Content uploaded by Fatemeh Mohammadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fatemeh Mohammadi on Dec 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Co-creation in tourism: a systematic
mapping study
Fatemeh Mohammadi, Hamid Reza Yazdani, Mona Jami Pour and Morteza Soltanee
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to organize and analyze the existing literature on co-creation in
tourism to identify the state-of-the-art studies and the research gap in this field.
Design/methodology/approach –As the research questions seek to provide an overview of the studies
in the available literature, the systematic mapping study (SMS) has been selected as the research
method. A suitable mapping study method for analyzing and structuring a broad research field
concerning methods, designs and research focuses on the existing publications. In total, 137 articles
published during 2006–2019 in reliable academic databases such as Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus,
Wiley, ProQuest,Sage, Web of Science and Taylor and Francis were selected and analyzed.
Findings –The results show a rising trend of published articles in tourism, with the maximum number
published in 2019 and the minimum number in 2006. Also, analysis of input articles revealed that most of
the studies focused on the antecedents and prerequisites for co-creation and paid less attention to the
co-creation context. Other findings show that in the field of tourism, the hospitality sector, especially
hotels have paid special attention to co-creation. The majority of papers were the empirical type with
quantitative design. Furthermore, most studies used the survey method, while the case study and other
methods were the next choices.
Originality/value –This study addresses a major research gap by summarizing the literature related to
value co-creation with a specific focus on tourism using the SMS method that provides an overview of the
studies in this field. Categorizing papers through SMS helps researchers to review the status of studies in
a visual summary to identify gaps and directions for future research.
Keywords S-D logic, Tourismresearch, Co-creation, Systematic mapping study
Paper type Research paper
Co-creaci
on en turismo: un estudio de mapeo sistem
atico
Prop
osito del artículo : El prop
osito de este estudio de cartogr
afico es organizar y analizar los artı
´
culos
existentes sobre la co-creaci
on en la industria del turismo a fin de identificar los
ultimos estudios y la
brecha de investigaci
on en este campo.
Diseño/metodología/enfoque : El me
´todo de Estudio de Mapeo Sistem
atico (SMS) ha sido
seleccionado como me
´todo de investigaci
on debido a que el objeto de los temas cuestionados en este
estudio es proporcionar una visi
on general en cuanto a las investigaciones hechas hasta hoy. El me
´todo
de estudio de mapeo, centr
andose en las publicaciones existentes, es un me
´todo adecuado para
analizar y estructurar un amplio campo de investigaci
on sobre maneras, disen
˜os e investigaciones. Se
seleccionaron y analizaron 137 artı
´
culos publicados durante los an
˜os 2006–2019 en bases de datos
acade
´micas confiables como Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus, Wiley, ProQuest, Sage, Web of Science
y Taylor & Francis.
Resultados: Los resultados muestran una tendencia al alza de los artı
´
culos publicados sobre el turismo,
con el n
umero m
aximo publicado en el an
˜o 2019 y el n
umero mı
´
nimo en 2006. Adem
as, el an
alisis de los
artı
´
culos existentes en las bases, revel
o que la mayorı
´
a de los estudios se han centrado en los
antecedentes y requisitos previos para la co-creaci
on y se ha enfocado menos en el concepto de co-
creaci
on. Otros hallazgos muestran que en el campo del turismo y la hostelerı
´
a, se ha prestado especial
atenci
on a la co-creaci
on. La mayorı
´
a de los trabajos eran de tipo empı
´
rico con disen
˜o cuantitativo.
Asimismo, la mayorı
´
a de los estudios han utilizado el me
´todo de encuesta, mientras que el estudio
monogr
afico y otros me
´todos han sido las siguientes opciones.
Originalidad/valor: Resumiendo los artı
´
culos relacionados con la creaci
on conjunta de valores, con un
enfoque especı
´
fico en la industria del turismo, y utilizando el me
´todo SMS que proporciona una visi
on
Fatemeh Mohammadi and
Hamid Reza Yazdani are
both based at University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Mona Jami Pour is based at
Hazrat-e Masoumeh
University, Qom, Iran.
