Current issues in tourism
From the traditional understanding of tourism destination to the smart tourism destination
Dobrica Z. Jovicic
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/nKgwh2vNEUXIhtbqBmUb/full
Abstract
The paper reviews the evolution of key tourism destination concepts, with the aim to emphasize the extent of changes that occurred in understanding the term ‘destination’ over the past decades. A special emphasis is placed on the concept of smart tourism destinations, since this is a recent concept that strongly relies on the systemic concept, and represents a completely different understanding of a destination, as opposed to the traditional concept. The digital revolution has led to the emergence of concept of smart destinations in which knowledge and information are accessible to all stakeholders, facilitating them to carry out continuous innovation of their activities, as much as possible. Without using digital technologies enabling adequate public–private–consumer collaboration, it is almost impossible nowadays to achieve successful market valorization of destinations’ geographical attributes.
Introduction
This paper reviews the literature on various conceptualizations of destinations from the 1970s to the present day, and focuses on three destination concepts which have significantly contributed to the development of theoretical thought in tourism, and credibly reflected the evolution of tourism destinations in practice. They are the classical–traditional view of destinations, the systemic approach to destinations, and the concept of smart tourism destinations. The classical approach focuses on the significance of geographical characteristics for the occurrence and development of destinations. System approach to destinations means a fundamental transformation of the classical concept, caused by the dynamic development оf tourism practice, and the significant improvement of tourism theory. This concept is experiencing a constant evolution that has led to the emergence of smart tourist destinations. These destinations represent complex systems, in which the digital revolution enables better collaboration between tourism companies and tourists, who exchange and share information and knowledge.
The classical/traditional approach to tourism destinations
Initial research on tourism destinations focused on the study of the geographical characteristics that defined a tourism destination. As Georgoulas in 1970 noted (Framke, 2002 Framke, W. (2002). The destination as a concept: A discussion of the business-related perspective versus the sociocultural approach in tourism theory. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 92–108. doi:10.1080/15022250216287[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar], p. 95), ‘Tourism as an industry occurs at destination areas – areas with different natural and/or man-made features, which attract non local visitors (or tourists) for a variety of activities’. In addition to understanding a destination as a particular geographic area, the classical concept of a tourism destination was characterized by the view that tourism destinations need to meet certain criteria in order to be considered a destination, and such criteria include having tourist attractions and accommodations as well as transport to, from, and within the destination (Howie, 2003 Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. [Google Scholar]
Consequently, this research on destinations as agglomerations of attractions and services (Burkart & Medlik, 1974 Burkart, A. J., & Medlik, S. (1974). Tourism: Past, present and future. London: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
Mill & Morrison, 2012 Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2012). The tourism system (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. [Google Scholar]
did not emphasize significance of cooperation within the destination nor the role of tourists as actors in the destination, and as such, tourists are only seen as consumers of a destination’s supply of services, while neglecting the fact that changes in demand lead to changes in the structure of destination. Consequently, in the interpretation of a certain destination and its market attractiveness, we must take into account the perception of tourists, who experience a given destination in a subjective way, depending on their purpose of travel, educational and cultural level, past experience and so on (Buhalis, 2000 Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management
)The systemic approach to tourism destination
During the mid-1990s, tourism scholars began to promote the ‘systemic approach’ to tourism, which implies a more comprehensive understanding of tourism destinations. Advocating a systemic approach to tourism destinations, Wall (1996 Wall, G. (1996). Integrating integrated resorts. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 713–717. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00091-7[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
) noted that tourism should be considered in the context of other systems that interact with tourism (see also Butler, 1999 Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/14616689908721291 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
Howie, 2003 Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. [Google Scholar]
; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003 Ritchie, J. R., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Wallingford, CT: CABI. [CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
.Leiper (2000 Leiper, N. (2000). Are destinations ‘the heart of tourism’? The advantages of an alternative description. Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4), 364–368. doi:10.1080/13683500008667878 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] treats a destination as an open and flexible system, characterized by a high degree of interaction between its constituent elements, such as firms providing tourist services, residents of destinations, local authorities and tourists. Consequently, Baggio and Cooper (2010 Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1757–1771. doi:10.1080/02642060903580649 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
) conceptualize a destination as a network of connected organizations/stakeholders whose productivity is very important for the functioning of the destination system.
