Description
This paper aims to discuss stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism
development and their experiences regarding the contribution of these movements to sustainable
tourism development. The contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to the success of a
tourism destination is evaluated by determining local stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning of these
terms and views on their benefits.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism development: a case study of Mold, Wales
Timothy H. J ung Elizabeth M. Ineson Amanda Miller
Article information:
To cite this document:
Timothy H. J ung Elizabeth M. Ineson Amanda Miller , (2014),"The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism
development: a case study of Mold, Wales", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4
pp. 432 - 445
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0001
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 489 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative
tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
J oan C. Henderson, (2009),"Food tourism reviewed", British Food J ournal, Vol. 111 Iss 4 pp. 317-326 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910951470
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Luisa Andreu, Martina G. Gallarza, (2014),"Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 420-431http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-03-2014-0024
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Slow Food Movement and
sustainable tourism development: a case
study of Mold, Wales
Timothy H. Jung, Elizabeth M. Ineson and Amanda Miller
Timothy H. Jung is a
Director, Creative
Augmented Realities
Hub, Elizabeth M. Ineson
is a Visiting Research
Fellow and Amanda Miller
is a Principal Lecturer
Tourism Management, all
are based at the
Department of Food and
Tourism Management,
Manchester Metropolitan
University, Manchester,
UK.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to discuss stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism
development and their experiences regarding the contribution of these movements to sustainable
tourism development. The contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to the success of a
tourismdestination is evaluated by determining local stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning of these
terms and views on their bene?ts.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach used semi-structured interviews to collect
data from 11 purposively sampled local stakeholders. The interview questions spanned knowledge,
membership and perceived bene?ts of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and the contribution of
these Movements to sustainable tourism development. The data were analysed using framework
analysis.
Findings – Varying levels of familiarity with the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements were evident.
Clear economic and personal bene?ts frommembership were acknowledged. It was con?rmed that the
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements have contributed to sustainable tourism development and that
public–private partnership is key to its success.
Research limitations/implications – The speci?c research context and limited purposive sample
suggest great caution in any generalisation of the results.
Practical implications – Close and continued involvement of stakeholders plus membership of the
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements can contribute strongly to promoting sustainable tourism
development in rural areas.
Social implications – It is recognised that the SlowFood and CittaslowMovements make a substantial
contribution to local economies and add value to sustainable practices.
Originality/value – Involving local stakeholders in public–private partnerships can contribute to the
success of rural tourism destinations when the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements are considered as
alternative approaches to sustainable tourism development.
Keywords Sustainable tourism development, Tourism, Stakeholders, Wales, Slow Food
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Most tourism destination organisations tend to focus on marketing and promotion; they are
not closely involved in resource conservation and planning and this approach can have
serious consequences for destination sustainability (Jamal and Stronza, 2009). Owen et al.
(1993) researched tourism initiatives in Wales including the Garden Festival Wales in Ebbw
Vale (horticultural tourism), Project Conwy (heritage tourism) and Mid-Wales Festival for the
Countryside (environmental tourism). All of these case studies were initiated not only to
improve the contribution of tourism to the local economy in their respective areas but also
to provide better quality experiences for the visitors, to protect the environment and to
enhance quality of life for the host communities, while ensuring local involvement in
decision-making processes (Gray, 1989; Araujo and Bramwell, 2002; Sautter and Leisen,
1999; Wang, 2009), and they determine that sustainable tourism could be successful in
Wales. Such project initiatives are mirrored in the idea behind the Slow Food Movement
Received 2 January 2014
Revised 16 May 2014
Accepted 7 July 2014
PAGE 432 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 432-445, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-01-2014-0001
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/welcome_eng.lasso) which purports to improve the
local economy, protect local culture and traditions and support local traders, while
providing an education about food (Miele and Murdoch, 2002). Although the concept of the
Slow Food Movement began in Piedmont, Italy, in 1986, it was not founded of?cially until
1989 by Carlo Petrini to hit back at the fast food industry, catalysed by the opening of a
McDonald’s restaurant in the Piazza di Spagna, Rome (Miele and Murdoch, 2002).
Following the Slow Food Movement, the Cittaslow Movement was created, based on the
idea that as local communities develop, they need to establish a clear identity through
recognising and celebrating their unique qualities (www.cittaslow.org.uk/images/D
ownload/cittaslow_charter.pdf). These Slow Cities must prove that they are ensuring
optimal use of their regional resources and that they are implementing policies to enhance
the lives of the local community, while pursuing quality excellence and promoting traditional
agricultural processes (Nosi and Zanni, 2004). Mayer and Knox (2006) noted that the
Cittaslow Movement offers towns and destinations an alternative approach to sustainable
development designed to promote environmental conservation and improve urban life
through incentivising local food production that uses natural and environmentally friendly
techniques.
The notion of Slow Food was not introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) until 2005. Gazzoli,
chief executive of Slow Food UK, explained:
Slow Food is about the universal right that good, clean and fair food should be available for
everyone. Good, because food should taste good; clean, because it should be produced in a
way that fully respects the environment, human health and animal welfare; and fair, because the
workers at all stages of production should be paid a fair and honest wage (Kuhn, 2009, p. 1).
Byrd (2006) remarked that the stakeholders within the host community should not only be
aware of but also take responsibility for, the existing and potential effect of tourism on the
destination. For sustainable tourism to be achieved, there needs to be a balance between
the associated positive effects that support and emanate from tourism sustainability
alongside a recognition, understanding and subsequent resolution of any negative effects
(Byrd and Gustke, 2007). As the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements are considered to be
alternative approaches to sustainable tourism development, the involvement of
stakeholders in a local tourism destination may be the key to their success. However, there
is little published research in this area; in particular, from the perspective of the local
stakeholders. Therefore, the present paper focuses on the notion that the Slow Food and
Cittaslow Movements can contribute to the achievement of this success. The aim is to
explore the ways in which local stakeholders de?ne Slow Food and the Cittaslow Movement
and how they perceive the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership. Further, it
examines stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development and elicits their
perceptions on the contribution of Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable
tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City in Wales.
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements
Slow Food International is a non-pro?t eco-gastronomic organisation with a voluntary
membership which comprises a network of over 100,000 members in 153 countries
(Nilsson et al., 2011). Related activities, projects and events are developed at local,
regional and global levels, including more than 5,000 Slow Food initiatives annually in
which 10,000 small producers are involved in 314 projects; promotion of 1,000 products at
risk of extinction through the Ark of Taste catalogue which embraces biodiversity in a
world-wide collection of small-scale quality productions threatened by industrial
agriculture, environmental degradation and homogenisation with descriptions of forgotten
?avours and products at risk of extinction that could be rediscovered and returned to the
market (www.slowfood.com); 1,300 food education activities and 350 school gardens in
100 countries; and Terra Madre network activities, which involve 2,000 food communities,
1,000 cooks, 500 academics and 1,000 young activists (www.slowfood.com/). The latter
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 433
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
brings together groups of contributors to the food chain process, who collaborate in the
responsibility for “sustainable agriculture, ?shing, and breeding with the goal of preserving
taste and biodiversity” (See, for further information, www.terramadre.info/pagine/
organizzazione/?-session?terramadre:5211B5BA1afaf201AEnrD8B36E25).
The Slow Food Movement seeks to educate consumers about traditional and local foods,
while also protecting food and agricultural heritage. In turn, consumer demands, driven by
environmental, ethical, social and health concerns continue to move towards the Slow Food
processes of natural farming and agriculture, as suggested by Nosi and Zanni (2004). A
content and discourse analysis of consumers’ responses, undertaken in Australia by
Germov et al. (2010), revealed themes, metaphors and imagery pertaining to Slow Food
including:
“conviviality” (social pleasures of sharing “good food”);
“localism” (social, health and environmental bene?ts of local produce); and
“romanticism” (of idyllic rural lifestyles as an antidote to the time-poverty of urban life).
In the same vein, Spiller (2012) considered the effect of farmers’ markets on UK consumers’
evaluations of the taste of foods, focusing on whether their descriptions of taste were
metaphor-laden or based on beliefs and values emboldened by food knowledge and
opinions; the paper highlighted the importance of place in cultivating the taste of food.
Spin-off activities of the Slow Food Movement include arranging food fairs, educational
programmes and providing support for farmers and artisans around the world through
?nancial awards (Parkins, 2004). Sims (2009) argued that food plays an important role in
tourism and local food can provide a tourist with a bond to the area and to local culture and
heritage, thereby improving the quality of the tourist experience. Sparks et al. (2003) also
stated the importance of dining and wine experience to attract tourists to tourist
destinations. Slow Food’s current shift towards issues such as economic growth, access to
resources and environmental protection was considered by Sassatelli and Davolio (2010,
p. 97) who reviewed Slow Food as the “right to pleasure in the face of a tension between
inclusion and exclusion running through contemporary consumer culture” in the context of
current debates on the scope of alternative food networks and the political investment of
the consumer. Slow Food seems to play a role in what has been de?ned typically as
“critical,” “alternative,” “ethical” or even “political” consumption. These labels occur in a
great variety of situations including the following: extended supply and demand for organic
and fair trade products; ethically and morally induced actions of individuals against private
corporations or governments to express dissatisfaction with their actions, ranging from
boycotts to more extreme actions such as naming and shaming; or alternative commerce
activities such as barter trade and farmers markets (Sassatelli and Davolio, 2010). Then
Pearson et al.’s (2011) case study focused on eliciting the pro?les and behaviour of
consumers with respect to their expectations in relation to local food. The resulting
consensus was that incentives encouraging and enabling the development of local food
webs have the ability to contribute in several areas; examples of such are the
encouragement of a higher degree of food self-suf?ciency, increased robustness and
strength of the local food system to overcome problems, reduction of carbon and
environmental footprints due to reduction of food miles and the increased awareness of the
sources of food with its consumers (Pearson et al., 2011).
Cittaslow is a growing international network of over 140 towns in 20 countries across the
world that have adopted a set of common goals and principles to enhance their quality of
life for residents and visitors. In simple terms, Cittaslow towns aim to be great places to live,
work and visit. They aim to support local businesses, foster local traditions, protect the
environment, welcome visitors and encourage active participation in community life (www.
greenguide.co.uk/node/1450). Each Cittaslow town commits to working towards a set of
over 50 goals and principles that aim to improve its quality of life. These goals and
PAGE 434 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
principles provide tangible benchmarks against which a town can measure its progress
and act as a mechanism to bring local people from all walks of life together to work
collectively for the good of their town. (www.cittaslow.org.uk/page.php?Pid1?2&PLv?1).
There are currently six Cittaslow towns in the UK. Their aim is to recruit further members in
all geographical areas of the UK to create a truly national network that acts as an effective
voice for smaller towns and provides tangible bene?ts for all member towns (www.
cittaslow.org.uk).
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements in the Mold area
The Cittaslow Movement allows only towns with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants to join and
requires compliance with certain criteria within the areas of “environmental policies,
infrastructural policies, technologies and facilities for urban qualities, safeguarding
autochthonous production, hospitality and awareness” (Robinson et al., 2011, p. 116).
