.

Of the four political options (devolution limited, devolution plus, devolution max/fiscal autonomy/federation and full independence), it is clear that all options had different positive and negative impacts for tourism. The devolution max option, however, was perceived as most damaging to tourism, because tourism would not be considered a priority, relative to other policy issues. The study concludes with six key lessons that destination management organisations (DMOs) should contemplate when considering the impacts of different political futures.

Being focussed on one country with a strong political party whose raison d'être is independence makes it difficult to extrapolate the results. Nevertheless, given the strong commonality of agreement of the impacts within the experts consulted, this study suggests that DMOs can and should engage in political debates about the future of tourism in their destination.

The 2014 independence referendum in Scotland failed to achieve its primary aim of independence for Scotland, but it did provide space for other political options to be explored. This paper provides a perspective on how tourism could develop under different political options, and so help raise its profile in any future debates, both in Scotland and other destinations.

The purpose of this study is to review evidence on the nature of effective leadership in interprofessional health and social care teams.

A critical review and thematic synthesis of research literature conducted using systematic methods to identify and construct a framework to explain the available evidence about leadership in interprofessional health and social care teams.

Twenty-eight papers were reviewed and contributed to the framework for interprofessional leadership. Twelve themes emerged from the literature, the themes were: facilitate shared leadership; transformation and change; personal qualities; goal alignment; creativity and innovation; communication; team-building; leadership clarity; direction setting; external liaison; skill mix and diversity; clinical and contextual expertise. The discussion includes some comparative analysis with theories and themes in team management and team leadership.

This research identifies some of the characteristics of effective leadership of interprofessional health and social care teams. By capturing and synthesising the literature, it is clear that effective interprofessional health and social care team leadership requires a unique blend of knowledge and skills that support innovation and improvement. Further research is required to deepen the understanding of the degree to which team leadership results in better outcomes for both patients and teams.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the economic performance of Norwegian crop farms using a stochastic frontier analysis.

The analysis was based on a translog cost function and unbalanced farm-level panel data for 1991–2013 from 455 Norwegian farms specialized in crop production in eastern and central regions of Norway.

The results of the analysis show that the mean efficiency was about 78–81 percent. Farm management practices and socioeconomic factors were shown to significantly affect the economic performance of Norwegian crop farms.

Farmers are getting different types of support from the government and the study does not account for the different effects of different kinds of subsidy on cost efficiency. Different subsidies might have different effects on farm performance. To get more informative and useful results, it would be necessary to repeat the analysis with less aggregated data on subsidy payments.

One implication for farmers (and their advisers) is that many of them are less efficient than the estimated benchmark (best performing farms). Thus, those lagging behind the best performing farms need to look at the way they are operating and to seek out ways to save costs or increase crop production. Perhaps there are things for lagging farmers to learn from their more productive farming neighbors. For instance, those farmers not practicing crop rotation might be well advised to try that practice.

For both taxpayers and consumers, one implication is that the contributions they pay that go to subsidize farmers appear to bring some benefits in terms of more efficient production that, in turn, increase the supply of some foods so possibly making food prices more affordable.

Unlike previous performance studies in the literature, the authors estimated farm-level economic performance accounting for the contribution of both an important farm management practice and selected socioeconomic factors. Good farm management practices, captured through crop rotation, land tenure, government support and off-farm activities were found to have made a positive and statistically significant contribution to reducing the cost of production on crop-producing farms in the Central and Eastern regions of Norway.

To evaluate some of the current discussion about the possible impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife tourism destinations. There could be either positive and/or negative impacts and this viewpoint provides some reflection on what the future might hold for some if not many wildlife tourism destinations when the global tourism industry resumes.

A combination of tourism and environmental impact research studies and online resources are used to demonstrate the wildlife tourism-conservation nexus and provide a commentary regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the wildlife tourism system.

This paper provides a context and viewpoint on the possible implications of post COVID-19 reflection for wildlife tourism operations in the future.

This viewpoint paper captures only a snapshot of rapidly emerging online perspectives but at the same time draws together relevant research that emphasises the importance of wildlife tourism.

This paper enables an appreciation of the implications of not reflecting on the way that tourism and the environment are currently/recently managed and funded. One possibility is that we could arrive at a different baseline that reflects degraded wildlife tourism conditions. If, in a post COVID-19 world, a new awareness of the vulnerability of species and the tourism upon which it is dependent arises, this could open the door for improved tourism management and conservation of species that are of high tourism value.

This paper offers a synthesis of views that fosters understanding of the possibility of damage to wildlife tourism resources due to the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 on the global nature-based tourism sector.

The viewpoint proffered in this paper provides scope for a rapid evaluation of the current status of wildlife tourism, its vulnerability and the need to reflect on the industry in a post COVID-19 world.