Recently, the significant topic of academic discourse has been devoted to understanding a tourism destination as a complex adaptive system (Baggio & Sainaghi, 2011 Baggio, R., & Sainaghi, R. (2011). Complex and chaotic tourism systems: Towards a quantitative approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(6), 840–861. doi:10.1108/09596111111153501 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]which implies that a destination is a system of many parts which are coupled in a non-linear fashion. A non-linear connection means that a change caused by some external/internal factor on one subsystem is not proportional to a change on the other destination subsystems, caused by the same factor. When there are many nonlinearities in such a complex system as a destination, its behaviour can be unpredictable, including destination stakeholders. For example, global warming is considered the most dangerous climate change, whose negative consequences threaten the development and survival of certain destinations. One of them is Puerto de Mazarron, a seaside resort in the south east of Spain, faced with an increased risk of flash floods, heat stress and forest fires (Churchill, 2006 Churchill Insurance. (2006). The future of travel: ‘Disappearing destinations’ of 2020. Press Release 9 September, Churchill Insurance.
To mitigate possible negative effects, the public and private sector could intensify marketing activities, in order to maintain a satisfactory level of tourism development in this destination: improving the cultural tourism, promotion of recreational facilities apart from beach tourism (golf courses, walking and cycling tours) and so on. Evidently, in this case, not all destination stakeholders will suffer the same damage as a result of global warming, given that those stakeholders who are able to successfully do business in the changed circumstances can survive on the market.
A key feature of adaptive systems is that they form structures that somehow maintain their integrity in the face of continuing change. Because of that, tourism has ability to recover from the various events that have occurred in recent period. Non-linear relationships between the components, and other characteristics of complex adaptive systems, have enabled many destinations to survive on the market, and, even, to achieve the sustained growth in the face of drastic external changes. For example, in spite of the many challenges the world faced in 2015 (the war in Syria, the tensions between NATO and Russia, the migrant crisis in Europe, the gradual slowdown of economic activity in China, etc.), international tourist arrivals grew by 4.4% in 2015, that is, 1.0 percentage point higher than the rate of global economic growth in the same year (IMF, 2016 IMF. (2016). World economic outlook (January 2016). Retrieved from
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/01/
Smart tourism destinations
The strong development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) have changed the traditional frame for tourism development, and brought smartness into destinations. Although the concept of smart tourism destination is still in progress, there are more and more articles devoted to this issue (Baggio & Del Chiappa, 2014 Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital ecosystems. Information Technology and Tourism, 14(1), 3–19. doi:10.1007/s40558-013-0001-5 [CrossRef], [Google Scholar] Del Chiappa & Baggio, 2015 Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 145–150. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001 CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Racherla, Hu, & Hyun, 2008 Racherla, P., Hu, C., & Hyun, M. Y. (2008). Exploring the role of innovative technologies in building a knowledge-based destination. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(5), 407–428. doi:10.1080/13683500802316022[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Based on the aforementioned literature, it can be concluded that a smart tourism destination is a knowledge-based destination, where ICTs are used to provide a technological platform on which information and knowledge relating to tourism could be instantly exchanged. Zhang, Li, and Liu (2012 Zhang, L., Li, N., & Liu, M. (2012). On the basic concept of smarter tourism and its theoretical system. Tourism Tribune, 27(5), 66–73. [Google Scholar]
), and Buhalis and Amaranggana (2015 Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through personalisation of services. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), ENTER 2015 Proceedings (pp. 377–390), Viena: Springer-Verlag.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar] suggest that there are several forms of ICTs which are vital for setting up smart tourism destinations, especially the Cloud Computing and Internet of Things (IoT). The Cloud (the cloud is just a metaphor for the Internet) Computing services are designed to provide convenient way to access solid web platform and data storage through certain network. Cloud computing means storing and accessing data and programmes over the Internet instead of a computer’s hard drive, or simply saying: if someone does not have enough money to buy an apartment or a car, then he can rent them. It stimulates information sharing that has a great significance for the operation of smart tourism destinations. For example, a sophisticated tour guide system could serve massive number of tourists without being actually installed on any personal device (Zhang et al., 2012 Zhang, L., Li, N., & Liu, M. (2012). On the basic concept of smarter tourism and its theoretical system. Tourism Tribune, 27(5), 66–73. [Google Scholar]
Additionally, through cloud services, such as TripAdvisor, WhatsApp, Tripcast and HearPlanet, tourists can get information irrespective of time and space by the use of mobile phones or portable devices. IoT technology generates automatic real-time interactions among real-world objects that connect to the Internet which consequently reduces the gap between real world and digital realm. Implementation of IoT in a tourism means that tourists could simply use their mobile phones to explore the destination attractions using in-situ data collection and reporting (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2015 Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through personalisation of services. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), ENTER 2015 Proceedings (pp. 377–390), Viena: Springer-Verlag.