Mold, a small town with a population of around 10,000 inhabitants in North Wales, started
to pursue the concept of becoming a Slow Food destination in 2006, and it was the ?rst
Welsh town to be accepted into the Cittaslow Movement, dedicated to promoting traditional
local food and drinks (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/). Robinson et al. (2011) pointed out
that the Cittaslow Movement extends the philosophy of Slow Food to all areas of urban
living by incorporating the whole community. Consequently, Mold, being a Cittaslow town,
not only supports local producers, cultures and traditions but also integrates the whole
community into a more sustainable and healthy way of living to achieve the ultimate goal of
becoming a sustainable town and destination (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/moldtc/index.
php?Tourism:Mold_Food_Town; Robinson et al., 2011). Interestingly, the latter authors
considered that Cittaslow and Slow Food should not just be tools to promote tourism but
they should play important roles in the development of tourism success and community led
destinations. In this vein, Mold does not support the promotion of mass tourism but
encourages sustainable tourism development. The Mold Farmers’ Market was ?rst held in
2006 and since has taken place on the ?rst Saturday of each month with a full range of local
food products on offer, all sold by the producer or someone involved in the operation so
customers can enquire as to how the vegetables are grown or the animals reared. Most of
the produce is from within a 20-mile radius to reduce food miles, global pollution and
domestic road congestion. Included in the array of stalls are beef, pork, lamb, buffalo meat,
sausages and award-winning burgers, bread, hand-made cheese, Cilcain honey, fruit, fruit
juices and vegetables, home-made pies and cakes, organic meat, vegetables and eggs,
local beer and smoked products (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/moldtc/index.php?T
ourism:Farmers%27_Market_Comes_to_Mold). To raise awareness of Mold’s Slow Food
sector, the annual Mold Food Festival was successfully created in 2006. Mold Food Festival
?gures have shown a steady increase in numbers. In 2006, 4,500 visitors attended the
festival and there were 39 local producers with stands, rising to 51 in 2008. By 2013, there
were over 100 exhibitors and stands from the food and drink sector, primarily from the Mold
area, resulting in more than 13,000 visitors to the festival attracting not only locals but also
tourists (www.moldfoodfestival.co.uk/). Both Mold Farmers’ Market and Mold Food Festival
are managed by a committee comprising local stakeholder non-paid volunteers with the
responsibility organisation and management of these events being undertaken on a
rotational basis.
Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism development
For destinations to ensure a sustainable approach to tourism development, consideration
needs to be given to the nature and development of their tourism product. In turn, the
importance of food to the marketing of destinations is acknowledged by Sparks et al. (2003)
who proposed a great dining experience, embracing food and wine, can play a key role in
the appeal of a tourist destination. For destination managers, marketing is, of course, of
fundamental importance but so too is the requirement for a sustainable approach to tourism
development. In ensuring the latter, there is a need to acknowledge the importance of the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 435
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
underlying principles of sustainable development: holistic approach; equity; and futurity
(Sharpley, 2010). The marrying in of these principles, that is, the ethos of Slow Food and
sustainable development should help to facilitate sustainable tourism development. Indeed
in researching local food and sustainable tourism, Sims (2009) discovered that food plays
an increasingly important role in tourism and the availability of “authentic,” local foods for
the tourist market can have a large impact on the environmental, cultural and economic
sustainability of a destination, while bene?ting both the visitors and host community. As the
Slow Food Movement endorses local specialities to mark a unique regional identity, this
indirectly turns rural destinations into fashionable places to visit (Slow Food International,
2008; Gyimothy and Mykletun, 2008), and as it does so, the mechanisms for managing this
increased attraction and subsequent increased visitor numbers need to be present. To
devise effective and sustainable food tourism strategies, Henderson (2009) identi?es the
need for destination marketers to appreciate the food tourism resources of the places they
are promoting and the particular demands of diverse tourist markets, and to work to raise
standards. Further, according to Mayer and Knox (2006), the Cittaslow Movement gives
towns and destinations an alternative approach to sustainable urban development with the
overriding goal of “environmental conservation, the promotion of sustainable development,
and the improvement of the urban life [by providing] incentives to food production using
natural and environmentally friendly techniques” (Pink, 2008, p. 176).
Method
To explore the extent to which local stakeholders perceived the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements had contributed to sustainable tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City
in Wales, a case study approach was adopted. Over an eight-week period, semi-structured
interviews were conducted to collect data from 11 purposively sampled stakeholders,
whose pro?les are summarised in Table I. The sample comprised ?ve business owners
(BO1, BO2, BOC1, PB01 and PB01) of which two were members of local partnerships,
including Cittaslow, Mold 2000 and Mold Business Forum, alongside two further
interviewees (P1 and P2). BOC1 was also a councillor, as was C1. LA1 and LA2 were used
by the local authority, while E1 worked in education. All of the interviewees were local
residents who were involved in local tourism and some of them had more than one
stakeholder role. They represented businesses, the town council and local authority,
education, training and various partnerships. The interviewees have been coded to
represent the category/sector within which they operate (Table I).
Based on the literature review, the interview questions comprised four sections, namely:
1. de?nitional issues and knowledge of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements;
2. the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership;
3. understanding of, and responsibility for, sustainable tourism development; and
Table I Interviewee’s categories, codes and stakeholdings
Interviewee code Category Stakeholdings
BO1 Business owner Caravan park
BO2 Business owner Bed and breakfast
BOC1 Business owner; Councillor Business manager; Local council
C1 Councillor County council
E1 Education College lecturer
LA1 Local authority Tourism of?cer
LA2 Local authority Town centre manager
P1 Partnership Cittaslow
P2 Partnerships Mold 2000; Mold business forum
PB01 Partnership business owner Flintshire tourism association (FTA);
Business manager
PBO2 Partnership business owner/trainer Director (Consultant); FTA
PAGE 436 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
4. the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable tourism
development.
In the ?rst section, there were general questions to assess the respondents’ awareness of
Slow Food, Slow Food UK and Cittaslow in each instance. These were followed by some
probing questions, with prompts as appropriate, to elicit their understanding of the
meaning of Slow Food, including their perceptions of any differences between Slow Food
and locally produced food, their awareness of the local sources and availability of Slow
Food Movement and the extent to which they promoted Slow Food and Cittaslow in their
stakeholder roles. The second section comprised questions relating to stakeholders’
perceived bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership. The third section comprised
questions relating to stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development. In
the last section, the interviewees were asked for their views on the contribution of Slow Food
and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable tourism development. The interviews were
recorded digitally then transcribed word for word and cross-validated with the audio
recordings by a researcher. Next, each interviewee was emailed his/her transcript and
invited to approve the content and make any editorial changes that they desired. The
majority made no changes and a minority changed a few words, usually making
grammatical corrections to the spoken words. The interviews were analysed using
framework analysis. The ?ve steps used to determine the codes were: familiarisation;
identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; and mapping and interpretation
(Richie and Spencer, 1994). This multi-step process, as suggested by Richie and Spencer
(1994), allowed for the development of codes and sub-codes as applied to the interview
transcripts and as presented in the results section.
Results
De?nitional issues/knowledge of Slow Food
Varying levels of knowledge and familiarity with the term Slow Food were acknowledged
and there were different levels of sophistication offered in de?ning Slow Food.
Exceptionally, in one case, an interviewee admitted honestly that he had no knowledge of
the concept: “no idea” (BO1), while another needed the prompt of the impending interview
to research it on the Internet in advance (BOC1). At the most basic level, one interviewee
saw Slow Food as the polar opposite to fast food (P2) and in another case an actual
reaction to fast food (PB02). The distinguishing characteristics of Slow Food not only
encompassed being the opposite of fast food, but also related to quality, time, sourcing
foods locally, promoting the local food chain, encouraging local producers and
encapsulating a distinctive philosophy. The speci?c and more sophisticated knowledge of
E1 and P1 regarding the Slow Food concept was to be expected, as P1 was actively
involved in setting up the organisation in Mold and E1 in training and educating people in
the Mold area about Slow Food. C1 presented a comprehensive consideration of the term:
Slow Food is a different cultural viewpoint, where quality and experience are valued; doing
things in more of a localised or slower way is appreciated. It is approaching things from a
completely different viewpoint.
There was an acknowledgement of the importance of local producers: “the basic premise
of [Slow Food] is to encourage local producers etc in the promotion of their product”
(BOC1). In further examining the aspect of local produce and Slow Food, certain caveats
were mentioned by the interviewees. While accepting there were similarities, considerable
differences were also apparent. P1 considered Slow Food and local produce as going
together and BO2 perceived the concepts to be very similar and, in effect, did not see them
as separate entities. LA2 and PB01 went even further to state that Slow Food and local
produce were the same thing, although a value judgement was raised by LA1: “I think that
locally produced and Slow Food means the same thing, rightly or wrongly.” Interestingly P2,
while recognising commonalities such as freshness, quality and sustaining and supporting
the local economy, saw Slow Food as a philosophy: “Slow Food is a train of thought.” While
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 437
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
C1 also equally accepted similarities, he distinguished between local produce that is of
good and that which is of poor quality; local produce does not necessarily mean good
quality and if so, it does not equate to Slow Food. This viewpoint was developed further by
BOC1, who gave an example of a fast food manufacturer located in Flint who would not be
classed as a “local producer” as “being a local producer is more than just being in a local
geographical location.” Local producers are distinguished by their producing of local
produce and also as being “representative of the community” (BOC1).
Not surprisingly, those interviewees used in tasks and roles linked to Slow Food promote it
and support it in their activities; however, the level of involvement varied. For some
stakeholders, it was integral to their speci?c job role (E1 and P1); it was a tool to promote
the town of Mold through its Slow Food designation (LA1); or it was embedded in their
involvement in partnerships such as Flint Tourism Association (PB02) and Mold Business
Forum (P2). At a more applied level, BO2 promoted Slow Food through her business
practices:
I run a bed and breakfast and all my stuff is cooked to order. My chickens lay the eggs; my
bacon and my sausages are produced by local butchers from local produce and, for instance,
in the case of bacon it’s home cured by the butcher; the sausages are made to order, made for
me on the day that I order them if you see what I mean. My casseroles that I make out the North
Wales buffalo meat I order and collect, when I need them. Even the ice creams that I make are
made with Welsh milk.
Direct involvement in promoting Slow Food was also evidenced by P1 via the promotion of
Slow Food on the Cittaslow website, in publications, through talks to organisations and
regular market stalls, so focusing on the dissemination of information. With regard to
training, E1 educates people on all aspects of Slow Food from food manufacturing through
to hospitality that is from production through to consumption and adopts a project-based
approach. Interestingly, E1 identi?ed how it is not just about process, but it is also important
to educate people on the ethos of Slow Food. “Spreading the message” of Slow Food is
regarded by several interviewees as important (C1, E1, LA1, P1 and PB01). Named
mechanisms for “spreading the message,” in addition to the work of Cittaslow, were the
Flintshire Tourism Association through encouraging members to have local menus and to
source locally, and the Mold Food and Drink Festival (PB01). With regard to the latter,
exclusivity and restrictions to taking part are implemented to ensure quality:
We give priority to local producers as opposed to big mass producers who we don’t really want
in the Food Festival because we want the experience to be something very special, very
different, very fresh, and very appealing (PB01).
While there was an acceptance of work being done and attempts at promotion and
applauded examples of Slow Food businesses, C1expressed a need for more action:
I think [. . .]. We’re all talking about it, where are we promoting it? I know that Flintshire Tourism
Association is very active in the private sector, as an independent body [. . .] push this sort of
issue perhaps indirectly. I’m in the North Wales Tourism Partnership. We push this and promote
this sort of thing. I don’t know actually [. . .] I think that’s where it needs more work actually.
While the interviews had focused initially on Slow Food per se, interviewees were then
asked broader questions regarding Slow Food UK and Cittaslow. Their responses
demonstrated a disparity of knowledge. Six interviewees had not heard of the concept of
Slow Food UK (BO1, BO2, BOC1, C1, E1 and PB01), while two thought they had but they
could give no further details (LA2 and PB02). Nevertheless, LA1 understood the distinction
between Slow Food and Cittaslow, Slow Food UK and, particularly, noted Ludlow as being
an important benchmark in the development of Slow Food in Mold, emphasising the
importance of local ?rms in the Slow Food endeavour.
For one interviewee, Slow Food and Cittaslow were one and the same (BO2). A more
encompassing and wide ranging awareness of Cittaslow’s impact and bene?ts was
presented by a number of interviewees who accepted its wider application and resonance.
PAGE 438 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
P2 and LA2 speci?cally identi?ed the importance of the broader environment and its reach
beyond food; P2 stated how it focused on:
[. . .] the whole town environment, the quality of life, and it’s even pushing out into businesses,
through the use of more low energy lighting and so forth. It’s encompassing everything we’ve
ever done if you like.
The all-encompassing bene?ts are further applauded by LA2 and C1: C1 explained how:
[. . .] the bene?ts are wide because it’s not just about food, it’s about maybe a different cultural
approach to things, which then empowers people at a local level and makes them start [. . .] I’ve
actually seen this locally in Mold [. . .] they start to con?gure other things, other ways for the
community to get involved so the bene?ciaries could be a wide range of people and groups in
the local area.
The bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership
Interviewees believed there to be bene?ts that could be acquired from membership of Slow
Food and Cittaslow for various economic sectors and stakeholders (businesses,
destination marketers and consumers). With regard to economic sectors, there is a
perceived bene?t to tourism. LA1 sees the value in the marketing of Mold as a tourism
destination: “Mold [. . .] has the designation and [we try] to build on that [. . .] it’s a good
selling point.” P1 also notes the value of Slow Food projects for the tourism industry to tap
into, and for visitors too as noted also by C1: “Through various avenues I am promoting
initiatives such as Mold as a Cittaslow town, [and] the quality of what we have got to offer
visitors to the county.” The distinctiveness afforded by being a Cittaslow town was also
applauded (BCO1), as it offered an opportunity for difference to be promoted, and for P1
it meant added value: “value-added from the fact they are promoting what is unique about
the area.” For businesses, there are also the bene?ts of added value and the sustaining of
other local businesses by buying local:
I think for businesses it’s an ‘add on’ value [. . .] you can actually charge a bit more, and
therefore you are adding value. On top of that by buying locally you are then helping to sustain
other business enterprises in the area (PB01).
For consumers, bene?ts are identi?ed as guaranteed quality of produce, assurances with
regard to knowing from where the food has come, knowing how fresh it is and increasing
awareness of local food:
I think from the public’s point of view: a) you know where your food is coming from; and b) you
know basically how old it is and more or less. There must be one or two rogue people in the
middle there somewhere. I haven’t seen any yet but human nature being what it is, there must
be some somewhere, but on the whole you are guaranteed quality. It’s a win-win situation really
all round (PB01).
Slow Food UK membership also helps customers to understand the distinctiveness of an
area; “an application to benchmarking and linking high quality products with enhancement
of sense of place” (PB02). The changing consumer attitude also allows for Slow Food to be
acknowledged and valued: “there’s a drive amongst most people I think now, an attitude in
favour of local produced, well-produced, humanely, environmentally friendly production of
food and so on and so on” (PB01). As acknowledged by LA2 and C1, the bene?ts are
broad as it is not just about food, but Cittaslow allows for the broader perspective and
implications by creating the right sort of environment and a “different cultural approach to
things” (C1). P1 discussed these broader bene?ts also:
It’s a movement that has a set of goals which cover all aspects of the town, not just food, but also
the environment, hospitality, the community so it really suited Mold.
Critically, PBO2 commented upon the need for further work to maximise and capitalise on
the bene?ts of Cittaslow accreditation: “There’s very little public awareness of Cittaslow
[. . .] and what it means.” PBO2 identi?es the way forward as requiring infrastructure: “I
don’t think there’s a strong enough alignment between suppliers, retailers, cafes and
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 439
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
restaurants.” However, Mold’s Cittaslow status has allowed access to European funds and,
P1 argues, for the extent of the accreditation being applied to the town and so the whole
town can be involved. E1 further praises the Cittaslow status and the bene?ts it brings:
It’s almost like a centre of excellence for bringing the community together as a whole and it is
very good brand and label to earmark the town, that they are part of the Cittaslow Movement.
An important strategic role of Cittaslow is mooted by LA1, as an important part of
destination management: “a selling point for the town.”
Understanding of sustainable tourism development
The levels of understanding of sustainable tourism development varied. In particular,
interviewees interpreted the concept as an application of operational practices, a
mechanismfor visitor management, but for some it was an unfamiliar term. There was a lack
of con?dence and uncertainty among some interviewees when they were asked what they
considered sustainable tourism development to be: “I am not familiar with it as a term” (P1);
and “not really sure on that one” (P2). Business owners, PBO1 and BO2, both referred to
items at the enterprise level relating to water management aspects at their business or
designing of new buildings to extend existing businesses. The link to physical infrastructure
development was also raised by BOC1. Ideas such as incorporating a visitor management
programme, minimising the potential harm of visitors and ensuring host community
engagement (PBO2) were put forward. Importantly, the elements of longevity and time were
mentioned by BO1, BOC1, LA1 and LA2: “Tourism which can go on effectively without
damaging what is there” (BO1). Only one aspect was focused upon by LA1, that is, just the
environmental aspect and ensuring futurity with no neglect or worsening of situations by
actions. No interviewees were able to show a full aspect and considered understanding of
sustainable tourism development, with it being perceived negatively and narrowly.
Sustainable tourism practices though are clearly identi?ed as being embedded within
particular businesses in the area. BO2 discussed her approach to her bed and breakfast
establishment and attention to saving energy with water-saving devices on the shower and
reminders to guests to switch off electrical appliances such as televisions (TVs) and kettles
rather than leave then on standby. Recycling measures at his business were detailed by
BO1 and the importance of the council in supporting and facilitating recycling.
With regard to responsibility for ensuring sustainable tourism development, there were
variable viewpoints. At the practical applied level, BO2 considered the responsibility lay
with her as the owner and her having business practices which were sustainable. Other
interviewees considered responsibility at a strategic level and as a shared concern. While
there was a lack of consensus as to responsibility and which agency should take the lead,
there was an acceptance that a range of stakeholders from both the public and private
sectors should be involved. P1 discussed the importance of tourism agencies at the
regional level for developing strategies, while also suggesting the need for cross-border
links with other regions such as the North West of England. Additionally, there was a need
for cooperation across regions; LA1 discussed the need for cross-agency involvement with
public and private sector involvement:
[ensuring sustainable tourism development is a] cross-agency piece of work really, in town
councils, county council, communities ?rst, but more importantly [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] the public
sector and the private sector engagement in it [. . .] so it is really a community buy in.
More speci?cally, BO1 acknowledged the responsibility and role of local authorities in the
planning process and considers, as such, they should take the lead in sustainable
development due to their ability to control and restrict planning. Conversely, P2 and PBO1
concurred that the Flintshire Tourism Association should have a lead role, as a
representative member-led organisation for small tourism businesses in Flint. The scale of
planning and development was commented upon by P1 in isolation, as the need for
cross-border cooperation, with a regional approach encompassing North Wales and also
PAGE 440 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
working with Cheshire (an adjacent county in England). As a mechanism for change,
Cittaslow is viewed as a vehicle for sustainable tourism development, at the practical
business level (BO2) and also a lead agency that should take responsibility (P1).
Contribution of Slow Food and Cittaslow to sustainable tourism development
Most of the interviewees saw a natural synergy amongst Slow Food and Cittaslow
movements and sustainable tourism: “to bring up tourism sustainability, it has a really
de?ned role within there” (E1). BO2 applauded the potential of Cittaslow to assist
sustainable tourism development, in the Movement’s ability to give appropriate advice and
guidance to individuals and businesses: it is “a good a body to go to for help [. . .] and, in
some respects, a more easily identi?able body to go to.” P1 agreed that Slow Food already
contributed to sustainable tourism development, but there was some consideration though
as to its limitations and current use as noted by LA2: “probably not as much as it potentially
could really.”
The suitability of Mold to the Cittaslow approach was commented on by PB02. The nature
of Mold and the qualities of the area were seen to lend themselves to its being a good
Cittaslow place and so would bene?t from such an approach. E1 also corroborated the
value of Cittaslow for tourism: “this is a very, very good place to come, to eat, to see things
and Cittaslow plays a very important part in that.” For PBO1, Mold’s Cittaslow status is
acknowledged and seen to be an important message for people, with regard to what is then
on offer in Mold. For Cittaslow to take on a role, P1 commented upon the partnerships (such
as Mold Food and Drink Festival, Mold Town Partnership, Mold 2000, Mold Business
Forum) and the need for Cittaslow to have a greater pro?le within these groups and to take
responsibility. Its speci?c role could be to facilitate sustainable tourism development
through networking: “take responsibility for creating the necessary networking and to
promote it within the community at large and then make sure that business to business
works as well” (PB02). C1 noted the importance of the individual organiser for Slow Food
and the need to commit to it in the long-term. The broader remit was also praised, with
Cittaslow not being solely restricted to tourism but having an importance for the wider
environment and sustainable measures: “it’s not just about food, it’s about the whole
environment and wellbeing of people, so yeah, Cittaslow is a good ?agship for it I would
suggest” (LA1).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the extent to which local stakeholders were conversant
with the de?nitions of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and to determine their
perceptions of the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow Movements’ membership. Further, it
examines the local stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development and
explores their perceptions of the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to
sustainable tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City in Wales. The stakeholders
employed varying levels of awareness, knowledge and sophistication when de?ning Slow
Food. Interestingly, it was found that the characteristics of Slow Food related to quality,
time, sourcing foods locally, promoting the local food chain and encouraging local
producers as well as the opposite concept of fast food (www.slowfood.com). When it
comes to stakeholders’ level of involvement in Slow Food, it varied according to their
speci?c job roles; some stakeholders were more directly involved in promoting Slow Food
than others. This ?nding supports that of Jamal and Stronza (2009) who revealed that
different stakeholders have different views and interests based on their job and business
characteristics, hence the level of involvement within destination projects can vary. With
regard to the perceived bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership, stakeholders
believed that the membership of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements could bring
bene?ts to various economic sectors (Sassatelli and Davolio, 2010), as well as personal
bene?ts to the tourism stakeholders such as local tourism businesses, destination
marketers and consumers. This stakeholder viewpoint concurs with the overall aim of the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 441
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Cittaslow Movement which is to support local businesses, encourage participation within
community events and welcome visitors (www.cittaslow.org.uk). In particular, membership
of these movements was considered to be a key factor in adding value and promoting
sustainability from the perspective of local tourism businesses and it could also give
consumers the assurance of guaranteed quality of produce and the awareness of locally
produced food. This point of view concurs with Robinson et al. (2011) who pointed out the
importance of acting in accordance with regulations and adhering to certain criteria to
ensure that the Cittaslow Movement enhances the overall quality of living.