[CrossRef], [Google Scholar])).
Discussing the term ‘smart tourism destination’, Baggio and Del Chiappa (2014 Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital ecosystems. Information Technology and Tourism, 14(1), 3–19. doi:10.1007/s40558-013-0001-5 [CrossRef], [Google Scholar]stress that a destination network is complemented by a technological infrastructure aimed at creating a digital environment which supports cooperation and knowledge sharing. The dynamic changes in technological and social environment cause changes in the structure of destination system, which becomes more complex but also more effective through: inclusion of new stakeholders and improving the exchange of information/knowledge between them, enhancement of the tourist’s experience and so on (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014 Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 553–564). Vienna: Springer. [Google Scholar]
Trying to comprehensively view the structure and functioning of smart destinations, some authors (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2015 Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through personalisation of services. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), ENTER 2015 Proceedings (pp. 377–390), Viena: Springer-Verlag. [CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
Gretzel, Sigala, Xiang, & Koo, 2015 Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
) emphasize the importance of two components: smart experience and smart business ecosystem. The smart experience component implies technology-mediated experiences of tourists, who not only consume, but also create data that can improve the quality of experiences (e.g. by uploading photos on electronic social media, related to a certain destination). Smart business ecosystem enables the exchange of tourism resources and co-creation of tourism experiences, and includes dynamically interconnected stakeholders, the digitalization of core business process, organizational skills, leadership, vision and so on. It seems that smart business ecosystem evolves over time, with a continuous process of evaluation and change. (Boes, Buhalis, & Inversini, 2016 Boes, K., Buhalis, D., & Inversini, A. (2016). Smart tourism destinations: Ecosystem for tourism destination competitiveness. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 2(2), 108–124. doi:10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Gretzel et al., 2015 Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Today, we are witnessing the increasing cases of connections between tourism and other activities whose portfolio is not tied to tourism. This results in a way that non-tourism businesses, over time, become major actors in the operation of tourism destinations. Thus, the Guinness storehouse in Dublin is the most popular Irish attraction for international tourists, and well-known brands: Carlsberg, Harley-Davidson and so on use factory visits and company museums to strengthen relationships with their customers (Coles & Hall, 2008 Coles, T., & Hall, M. (2008). International business and tourism. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
). Accordingly, some ‘non-tourism’ companies become the key stakeholders in tourism destinations. This and similar examples confirm Del Chiappa and Baggio’s (2015 Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 145–150. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] views that a destination is a network of connected organizations that are either directly or indirectly related to tourism, and such a network is complemented by a technological infrastructure aimed at creating a digital environment which supports cooperation and knowledge sharing.