The ?ndings revealed that there were various levels of understanding of sustainable tourism
development among the stakeholders, in line with Jamal and Stronza (2009) who noted
that, within a destination, stakeholders have different opinions and ideas with regard to
destination development. Considering perceptions of sustainable tourism development,
there appeared to be a lack of con?dence and uncertainty amongst some stakeholders. As
the results revealed, none of stakeholders could show a full and considered understanding
of sustainable tourism development even though sustainable tourism practices were
identi?ed and embedded within some tourism businesses in Mold area. Sautter and Leisen
(1999) ?rst acknowledged that different perspectives are a concern within stakeholder
groups. Subsequently, Wray (2011) ascertained that stakeholders have different values
and learning processes which complicate the overall stakeholder engagement, especially
considering that stakeholders have different job descriptions and bene?t from different
activities hence have a different understanding regarding such terminology and its
practical application. Interestingly, although Byrd (2006) considered that all stakeholders
within the host community should take responsibility for the effect of tourism on a
destination, there were differing views, and a lack of consensus was apparent, regarding
responsibility for ensuring sustainable tourism development. However, all of the
stakeholders did agree that public – private partnerships are the key to successful
sustainable tourism development, as con?rmed by Arnaboldi and Spiller (2011) who
pointed out that destinations should have actors who are responsible for the representation
of various stakeholders and facilitate the decision-making and consensus building
process. When it comes to the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to
the sustainable tourism development, stakeholders perceived that there is a synergy
among Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and sustainable tourism development and
also recognised that the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements have contributed to
sustainable tourism development in Mold area (Sparks et al., 2003). Furthermore, Sims
(2009) acknowledged the signi?cance of movements such as Cittaslow in revealing that
local, slow and authentic food is increasingly important to attract visitors, in turn, having a
major impact on the environment, businesses and the host community. This overall point of
view was reinforced strongly by the stakeholders in the Mold area.
At an applied level, there are implications for the future development of Slow Food and the
achieving of a sustainable approach to tourism development in Mold. There would appear
to be a practical usefulness and value of Slow Food in facilitating and achieving sustainable
tourism at this particular destination; however, the evident lack of knowledge with regard to
these two concepts (Slow Food and sustainable tourism development) may prove a barrier
and constraint as by not having full knowledge and awareness it could be argued that
future opportunities may be limited. Full and broad knowledge of these concepts on the
part of the tourism suppliers could lead to the identi?cation of further opportunities and new
innovations, which would allow for a broader understanding and adoption of Slow Food.
Such a positive shift could be an invaluable tool for marketers as well as bene?ting tourists
and locals. Responsibility, in turn, lies with the destination managers, business forums,
educational establishments and the local authority to facilitate and promote good practise
linked to Slow Food and sustainability so that tourism suppliers can “buy in” and a strategic
approach at a destination level is achieved. Theoretically, there have been extensive
debates in the tourism literature related to sustainable tourism development and through
conceptual discourse de?nitions have been determined, a similar debate would be
PAGE 442 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
welcomed within the Slow Food arena, as too, the development of further case studies to
extend knowledge and to support Slow Food as a tool for sustainability.
Conclusion and limitations
The present case study has explored the de?nitional issues and knowledge of the Slow
Food and Cittaslow Movements and also examined the perceived bene?ts of Slow Food
UK/Cittaslow membership. Further, the study investigated the understanding of sustainable
tourism development by stakeholders and also explored how the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements have contributed to the successful sustainable tourism development in Mold
area. It has provided some valuable detailed evidence on the potential contribution of Slow
Food and the Cittalslow Movement to sustainable tourism development.
As with many such qualitative studies, it may be argued that there are limitations associated
with the size and representativeness of the sample, which was purposive with limited
participation; thus, when generalising the results, great caution must be taken. The
counter-argument is that the ?ndings are rich and informative; they not only support some
previous studies but also provide some local dimensional perspectives. The authors were
fortunate to access key stakeholders in Mold, including local community business owners,
members of the Town Council and Local Authority, educators, trainers and representatives
of various local partnerships. Because no other case studies on the Slow Food and
Cittaslow Movements in the UK were located and only very few from Europe, there is only
scant evidence for comparative purposes. Furthermore, the structured interview method is
limited in its ability to identify and measure the quantitative effectiveness of stakeholders’
partnerships with respect to the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements. Therefore, it would
be of value to conduct a quantitative study to validate generalisability, followed by
additional qualitative studies to explore further emerging issues in depth. The former could
incorporate statistical time-series analysis to measure the changing perceptions and
attitudes of stakeholders and the economic bene?ts of Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements. In addition, as the focus here is on short-term qualitative measurement,
studies set in different contexts may yield different results.
Currently, there are ?ve other Cittaslow towns in UK and further research could be carried
out on how the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements may have contributed to their
sustainable tourism development incorporating the social, environmental and economic
impacts of these Movements from the local stakeholders’ perspectives. In addition, this
study presented the views of various internal stakeholders in the Mold area but there is
growing interest from external stakeholders including Cittaslow UK, Cittaslow Europe and
Cittalslow International and external stakeholder analysis for the assessment of the
economic, social and cultural, environmental impact of the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements could be considered within the context of global–local nexus.
References
Araujo, L.M. and Bramwell, B. (2002), “Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil,” Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1138-1164.
Arnaboldi, M. and Spiller, N. (2011), “Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: the case of
cultural districts,” Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 641-654.
Byrd, E.T. (2006), “Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying
stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development,” Tourism Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 6-13.
Byrd, E. and Gustke, L. (2007), “Using decision trees to identify tourism stakeholders: the case of two
Eastern North Carolina counties,” Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 176-193.
Germov, J., Williams, L. and Freij, M. (2010), “Portrayal of the slow food movement in the Australian
print media: conviviality, localism and romanticism,” Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Gray, B. (1989), “Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration,” Human Relations, Vol. 38
No. 10, pp. 911-936.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 443
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Gyimothy, S. and Mykletun, R.J. (2008), “Scary food: commodifying culinary heritage as meal
adventures in tourism,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 259-273.
Henderson, J.C. (2009), “Food tourism reviewed,” British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 317-326.
Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. (2009), “Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas:
stakeholders, structuring & sustainability,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 169-189.
Kuhn, K. (2009), “Catherine Gazzoli – a minute on the clock,” available at: www.catererandhotelkeeper.
co.uk/articles/4/12/2009/331240/catherine-gazzoli-a-minute-on-the-clock.htm (accessed 30 June
2013).
Mayer, H. and Knox, P.L. (2006), “Slow cities: sustainable places in a fast world,” Journal of Urban
Affairs, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 321-334.
Miele, M. and Murdoch, J. (2002), “The practical aesthetics of traditional cuisines: slow food in
Tuscany,” Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 312-328.
Nilsson, J.H., Svard, A.C., Widarsson, A. and Wirell, T. (2011), “‘Cittáslow’ eco-gastronomic heritage as
a tool for destination development,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 373-386.
Nosi, C. and Zanni, L. (2004), “Moving from ‘typical products’ to food related services – the slow food
case as a new business paradigm,” British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 10/11, pp. 779-792.
Owen, R., Witt, S. and Gammon, S. (1993), “Sustainable tourism development in Wales: from theory to
practice,” Tourism Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 463-474.
Parkins, W. (2004), “Out of time: fast subjects & slow living,” Time & Society, Vol. 13 Nos 2/3,
pp. 363-382.
Pearson, D., Henryks, J., Trott, A., Jones, P., Parker, G., Dumaresq, D. and Dyball, R. (2011), “Local
food: understanding consumer motivations in innovative retail formats,” British Food Journal, Vol. 113
No. 7, pp. 886-899.
Pink, S. (2008), “Mobilising visual ethnography: making routes, making place and making images,”
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, Article 36,
available at: www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1166/2575%20Accessed%20
August%202009 (accessed 30 July 2013).
Richie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994), “Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research,” in
Bryman, A and Burgess, B. (Eds), Analysing Qualitative Data, Routledge, London, pp. 173-194.
Robinson, P., Heitmann, S. and Dieke, P. (2011), Research Themes for Tourism, CABI, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire.
Sassatelli, R. and Davolio, F. (2010), “Consumption, pleasure and politics slow food and the
politico-aesthetic problematisation of food,” Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 202-232.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), “Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 312-328.
Sharpley, R. (2010), “Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide,” Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Sims, R. (2009), “Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience,”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 321-336.
Sparks, B., Bowen, J. and Klag, S. (2003), “Restaurants and the tourist market,” International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-13.
Spiller, K. (2012), “It tastes better because . . . consumer understandings of UK farmers’ market food,”
Appetite, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 100-107.
Wang, J. (2009), “Art in capital: shaping distinctiveness in a culture-led urban regeneration project in
Red Town, Shanghai,” Cities, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 318-330.
Wray, M. (2011), “Adopting and implementing a transactive approach to sustainable tourism planning:
translating theory into practice,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 605-627.
About the authors
Timothy H. Jung’s role in Manchester Metropolitan University focuses on PhD supervision,
and he is conducting research projects in the area of information and communications
PAGE 444 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
technology (ICT) and tourism and hospitality. He is the senior lecturer in the Department of
Food and Tourism Management. Prior to joining the Manchester Metropolitan University,
Timothy was involved in the eBusiness research project as a research of?cer at University
of Surrey. He is an active member of several professional associations and is a regular
contributor to international conferences. His research interests centre on eLearning, social
media networks and mobile-augmented reality technologies, Slow Food Movement and
Cittaslow Movements. Timothy H. Jung is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Elizabeth M. Ineson’s work centres on European link projects, including course, staff and
management development and collaborative research. She organises research seminars
in Central and Eastern Europe focusing on education/industry links, for the charitable trust
La fondation pour la formation hôtelière. Her research interests are in methodology,
management education, development and training, experiential learning, psychometrics,
service encounters and cultural dimensions.
Amanda Miller is a Principal Lecturer in Tourism Management. Her primary research focus
is the consumer behaviour of sports tourists.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 445
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_779475430.pdf
This paper aims to discuss stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism
development and their experiences regarding the contribution of these movements to sustainable
tourism development. The contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to the success of a
tourism destination is evaluated by determining local stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning of these
terms and views on their benefits.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism development: a case study of Mold, Wales
Timothy H. J ung Elizabeth M. Ineson Amanda Miller
Article information:
To cite this document:
Timothy H. J ung Elizabeth M. Ineson Amanda Miller , (2014),"The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism
development: a case study of Mold, Wales", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4
pp. 432 - 445
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0001
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 489 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative
tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
J oan C. Henderson, (2009),"Food tourism reviewed", British Food J ournal, Vol. 111 Iss 4 pp. 317-326 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910951470
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Luisa Andreu, Martina G. Gallarza, (2014),"Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 420-431http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-03-2014-0024
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Slow Food Movement and
sustainable tourism development: a case
study of Mold, Wales
Timothy H. Jung, Elizabeth M. Ineson and Amanda Miller
Timothy H. Jung is a
Director, Creative
Augmented Realities
Hub, Elizabeth M. Ineson
is a Visiting Research
Fellow and Amanda Miller
is a Principal Lecturer
Tourism Management, all
are based at the
Department of Food and
Tourism Management,
Manchester Metropolitan
University, Manchester,
UK.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to discuss stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism
development and their experiences regarding the contribution of these movements to sustainable
tourism development. The contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to the success of a
tourismdestination is evaluated by determining local stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning of these
terms and views on their bene?ts.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach used semi-structured interviews to collect
data from 11 purposively sampled local stakeholders. The interview questions spanned knowledge,
membership and perceived bene?ts of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and the contribution of
these Movements to sustainable tourism development. The data were analysed using framework
analysis.
Findings – Varying levels of familiarity with the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements were evident.
Clear economic and personal bene?ts frommembership were acknowledged. It was con?rmed that the
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements have contributed to sustainable tourism development and that
public–private partnership is key to its success.
Research limitations/implications – The speci?c research context and limited purposive sample
suggest great caution in any generalisation of the results.
Practical implications – Close and continued involvement of stakeholders plus membership of the
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements can contribute strongly to promoting sustainable tourism
development in rural areas.
Social implications – It is recognised that the SlowFood and CittaslowMovements make a substantial
contribution to local economies and add value to sustainable practices.
Originality/value – Involving local stakeholders in public–private partnerships can contribute to the
success of rural tourism destinations when the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements are considered as
alternative approaches to sustainable tourism development.
Keywords Sustainable tourism development, Tourism, Stakeholders, Wales, Slow Food
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Most tourism destination organisations tend to focus on marketing and promotion; they are
not closely involved in resource conservation and planning and this approach can have
serious consequences for destination sustainability (Jamal and Stronza, 2009). Owen et al.
(1993) researched tourism initiatives in Wales including the Garden Festival Wales in Ebbw
Vale (horticultural tourism), Project Conwy (heritage tourism) and Mid-Wales Festival for the
Countryside (environmental tourism). All of these case studies were initiated not only to
improve the contribution of tourism to the local economy in their respective areas but also
to provide better quality experiences for the visitors, to protect the environment and to
enhance quality of life for the host communities, while ensuring local involvement in
decision-making processes (Gray, 1989; Araujo and Bramwell, 2002; Sautter and Leisen,
1999; Wang, 2009), and they determine that sustainable tourism could be successful in
Wales. Such project initiatives are mirrored in the idea behind the Slow Food Movement
Received 2 January 2014
Revised 16 May 2014
Accepted 7 July 2014
PAGE 432 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 432-445, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-01-2014-0001
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/welcome_eng.lasso) which purports to improve the
local economy, protect local culture and traditions and support local traders, while
providing an education about food (Miele and Murdoch, 2002). Although the concept of the
Slow Food Movement began in Piedmont, Italy, in 1986, it was not founded of?cially until
1989 by Carlo Petrini to hit back at the fast food industry, catalysed by the opening of a
McDonald’s restaurant in the Piazza di Spagna, Rome (Miele and Murdoch, 2002).
Following the Slow Food Movement, the Cittaslow Movement was created, based on the
idea that as local communities develop, they need to establish a clear identity through
recognising and celebrating their unique qualities (www.cittaslow.org.uk/images/D
ownload/cittaslow_charter.pdf). These Slow Cities must prove that they are ensuring
optimal use of their regional resources and that they are implementing policies to enhance
the lives of the local community, while pursuing quality excellence and promoting traditional
agricultural processes (Nosi and Zanni, 2004). Mayer and Knox (2006) noted that the
Cittaslow Movement offers towns and destinations an alternative approach to sustainable
development designed to promote environmental conservation and improve urban life
through incentivising local food production that uses natural and environmentally friendly
techniques.
The notion of Slow Food was not introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) until 2005. Gazzoli,
chief executive of Slow Food UK, explained:
Slow Food is about the universal right that good, clean and fair food should be available for
everyone. Good, because food should taste good; clean, because it should be produced in a
way that fully respects the environment, human health and animal welfare; and fair, because the
workers at all stages of production should be paid a fair and honest wage (Kuhn, 2009, p. 1).
Byrd (2006) remarked that the stakeholders within the host community should not only be
aware of but also take responsibility for, the existing and potential effect of tourism on the
destination. For sustainable tourism to be achieved, there needs to be a balance between
the associated positive effects that support and emanate from tourism sustainability
alongside a recognition, understanding and subsequent resolution of any negative effects
(Byrd and Gustke, 2007). As the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements are considered to be
alternative approaches to sustainable tourism development, the involvement of
stakeholders in a local tourism destination may be the key to their success. However, there
is little published research in this area; in particular, from the perspective of the local
stakeholders. Therefore, the present paper focuses on the notion that the Slow Food and
Cittaslow Movements can contribute to the achievement of this success. The aim is to
explore the ways in which local stakeholders de?ne Slow Food and the Cittaslow Movement
and how they perceive the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership. Further, it
examines stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development and elicits their
perceptions on the contribution of Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable
tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City in Wales.
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements
Slow Food International is a non-pro?t eco-gastronomic organisation with a voluntary
membership which comprises a network of over 100,000 members in 153 countries
(Nilsson et al., 2011). Related activities, projects and events are developed at local,
regional and global levels, including more than 5,000 Slow Food initiatives annually in
which 10,000 small producers are involved in 314 projects; promotion of 1,000 products at
risk of extinction through the Ark of Taste catalogue which embraces biodiversity in a
world-wide collection of small-scale quality productions threatened by industrial
agriculture, environmental degradation and homogenisation with descriptions of forgotten
?avours and products at risk of extinction that could be rediscovered and returned to the
market (www.slowfood.com); 1,300 food education activities and 350 school gardens in
100 countries; and Terra Madre network activities, which involve 2,000 food communities,
1,000 cooks, 500 academics and 1,000 young activists (www.slowfood.com/). The latter
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 433
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
brings together groups of contributors to the food chain process, who collaborate in the
responsibility for “sustainable agriculture, ?shing, and breeding with the goal of preserving
taste and biodiversity” (See, for further information, www.terramadre.info/pagine/
organizzazione/?-session?terramadre:5211B5BA1afaf201AEnrD8B36E25).
The Slow Food Movement seeks to educate consumers about traditional and local foods,
while also protecting food and agricultural heritage. In turn, consumer demands, driven by
environmental, ethical, social and health concerns continue to move towards the Slow Food
processes of natural farming and agriculture, as suggested by Nosi and Zanni (2004). A
content and discourse analysis of consumers’ responses, undertaken in Australia by
Germov et al. (2010), revealed themes, metaphors and imagery pertaining to Slow Food
including:
“conviviality” (social pleasures of sharing “good food”);
“localism” (social, health and environmental bene?ts of local produce); and
“romanticism” (of idyllic rural lifestyles as an antidote to the time-poverty of urban life).
In the same vein, Spiller (2012) considered the effect of farmers’ markets on UK consumers’
evaluations of the taste of foods, focusing on whether their descriptions of taste were
metaphor-laden or based on beliefs and values emboldened by food knowledge and
opinions; the paper highlighted the importance of place in cultivating the taste of food.
Spin-off activities of the Slow Food Movement include arranging food fairs, educational
programmes and providing support for farmers and artisans around the world through
?nancial awards (Parkins, 2004). Sims (2009) argued that food plays an important role in
tourism and local food can provide a tourist with a bond to the area and to local culture and
heritage, thereby improving the quality of the tourist experience. Sparks et al. (2003) also
stated the importance of dining and wine experience to attract tourists to tourist
destinations. Slow Food’s current shift towards issues such as economic growth, access to
resources and environmental protection was considered by Sassatelli and Davolio (2010,
p. 97) who reviewed Slow Food as the “right to pleasure in the face of a tension between
inclusion and exclusion running through contemporary consumer culture” in the context of
current debates on the scope of alternative food networks and the political investment of
the consumer. Slow Food seems to play a role in what has been de?ned typically as
“critical,” “alternative,” “ethical” or even “political” consumption. These labels occur in a
great variety of situations including the following: extended supply and demand for organic
and fair trade products; ethically and morally induced actions of individuals against private
corporations or governments to express dissatisfaction with their actions, ranging from
boycotts to more extreme actions such as naming and shaming; or alternative commerce
activities such as barter trade and farmers markets (Sassatelli and Davolio, 2010). Then
Pearson et al.’s (2011) case study focused on eliciting the pro?les and behaviour of
consumers with respect to their expectations in relation to local food. The resulting
consensus was that incentives encouraging and enabling the development of local food
webs have the ability to contribute in several areas; examples of such are the
encouragement of a higher degree of food self-suf?ciency, increased robustness and
strength of the local food system to overcome problems, reduction of carbon and
environmental footprints due to reduction of food miles and the increased awareness of the
sources of food with its consumers (Pearson et al., 2011).
Cittaslow is a growing international network of over 140 towns in 20 countries across the
world that have adopted a set of common goals and principles to enhance their quality of
life for residents and visitors. In simple terms, Cittaslow towns aim to be great places to live,
work and visit. They aim to support local businesses, foster local traditions, protect the
environment, welcome visitors and encourage active participation in community life (www.
greenguide.co.uk/node/1450). Each Cittaslow town commits to working towards a set of
over 50 goals and principles that aim to improve its quality of life. These goals and
PAGE 434 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
principles provide tangible benchmarks against which a town can measure its progress
and act as a mechanism to bring local people from all walks of life together to work
collectively for the good of their town. (www.cittaslow.org.uk/page.php?Pid1?2&PLv?1).
There are currently six Cittaslow towns in the UK. Their aim is to recruit further members in
all geographical areas of the UK to create a truly national network that acts as an effective
voice for smaller towns and provides tangible bene?ts for all member towns (www.
cittaslow.org.uk).
Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements in the Mold area
The Cittaslow Movement allows only towns with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants to join and
requires compliance with certain criteria within the areas of “environmental policies,
infrastructural policies, technologies and facilities for urban qualities, safeguarding
autochthonous production, hospitality and awareness” (Robinson et al., 2011, p. 116).