Recently, electronic social media have a growing importance for the development of smart tourism destinations, impacting on consumers’ and the suppliers’ behaviour. Consumers generally use social media as an important tool for making decisions during the phase of their travel planning process. Apart from impacts of social media on the decision-making processes, tourists use such media as communicative channels for experience and knowledge sharing. It means that social media provide possibilities for individual realization, mediated pleasure and escape (Kozinets, 2008 Kozinets, R. V. (2008). Technology/Ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers’ technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 865–881. doi:10.1086/523289 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
At the same time, social media play an important role in destinations management, particularly in promotion, product distribution and research functions (Leung, Law, Van Hoof, & Buhalis, 2013 Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 3–22. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750919 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Social media are gaining importance as an element of destination marketing strategy, offering destination management/marketing organizations with a tool to reach a global audience without spending large amounts of money. Accordingly, there is a great challenge for destination managers and stakeholders who should have the all-round knowledge of new technologies and business opportunities brought on by social media (Salkhordeh, 2009 Salkhordeh, P. (2009). Key issues in use of social networking in hospitality industry. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=gradconf_hospitality [Google Scholar]
Unlike a traditional role of destination marketing organizations (DMOs) related to one-way communication with tourists through advertisements, destination news, leaflets, promotion of events, town maps and so on, smart destinations imply the operation of DMOs having significantly higher capacities. Accordingly, their role should be focused on conducting conversation with tourists via social media, in order to establish two-way and instant communication with tourists (Wang, Li, & Li, 2013 Wang, D., Li, X. R., & Li, Y. (2013). China’s ‘smart tourism destination’ initiative: A taste of the service-dominant logic. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 59–61. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.05.004 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
). DMOs should use social media to view tourists’ opinions, suggestions and remarks, and give instant answers on their questions, in order to more completely meet the requirements of tourists, who, in this way, become co-creators of tourist destinations offer. Through two-way communication tourists over time gain more confidence in DMOs, and are more inclined to disclose some private information that are essential for DMOs and other stakeholders for designing the offer adequately tailored to the needs of demand.
It can be expected that, in the coming period, a continuous progress in ICTs will encourage increased communication and collaboration between tourists and destination stakeholders, contributing to the achievement of the goals for both sides: the realization of high-quality tourist experience and successful business results for destination stakeholders. Bringing smartness into tourism destinations may also facilitate the process of integration between production and consumption, and increasing linkages between suppliers and consumers. Thus, Funilkul and Chutimaskul (2009 Funilkul, S., & Chutimaskul, W. (2009). The framework for sustainable eDemocracy development. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(1), 16–31. General Elections in Kenya of 27 December 2007. doi: 10.1108/17506160910940713 [CrossRef], [Google Scholar] claim that Web has become the medium through which tourists and destination stakeholders interact and collaborate, exchanging information and knowledge, in an attempt to converge towards a common vision. Consequently, Richards (2011 Richards, G. (2011). Cultural tourism trends in Europe: A context for the development of cultural routes. In K. Khovanova-Rubicondo (Ed.), Impact of European cultural routes on SMEs’ innovation and competitiveness (pp. 21–39). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [Google Scholar] talks about a shift from a focus on purely production (mass tourism) and a focus on primarily consumption (experiences) to the integration of production and consumption (co-creation), and such a shift may be easier to achieve in the digital environment.
Conclusion
According to the traditional concept, destinations were treated as spatial units that are the objects of tourist visits. Since the late 1990s, raising awareness of the complexity of tourism and its effects caused theorists to highlight the significance of numerous destination stakeholders playing active role in managing destination systems. The digital revolution has led to the emergence of concept of smart destinations, in which knowledge and information are accessible to all stakeholders, facilitating them to carry out continuous innovation of their performance and activities, as much as possible. This concept is not focused exclusively on the technological dimension and the use of modern ICTs, since smart experience and smart business ecosystem components, as the key determinants of smart destinations, indicate that this concept includes sociocultural, psychological, educational, strategic management components and so on (Table 1).
Table 1. The evolution of tourism destination concepts.