Mold, a small town with a population of around 10,000 inhabitants in North Wales, started
to pursue the concept of becoming a Slow Food destination in 2006, and it was the ?rst
Welsh town to be accepted into the Cittaslow Movement, dedicated to promoting traditional
local food and drinks (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/). Robinson et al. (2011) pointed out
that the Cittaslow Movement extends the philosophy of Slow Food to all areas of urban
living by incorporating the whole community. Consequently, Mold, being a Cittaslow town,
not only supports local producers, cultures and traditions but also integrates the whole
community into a more sustainable and healthy way of living to achieve the ultimate goal of
becoming a sustainable town and destination (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/moldtc/index.
php?Tourism:Mold_Food_Town; Robinson et al., 2011). Interestingly, the latter authors
considered that Cittaslow and Slow Food should not just be tools to promote tourism but
they should play important roles in the development of tourism success and community led
destinations. In this vein, Mold does not support the promotion of mass tourism but
encourages sustainable tourism development. The Mold Farmers’ Market was ?rst held in
2006 and since has taken place on the ?rst Saturday of each month with a full range of local
food products on offer, all sold by the producer or someone involved in the operation so
customers can enquire as to how the vegetables are grown or the animals reared. Most of
the produce is from within a 20-mile radius to reduce food miles, global pollution and
domestic road congestion. Included in the array of stalls are beef, pork, lamb, buffalo meat,
sausages and award-winning burgers, bread, hand-made cheese, Cilcain honey, fruit, fruit
juices and vegetables, home-made pies and cakes, organic meat, vegetables and eggs,
local beer and smoked products (http://moldtowncouncil.org.uk/moldtc/index.php?T
ourism:Farmers%27_Market_Comes_to_Mold). To raise awareness of Mold’s Slow Food
sector, the annual Mold Food Festival was successfully created in 2006. Mold Food Festival
?gures have shown a steady increase in numbers. In 2006, 4,500 visitors attended the
festival and there were 39 local producers with stands, rising to 51 in 2008. By 2013, there
were over 100 exhibitors and stands from the food and drink sector, primarily from the Mold
area, resulting in more than 13,000 visitors to the festival attracting not only locals but also
tourists (www.moldfoodfestival.co.uk/). Both Mold Farmers’ Market and Mold Food Festival
are managed by a committee comprising local stakeholder non-paid volunteers with the
responsibility organisation and management of these events being undertaken on a
rotational basis.
Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism development
For destinations to ensure a sustainable approach to tourism development, consideration
needs to be given to the nature and development of their tourism product. In turn, the
importance of food to the marketing of destinations is acknowledged by Sparks et al. (2003)
who proposed a great dining experience, embracing food and wine, can play a key role in
the appeal of a tourist destination. For destination managers, marketing is, of course, of
fundamental importance but so too is the requirement for a sustainable approach to tourism
development. In ensuring the latter, there is a need to acknowledge the importance of the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 435
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
underlying principles of sustainable development: holistic approach; equity; and futurity
(Sharpley, 2010). The marrying in of these principles, that is, the ethos of Slow Food and
sustainable development should help to facilitate sustainable tourism development. Indeed
in researching local food and sustainable tourism, Sims (2009) discovered that food plays
an increasingly important role in tourism and the availability of “authentic,” local foods for
the tourist market can have a large impact on the environmental, cultural and economic
sustainability of a destination, while bene?ting both the visitors and host community. As the
Slow Food Movement endorses local specialities to mark a unique regional identity, this
indirectly turns rural destinations into fashionable places to visit (Slow Food International,
2008; Gyimothy and Mykletun, 2008), and as it does so, the mechanisms for managing this
increased attraction and subsequent increased visitor numbers need to be present. To
devise effective and sustainable food tourism strategies, Henderson (2009) identi?es the
need for destination marketers to appreciate the food tourism resources of the places they
are promoting and the particular demands of diverse tourist markets, and to work to raise
standards. Further, according to Mayer and Knox (2006), the Cittaslow Movement gives
towns and destinations an alternative approach to sustainable urban development with the
overriding goal of “environmental conservation, the promotion of sustainable development,
and the improvement of the urban life [by providing] incentives to food production using
natural and environmentally friendly techniques” (Pink, 2008, p. 176).
Method
To explore the extent to which local stakeholders perceived the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements had contributed to sustainable tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City
in Wales, a case study approach was adopted. Over an eight-week period, semi-structured
interviews were conducted to collect data from 11 purposively sampled stakeholders,
whose pro?les are summarised in Table I. The sample comprised ?ve business owners
(BO1, BO2, BOC1, PB01 and PB01) of which two were members of local partnerships,
including Cittaslow, Mold 2000 and Mold Business Forum, alongside two further
interviewees (P1 and P2). BOC1 was also a councillor, as was C1. LA1 and LA2 were used
by the local authority, while E1 worked in education. All of the interviewees were local
residents who were involved in local tourism and some of them had more than one
stakeholder role. They represented businesses, the town council and local authority,
education, training and various partnerships. The interviewees have been coded to
represent the category/sector within which they operate (Table I).
Based on the literature review, the interview questions comprised four sections, namely:
1. de?nitional issues and knowledge of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements;
2. the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership;
3. understanding of, and responsibility for, sustainable tourism development; and
Table I Interviewee’s categories, codes and stakeholdings
Interviewee code Category Stakeholdings
BO1 Business owner Caravan park
BO2 Business owner Bed and breakfast
BOC1 Business owner; Councillor Business manager; Local council
C1 Councillor County council
E1 Education College lecturer
LA1 Local authority Tourism of?cer
LA2 Local authority Town centre manager
P1 Partnership Cittaslow
P2 Partnerships Mold 2000; Mold business forum
PB01 Partnership business owner Flintshire tourism association (FTA);
Business manager
PBO2 Partnership business owner/trainer Director (Consultant); FTA
PAGE 436 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
4. the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable tourism
development.
In the ?rst section, there were general questions to assess the respondents’ awareness of
Slow Food, Slow Food UK and Cittaslow in each instance. These were followed by some
probing questions, with prompts as appropriate, to elicit their understanding of the
meaning of Slow Food, including their perceptions of any differences between Slow Food
and locally produced food, their awareness of the local sources and availability of Slow
Food Movement and the extent to which they promoted Slow Food and Cittaslow in their
stakeholder roles. The second section comprised questions relating to stakeholders’
perceived bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership. The third section comprised
questions relating to stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development. In
the last section, the interviewees were asked for their views on the contribution of Slow Food
and Cittaslow Movements to sustainable tourism development. The interviews were
recorded digitally then transcribed word for word and cross-validated with the audio
recordings by a researcher. Next, each interviewee was emailed his/her transcript and
invited to approve the content and make any editorial changes that they desired. The
majority made no changes and a minority changed a few words, usually making
grammatical corrections to the spoken words. The interviews were analysed using
framework analysis. The ?ve steps used to determine the codes were: familiarisation;
identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; and mapping and interpretation
(Richie and Spencer, 1994). This multi-step process, as suggested by Richie and Spencer
(1994), allowed for the development of codes and sub-codes as applied to the interview
transcripts and as presented in the results section.
Results
De?nitional issues/knowledge of Slow Food
Varying levels of knowledge and familiarity with the term Slow Food were acknowledged
and there were different levels of sophistication offered in de?ning Slow Food.
Exceptionally, in one case, an interviewee admitted honestly that he had no knowledge of
the concept: “no idea” (BO1), while another needed the prompt of the impending interview
to research it on the Internet in advance (BOC1). At the most basic level, one interviewee
saw Slow Food as the polar opposite to fast food (P2) and in another case an actual
reaction to fast food (PB02). The distinguishing characteristics of Slow Food not only
encompassed being the opposite of fast food, but also related to quality, time, sourcing
foods locally, promoting the local food chain, encouraging local producers and
encapsulating a distinctive philosophy. The speci?c and more sophisticated knowledge of
E1 and P1 regarding the Slow Food concept was to be expected, as P1 was actively
involved in setting up the organisation in Mold and E1 in training and educating people in
the Mold area about Slow Food. C1 presented a comprehensive consideration of the term:
Slow Food is a different cultural viewpoint, where quality and experience are valued; doing
things in more of a localised or slower way is appreciated. It is approaching things from a
completely different viewpoint.
There was an acknowledgement of the importance of local producers: “the basic premise
of [Slow Food] is to encourage local producers etc in the promotion of their product”
(BOC1). In further examining the aspect of local produce and Slow Food, certain caveats
were mentioned by the interviewees. While accepting there were similarities, considerable
differences were also apparent. P1 considered Slow Food and local produce as going
together and BO2 perceived the concepts to be very similar and, in effect, did not see them
as separate entities. LA2 and PB01 went even further to state that Slow Food and local
produce were the same thing, although a value judgement was raised by LA1: “I think that
locally produced and Slow Food means the same thing, rightly or wrongly.” Interestingly P2,
while recognising commonalities such as freshness, quality and sustaining and supporting
the local economy, saw Slow Food as a philosophy: “Slow Food is a train of thought.” While
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 437
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
C1 also equally accepted similarities, he distinguished between local produce that is of
good and that which is of poor quality; local produce does not necessarily mean good
quality and if so, it does not equate to Slow Food. This viewpoint was developed further by
BOC1, who gave an example of a fast food manufacturer located in Flint who would not be
classed as a “local producer” as “being a local producer is more than just being in a local
geographical location.” Local producers are distinguished by their producing of local
produce and also as being “representative of the community” (BOC1).
Not surprisingly, those interviewees used in tasks and roles linked to Slow Food promote it
and support it in their activities; however, the level of involvement varied. For some
stakeholders, it was integral to their speci?c job role (E1 and P1); it was a tool to promote
the town of Mold through its Slow Food designation (LA1); or it was embedded in their
involvement in partnerships such as Flint Tourism Association (PB02) and Mold Business
Forum (P2). At a more applied level, BO2 promoted Slow Food through her business
practices:
I run a bed and breakfast and all my stuff is cooked to order. My chickens lay the eggs; my
bacon and my sausages are produced by local butchers from local produce and, for instance,
in the case of bacon it’s home cured by the butcher; the sausages are made to order, made for
me on the day that I order them if you see what I mean. My casseroles that I make out the North
Wales buffalo meat I order and collect, when I need them. Even the ice creams that I make are
made with Welsh milk.
Direct involvement in promoting Slow Food was also evidenced by P1 via the promotion of
Slow Food on the Cittaslow website, in publications, through talks to organisations and
regular market stalls, so focusing on the dissemination of information. With regard to
training, E1 educates people on all aspects of Slow Food from food manufacturing through
to hospitality that is from production through to consumption and adopts a project-based
approach. Interestingly, E1 identi?ed how it is not just about process, but it is also important
to educate people on the ethos of Slow Food. “Spreading the message” of Slow Food is
regarded by several interviewees as important (C1, E1, LA1, P1 and PB01). Named
mechanisms for “spreading the message,” in addition to the work of Cittaslow, were the
Flintshire Tourism Association through encouraging members to have local menus and to
source locally, and the Mold Food and Drink Festival (PB01). With regard to the latter,
exclusivity and restrictions to taking part are implemented to ensure quality:
We give priority to local producers as opposed to big mass producers who we don’t really want
in the Food Festival because we want the experience to be something very special, very
different, very fresh, and very appealing (PB01).
While there was an acceptance of work being done and attempts at promotion and
applauded examples of Slow Food businesses, C1expressed a need for more action:
I think [. . .]. We’re all talking about it, where are we promoting it? I know that Flintshire Tourism
Association is very active in the private sector, as an independent body [. . .] push this sort of
issue perhaps indirectly. I’m in the North Wales Tourism Partnership. We push this and promote
this sort of thing. I don’t know actually [. . .] I think that’s where it needs more work actually.
While the interviews had focused initially on Slow Food per se, interviewees were then
asked broader questions regarding Slow Food UK and Cittaslow. Their responses
demonstrated a disparity of knowledge. Six interviewees had not heard of the concept of
Slow Food UK (BO1, BO2, BOC1, C1, E1 and PB01), while two thought they had but they
could give no further details (LA2 and PB02). Nevertheless, LA1 understood the distinction
between Slow Food and Cittaslow, Slow Food UK and, particularly, noted Ludlow as being
an important benchmark in the development of Slow Food in Mold, emphasising the
importance of local ?rms in the Slow Food endeavour.
For one interviewee, Slow Food and Cittaslow were one and the same (BO2). A more
encompassing and wide ranging awareness of Cittaslow’s impact and bene?ts was
presented by a number of interviewees who accepted its wider application and resonance.
PAGE 438 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
P2 and LA2 speci?cally identi?ed the importance of the broader environment and its reach
beyond food; P2 stated how it focused on:
[. . .] the whole town environment, the quality of life, and it’s even pushing out into businesses,
through the use of more low energy lighting and so forth. It’s encompassing everything we’ve
ever done if you like.
The all-encompassing bene?ts are further applauded by LA2 and C1: C1 explained how:
[. . .] the bene?ts are wide because it’s not just about food, it’s about maybe a different cultural
approach to things, which then empowers people at a local level and makes them start [. . .] I’ve
actually seen this locally in Mold [. . .] they start to con?gure other things, other ways for the
community to get involved so the bene?ciaries could be a wide range of people and groups in
the local area.
The bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership
Interviewees believed there to be bene?ts that could be acquired from membership of Slow
Food and Cittaslow for various economic sectors and stakeholders (businesses,
destination marketers and consumers). With regard to economic sectors, there is a
perceived bene?t to tourism. LA1 sees the value in the marketing of Mold as a tourism
destination: “Mold [. . .] has the designation and [we try] to build on that [. . .] it’s a good
selling point.” P1 also notes the value of Slow Food projects for the tourism industry to tap
into, and for visitors too as noted also by C1: “Through various avenues I am promoting
initiatives such as Mold as a Cittaslow town, [and] the quality of what we have got to offer
visitors to the county.” The distinctiveness afforded by being a Cittaslow town was also
applauded (BCO1), as it offered an opportunity for difference to be promoted, and for P1
it meant added value: “value-added from the fact they are promoting what is unique about
the area.” For businesses, there are also the bene?ts of added value and the sustaining of
other local businesses by buying local:
I think for businesses it’s an ‘add on’ value [. . .] you can actually charge a bit more, and
therefore you are adding value. On top of that by buying locally you are then helping to sustain
other business enterprises in the area (PB01).
For consumers, bene?ts are identi?ed as guaranteed quality of produce, assurances with
regard to knowing from where the food has come, knowing how fresh it is and increasing
awareness of local food:
I think from the public’s point of view: a) you know where your food is coming from; and b) you
know basically how old it is and more or less. There must be one or two rogue people in the
middle there somewhere. I haven’t seen any yet but human nature being what it is, there must
be some somewhere, but on the whole you are guaranteed quality. It’s a win-win situation really
all round (PB01).
Slow Food UK membership also helps customers to understand the distinctiveness of an
area; “an application to benchmarking and linking high quality products with enhancement
of sense of place” (PB02). The changing consumer attitude also allows for Slow Food to be
acknowledged and valued: “there’s a drive amongst most people I think now, an attitude in
favour of local produced, well-produced, humanely, environmentally friendly production of
food and so on and so on” (PB01). As acknowledged by LA2 and C1, the bene?ts are
broad as it is not just about food, but Cittaslow allows for the broader perspective and
implications by creating the right sort of environment and a “different cultural approach to
things” (C1). P1 discussed these broader bene?ts also:
It’s a movement that has a set of goals which cover all aspects of the town, not just food, but also
the environment, hospitality, the community so it really suited Mold.
Critically, PBO2 commented upon the need for further work to maximise and capitalise on
the bene?ts of Cittaslow accreditation: “There’s very little public awareness of Cittaslow
[. . .] and what it means.” PBO2 identi?es the way forward as requiring infrastructure: “I
don’t think there’s a strong enough alignment between suppliers, retailers, cafes and
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 439
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
restaurants.” However, Mold’s Cittaslow status has allowed access to European funds and,
P1 argues, for the extent of the accreditation being applied to the town and so the whole
town can be involved. E1 further praises the Cittaslow status and the bene?ts it brings:
It’s almost like a centre of excellence for bringing the community together as a whole and it is
very good brand and label to earmark the town, that they are part of the Cittaslow Movement.
An important strategic role of Cittaslow is mooted by LA1, as an important part of
destination management: “a selling point for the town.”
Understanding of sustainable tourism development
The levels of understanding of sustainable tourism development varied. In particular,
interviewees interpreted the concept as an application of operational practices, a
mechanismfor visitor management, but for some it was an unfamiliar term. There was a lack
of con?dence and uncertainty among some interviewees when they were asked what they
considered sustainable tourism development to be: “I am not familiar with it as a term” (P1);
and “not really sure on that one” (P2). Business owners, PBO1 and BO2, both referred to
items at the enterprise level relating to water management aspects at their business or
designing of new buildings to extend existing businesses. The link to physical infrastructure
development was also raised by BOC1. Ideas such as incorporating a visitor management
programme, minimising the potential harm of visitors and ensuring host community
engagement (PBO2) were put forward. Importantly, the elements of longevity and time were
mentioned by BO1, BOC1, LA1 and LA2: “Tourism which can go on effectively without
damaging what is there” (BO1). Only one aspect was focused upon by LA1, that is, just the
environmental aspect and ensuring futurity with no neglect or worsening of situations by
actions. No interviewees were able to show a full aspect and considered understanding of
sustainable tourism development, with it being perceived negatively and narrowly.
Sustainable tourism practices though are clearly identi?ed as being embedded within
particular businesses in the area. BO2 discussed her approach to her bed and breakfast
establishment and attention to saving energy with water-saving devices on the shower and
reminders to guests to switch off electrical appliances such as televisions (TVs) and kettles
rather than leave then on standby. Recycling measures at his business were detailed by
BO1 and the importance of the council in supporting and facilitating recycling.
With regard to responsibility for ensuring sustainable tourism development, there were
variable viewpoints. At the practical applied level, BO2 considered the responsibility lay
with her as the owner and her having business practices which were sustainable. Other
interviewees considered responsibility at a strategic level and as a shared concern. While
there was a lack of consensus as to responsibility and which agency should take the lead,
there was an acceptance that a range of stakeholders from both the public and private
sectors should be involved. P1 discussed the importance of tourism agencies at the
regional level for developing strategies, while also suggesting the need for cross-border
links with other regions such as the North West of England. Additionally, there was a need
for cooperation across regions; LA1 discussed the need for cross-agency involvement with
public and private sector involvement:
[ensuring sustainable tourism development is a] cross-agency piece of work really, in town
councils, county council, communities ?rst, but more importantly [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] the public
sector and the private sector engagement in it [. . .] so it is really a community buy in.
More speci?cally, BO1 acknowledged the responsibility and role of local authorities in the
planning process and considers, as such, they should take the lead in sustainable
development due to their ability to control and restrict planning. Conversely, P2 and PBO1
concurred that the Flintshire Tourism Association should have a lead role, as a
representative member-led organisation for small tourism businesses in Flint. The scale of
planning and development was commented upon by P1 in isolation, as the need for
cross-border cooperation, with a regional approach encompassing North Wales and also
PAGE 440 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
working with Cheshire (an adjacent county in England). As a mechanism for change,
Cittaslow is viewed as a vehicle for sustainable tourism development, at the practical
business level (BO2) and also a lead agency that should take responsibility (P1).
Contribution of Slow Food and Cittaslow to sustainable tourism development
Most of the interviewees saw a natural synergy amongst Slow Food and Cittaslow
movements and sustainable tourism: “to bring up tourism sustainability, it has a really
de?ned role within there” (E1). BO2 applauded the potential of Cittaslow to assist
sustainable tourism development, in the Movement’s ability to give appropriate advice and
guidance to individuals and businesses: it is “a good a body to go to for help [. . .] and, in
some respects, a more easily identi?able body to go to.” P1 agreed that Slow Food already
contributed to sustainable tourism development, but there was some consideration though
as to its limitations and current use as noted by LA2: “probably not as much as it potentially
could really.”
The suitability of Mold to the Cittaslow approach was commented on by PB02. The nature
of Mold and the qualities of the area were seen to lend themselves to its being a good
Cittaslow place and so would bene?t from such an approach. E1 also corroborated the
value of Cittaslow for tourism: “this is a very, very good place to come, to eat, to see things
and Cittaslow plays a very important part in that.” For PBO1, Mold’s Cittaslow status is
acknowledged and seen to be an important message for people, with regard to what is then
on offer in Mold. For Cittaslow to take on a role, P1 commented upon the partnerships (such
as Mold Food and Drink Festival, Mold Town Partnership, Mold 2000, Mold Business
Forum) and the need for Cittaslow to have a greater pro?le within these groups and to take
responsibility. Its speci?c role could be to facilitate sustainable tourism development
through networking: “take responsibility for creating the necessary networking and to
promote it within the community at large and then make sure that business to business
works as well” (PB02). C1 noted the importance of the individual organiser for Slow Food
and the need to commit to it in the long-term. The broader remit was also praised, with
Cittaslow not being solely restricted to tourism but having an importance for the wider
environment and sustainable measures: “it’s not just about food, it’s about the whole
environment and wellbeing of people, so yeah, Cittaslow is a good ?agship for it I would
suggest” (LA1).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the extent to which local stakeholders were conversant
with the de?nitions of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and to determine their
perceptions of the bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow Movements’ membership. Further, it
examines the local stakeholders’ understanding of sustainable tourism development and
explores their perceptions of the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to
sustainable tourism development in Mold, the ?rst Slow City in Wales. The stakeholders
employed varying levels of awareness, knowledge and sophistication when de?ning Slow
Food. Interestingly, it was found that the characteristics of Slow Food related to quality,
time, sourcing foods locally, promoting the local food chain and encouraging local
producers as well as the opposite concept of fast food (www.slowfood.com). When it
comes to stakeholders’ level of involvement in Slow Food, it varied according to their
speci?c job roles; some stakeholders were more directly involved in promoting Slow Food
than others. This ?nding supports that of Jamal and Stronza (2009) who revealed that
different stakeholders have different views and interests based on their job and business
characteristics, hence the level of involvement within destination projects can vary. With
regard to the perceived bene?ts of Slow Food UK/Cittaslow membership, stakeholders
believed that the membership of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements could bring
bene?ts to various economic sectors (Sassatelli and Davolio, 2010), as well as personal
bene?ts to the tourism stakeholders such as local tourism businesses, destination
marketers and consumers. This stakeholder viewpoint concurs with the overall aim of the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 441
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Cittaslow Movement which is to support local businesses, encourage participation within
community events and welcome visitors (www.cittaslow.org.uk). In particular, membership
of these movements was considered to be a key factor in adding value and promoting
sustainability from the perspective of local tourism businesses and it could also give
consumers the assurance of guaranteed quality of produce and the awareness of locally
produced food. This point of view concurs with Robinson et al. (2011) who pointed out the
importance of acting in accordance with regulations and adhering to certain criteria to
ensure that the Cittaslow Movement enhances the overall quality of living.