Although the traditional–geographic concept of destination, from today’s point of view, is one-sided and not comprehensive, geographical elements, however, are the nucleus from which a tourism destination occurs and develops. Geographical features of an area are not only the basis for development of leisure tourism, but also, congress tourism, for example, as a form of non-leisure tourism, is mostly being developed in centres that can offer to congress participants a variety of cultural / natural contents of a given geographical area. However, the market valorization of geographical attributes of destinations nowadays is only possible by creating a digital environment enabling adequate collaboration between tourism companies and tourists, who can exchange information/knowledge, in an attempt to converge towards a common vision and goals. Modern tourists are becoming more educated, and more demanding, and their needs can be adequately met only by destination stakeholders who have the all-round knowledge of new ICTs and ways of their use. A higher level of knowledge and socialization of people, as a result of the digital environment impacts, will undoubtedly increase the intensity and divergence of needs of tourists, who will gain a greater perception of tourist attraction attributes, and looking for personalized services. The framework for future operation of destination stakeholders stems from the aforementioned: to improve mutual communication, coordination and cooperation, and satisfy the needs of sophisticated tourist clientele.
It should, also, be borne in mind cases in which tourists visiting a certain destination want temporarily not to have a contact with the digital environment, and like to completely devote themselves to an direct contact with the natural attractions of a particular area (e.g. walking tour around a small lake surrounded by a dense forest, in an uninhabited mountain area, without using/support of mobile phones and other digital devices). This, nowadays, mostly rare desire for a contact only with real, not virtual world, reiterates the statement that the geographical features make the nucleus without which it is impossible to develop tourism destinations.
References
Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1757–1771. doi:10.1080/02642060903580649[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital ecosystems. Information Technology and Tourism, 14(1), 3–19. doi:10.1007/s40558-013-0001-5[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
Baggio, R., & Sainaghi, R. (2011). Complex and chaotic tourism systems: Towards a quantitative approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(6), 840–861. doi:10.1108/09596111111153501[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Boes, K., Buhalis, D., & Inversini, A. (2016). Smart tourism destinations: Ecosystem for tourism destination competitiveness. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 2(2), 108–124. doi:10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 553–564). Vienna: Springer. [Google Scholar]
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through personalisation of services. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), ENTER 2015 Proceedings (pp. 377–390), Viena: Springer-Verlag.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Burkart, A. J., & Medlik, S. (1974). Tourism: Past, present and future. London: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/14616689908721291[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
Churchill Insurance. (2006). The future of travel: ‘Disappearing destinations’ of 2020. Press Release 9 September, Churchill Insurance.
Coles, T., & Hall, M. (2008). International business and tourism. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 145–150. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Framke, W. (2002). The destination as a concept: A discussion of the business-related perspective versus the sociocultural approach in tourism theory. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 92–108. doi:10.1080/15022250216287[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
Funilkul, S., & Chutimaskul, W. (2009). The framework for sustainable eDemocracy development. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(1), 16–31. General Elections in Kenya of 27 December 2007. doi: 10.1108/17506160910940713[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. [Google Scholar]
IMF. (2016). World economic outlook (January 2016). Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/01/
Kozinets, R. V. (2008). Technology/Ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers’ technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 865–881. doi:10.1086/523289[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Leiper, N. (2000). Are destinations ‘the heart of tourism’? The advantages of an alternative description. Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4), 364–368. doi:10.1080/13683500008667878[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 3–22. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750919[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2012). The tourism system (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. [Google Scholar]
Racherla, P., Hu, C., & Hyun, M. Y. (2008). Exploring the role of innovative technologies in building a knowledge-based destination. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(5), 407–428. doi:10.1080/13683500802316022[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Richards, G. (2011). Cultural tourism trends in Europe: A context for the development of cultural routes. In K. Khovanova-Rubicondo (Ed.), Impact of European cultural routes on SMEs’ innovation and competitiveness (pp. 21–39). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [Google Scholar]
Ritchie, J. R., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Wallingford, CT: CABI.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]
Salkhordeh, P. (2009). Key issues in use of social networking in hospitality industry. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=gradconf_hospitality [Google Scholar]
Wall, G. (1996). Integrating integrated resorts. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 713–717. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00091-7[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Wang, D., Li, X. R., & Li, Y. (2013). China’s ‘smart tourism destination’ initiative: A taste of the service-dominant logic. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 59–61. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.05.004[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Zhang, L., Li, N., & Liu, M. (2012). On the basic concept of smarter tourism and its theoretical system. Tourism Tribune, 27(5), 66–73. [Google Scholar]