The ?ndings revealed that there were various levels of understanding of sustainable tourism
development among the stakeholders, in line with Jamal and Stronza (2009) who noted
that, within a destination, stakeholders have different opinions and ideas with regard to
destination development. Considering perceptions of sustainable tourism development,
there appeared to be a lack of con?dence and uncertainty amongst some stakeholders. As
the results revealed, none of stakeholders could show a full and considered understanding
of sustainable tourism development even though sustainable tourism practices were
identi?ed and embedded within some tourism businesses in Mold area. Sautter and Leisen
(1999) ?rst acknowledged that different perspectives are a concern within stakeholder
groups. Subsequently, Wray (2011) ascertained that stakeholders have different values
and learning processes which complicate the overall stakeholder engagement, especially
considering that stakeholders have different job descriptions and bene?t from different
activities hence have a different understanding regarding such terminology and its
practical application. Interestingly, although Byrd (2006) considered that all stakeholders
within the host community should take responsibility for the effect of tourism on a
destination, there were differing views, and a lack of consensus was apparent, regarding
responsibility for ensuring sustainable tourism development. However, all of the
stakeholders did agree that public – private partnerships are the key to successful
sustainable tourism development, as con?rmed by Arnaboldi and Spiller (2011) who
pointed out that destinations should have actors who are responsible for the representation
of various stakeholders and facilitate the decision-making and consensus building
process. When it comes to the contribution of the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements to
the sustainable tourism development, stakeholders perceived that there is a synergy
among Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements and sustainable tourism development and
also recognised that the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements have contributed to
sustainable tourism development in Mold area (Sparks et al., 2003). Furthermore, Sims
(2009) acknowledged the signi?cance of movements such as Cittaslow in revealing that
local, slow and authentic food is increasingly important to attract visitors, in turn, having a
major impact on the environment, businesses and the host community. This overall point of
view was reinforced strongly by the stakeholders in the Mold area.
At an applied level, there are implications for the future development of Slow Food and the
achieving of a sustainable approach to tourism development in Mold. There would appear
to be a practical usefulness and value of Slow Food in facilitating and achieving sustainable
tourism at this particular destination; however, the evident lack of knowledge with regard to
these two concepts (Slow Food and sustainable tourism development) may prove a barrier
and constraint as by not having full knowledge and awareness it could be argued that
future opportunities may be limited. Full and broad knowledge of these concepts on the
part of the tourism suppliers could lead to the identi?cation of further opportunities and new
innovations, which would allow for a broader understanding and adoption of Slow Food.
Such a positive shift could be an invaluable tool for marketers as well as bene?ting tourists
and locals. Responsibility, in turn, lies with the destination managers, business forums,
educational establishments and the local authority to facilitate and promote good practise
linked to Slow Food and sustainability so that tourism suppliers can “buy in” and a strategic
approach at a destination level is achieved. Theoretically, there have been extensive
debates in the tourism literature related to sustainable tourism development and through
conceptual discourse de?nitions have been determined, a similar debate would be
PAGE 442 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
welcomed within the Slow Food arena, as too, the development of further case studies to
extend knowledge and to support Slow Food as a tool for sustainability.
Conclusion and limitations
The present case study has explored the de?nitional issues and knowledge of the Slow
Food and Cittaslow Movements and also examined the perceived bene?ts of Slow Food
UK/Cittaslow membership. Further, the study investigated the understanding of sustainable
tourism development by stakeholders and also explored how the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements have contributed to the successful sustainable tourism development in Mold
area. It has provided some valuable detailed evidence on the potential contribution of Slow
Food and the Cittalslow Movement to sustainable tourism development.
As with many such qualitative studies, it may be argued that there are limitations associated
with the size and representativeness of the sample, which was purposive with limited
participation; thus, when generalising the results, great caution must be taken. The
counter-argument is that the ?ndings are rich and informative; they not only support some
previous studies but also provide some local dimensional perspectives. The authors were
fortunate to access key stakeholders in Mold, including local community business owners,
members of the Town Council and Local Authority, educators, trainers and representatives
of various local partnerships. Because no other case studies on the Slow Food and
Cittaslow Movements in the UK were located and only very few from Europe, there is only
scant evidence for comparative purposes. Furthermore, the structured interview method is
limited in its ability to identify and measure the quantitative effectiveness of stakeholders’
partnerships with respect to the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements. Therefore, it would
be of value to conduct a quantitative study to validate generalisability, followed by
additional qualitative studies to explore further emerging issues in depth. The former could
incorporate statistical time-series analysis to measure the changing perceptions and
attitudes of stakeholders and the economic bene?ts of Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements. In addition, as the focus here is on short-term qualitative measurement,
studies set in different contexts may yield different results.
Currently, there are ?ve other Cittaslow towns in UK and further research could be carried
out on how the Slow Food and Cittaslow Movements may have contributed to their
sustainable tourism development incorporating the social, environmental and economic
impacts of these Movements from the local stakeholders’ perspectives. In addition, this
study presented the views of various internal stakeholders in the Mold area but there is
growing interest from external stakeholders including Cittaslow UK, Cittaslow Europe and
Cittalslow International and external stakeholder analysis for the assessment of the
economic, social and cultural, environmental impact of the Slow Food and Cittaslow
Movements could be considered within the context of global–local nexus.
References
Araujo, L.M. and Bramwell, B. (2002), “Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil,” Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1138-1164.
Arnaboldi, M. and Spiller, N. (2011), “Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: the case of
cultural districts,” Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 641-654.
Byrd, E.T. (2006), “Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying
stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development,” Tourism Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 6-13.
Byrd, E. and Gustke, L. (2007), “Using decision trees to identify tourism stakeholders: the case of two
Eastern North Carolina counties,” Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 176-193.
Germov, J., Williams, L. and Freij, M. (2010), “Portrayal of the slow food movement in the Australian
print media: conviviality, localism and romanticism,” Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Gray, B. (1989), “Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration,” Human Relations, Vol. 38
No. 10, pp. 911-936.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 443
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Gyimothy, S. and Mykletun, R.J. (2008), “Scary food: commodifying culinary heritage as meal
adventures in tourism,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 259-273.
Henderson, J.C. (2009), “Food tourism reviewed,” British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 317-326.
Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. (2009), “Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas:
stakeholders, structuring & sustainability,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 169-189.
Kuhn, K. (2009), “Catherine Gazzoli – a minute on the clock,” available at: www.catererandhotelkeeper.
co.uk/articles/4/12/2009/331240/catherine-gazzoli-a-minute-on-the-clock.htm (accessed 30 June
2013).
Mayer, H. and Knox, P.L. (2006), “Slow cities: sustainable places in a fast world,” Journal of Urban
Affairs, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 321-334.
Miele, M. and Murdoch, J. (2002), “The practical aesthetics of traditional cuisines: slow food in
Tuscany,” Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 312-328.
Nilsson, J.H., Svard, A.C., Widarsson, A. and Wirell, T. (2011), “‘Cittáslow’ eco-gastronomic heritage as
a tool for destination development,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 373-386.
Nosi, C. and Zanni, L. (2004), “Moving from ‘typical products’ to food related services – the slow food
case as a new business paradigm,” British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 10/11, pp. 779-792.
Owen, R., Witt, S. and Gammon, S. (1993), “Sustainable tourism development in Wales: from theory to
practice,” Tourism Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 463-474.
Parkins, W. (2004), “Out of time: fast subjects & slow living,” Time & Society, Vol. 13 Nos 2/3,
pp. 363-382.
Pearson, D., Henryks, J., Trott, A., Jones, P., Parker, G., Dumaresq, D. and Dyball, R. (2011), “Local
food: understanding consumer motivations in innovative retail formats,” British Food Journal, Vol. 113
No. 7, pp. 886-899.
Pink, S. (2008), “Mobilising visual ethnography: making routes, making place and making images,”
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, Article 36,
available at: www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1166/2575%20Accessed%20
August%202009 (accessed 30 July 2013).
Richie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994), “Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research,” in
Bryman, A and Burgess, B. (Eds), Analysing Qualitative Data, Routledge, London, pp. 173-194.
Robinson, P., Heitmann, S. and Dieke, P. (2011), Research Themes for Tourism, CABI, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire.
Sassatelli, R. and Davolio, F. (2010), “Consumption, pleasure and politics slow food and the
politico-aesthetic problematisation of food,” Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 202-232.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), “Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 312-328.
Sharpley, R. (2010), “Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide,” Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Sims, R. (2009), “Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience,”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 321-336.
Sparks, B., Bowen, J. and Klag, S. (2003), “Restaurants and the tourist market,” International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-13.
Spiller, K. (2012), “It tastes better because . . . consumer understandings of UK farmers’ market food,”
Appetite, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 100-107.
Wang, J. (2009), “Art in capital: shaping distinctiveness in a culture-led urban regeneration project in
Red Town, Shanghai,” Cities, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 318-330.
Wray, M. (2011), “Adopting and implementing a transactive approach to sustainable tourism planning:
translating theory into practice,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 605-627.
About the authors
Timothy H. Jung’s role in Manchester Metropolitan University focuses on PhD supervision,
and he is conducting research projects in the area of information and communications
PAGE 444 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
technology (ICT) and tourism and hospitality. He is the senior lecturer in the Department of
Food and Tourism Management. Prior to joining the Manchester Metropolitan University,
Timothy was involved in the eBusiness research project as a research of?cer at University
of Surrey. He is an active member of several professional associations and is a regular
contributor to international conferences. His research interests centre on eLearning, social
media networks and mobile-augmented reality technologies, Slow Food Movement and
Cittaslow Movements. Timothy H. Jung is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Elizabeth M. Ineson’s work centres on European link projects, including course, staff and
management development and collaborative research. She organises research seminars
in Central and Eastern Europe focusing on education/industry links, for the charitable trust
La fondation pour la formation hôtelière. Her research interests are in methodology,
management education, development and training, experiential learning, psychometrics,
service encounters and cultural dimensions.
Amanda Miller is a Principal Lecturer in Tourism Management. Her primary research focus
is the consumer behaviour of sports tourists.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 445
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_779475430.pdf