Morteza Soltanee is based
at University of Tehran,
Tehran, Iran.
Received 14 October 2019
Revised 24 January 2020
10 April 2020
25 May 2020
Accepted 25 May 2020
DOI 10.1108/TR-10-2019-0425 ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 jTOURISM REVIEW j
general de los estudios en este campo, este estudio aborda una brecha de investigaci
on importante. La
categorizaci
on de documentos usando el me
´todo SMS ayuda a los investigadores a revisar el estado de
los estudios en un resumen visual para identificar vacı
´
os y direcciones para futuras investigaciones.
Palabras clave Co-creaci
on,L
ogica S-D, Investigaci
on turı
´
stica, Estudio de mapeo sistem
atico
旅游共创：系统映射研究
摘要:
目的 :这项制图研究的目的是组织和分析有关旅游业共同创造的现有文献,以识别最新研究和该领域的研
究差距
设计/方法论/方法:由于研究问题旨在提供现有文献中的研究概述,因此已选择系统制图研究（SMS）作
为研究方法。用于分析和构建涉及方法,设计和研究的广泛研究领域的合适的映射研究方法着眼于现有出
版物。选择并分析了2006-2019年在可靠的学术数据库中发表的137篇文章,这些数据库包括Science
Direct, Emerald, Scopus, Wiley, ProQuest, Sage, Web of Science和Taylor&Francis
调查结果:结果显示旅游业发表的文章呈上升趋势, 2019年发表的文章最多,而2006年发表的最少。对投
入文章的分析显示,大多数研究集中于共同创造和付费的先决条件和先决条件较少关注共创环境。其他发
现表明,在旅游领域,酒店业尤其是酒店业特别重视共同创造。大多数论文是经验性的,带有定量设计。此
外,大多数研究使用调查方法,而案例研究和其他方法是下一个选择。原创性/价值–本研究通过总结与价
值共创相关的文献来解决一个主要的研究空白,其中特别关注旅游业,使用SMS方法对该领域的研究进行
了概述。通过SMS对论文进行分类有助于研究人员以直观的摘要查看研究状态,从而找出差距和未来研究
的方向。
关键字共创, S-D逻辑,旅游研究,系统映射研究
1. Introduction
Because of fierce competition in the market, tourism and hospitality service providers
should engage customers in the value creation process to deliver personalized experiences
(Lei et al.,2019). One way to involve customers in this process is co-creation (Neuhofer,
2016). It refers to “the act of creating products and services through the collaboration
between customers, managers, employees and other beneficiaries of the company”
(Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010, p. 4) where all players engaged in the process benefit
from their interaction (Sthapit and Bjo
¨rk, 2019).
Customer value co-creation behavior has recently been the topic of interest in the marketing
literature (Pilon and Hadjielias, 2017;Sinkovics et al.,2018). To our knowledge, the first
reference to co-creation was firmly made in 2004 by Prahalad and Ramaswamy; thereafter,
a number of authors contributed to the promotion of theoretical foundations and
understanding of co-creation (Payne et al.,2008;Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009;
Edvardsson et al., 2011).
Co-creation is the process of value creation by the customer and the company that
contributes to a tour company’s sustainable growth (Tuan et al.,2019). While co-creation
has been investigated from different aspects such as strategy, management and
marketing, its application in tourism and hospitability is of great importance due to its innate
nature of being an active potential service provider (Chathoth et al.,2016). Given the critical
role of service experience in creating value in tourism and hospitality services, more studies
have been carried out later to investigate the significance of co-creation in this field (Rihova
et al.,2018
;Wu et al., 2018;Sugathan and Ranjan, 2019).
The number of tourism marketing studies exploring and examining the concept of value co-
creation is increasing (Zizka et al., 2018). Co-creation acts as an important concept in
tourism studies and activities (Neuhofer et al.,2014) because tourism is an industry that
sells experience (Campos et al.,2015). The early studies on co-creation in tourism go back
to 2006. The literature review shows that co-creation is confined to the physical environment
between the tourist and the service provider during the travel. As a matter of fact, co-
creation focuses more on offline interactions between the company and tourists (Payne
et al.,2008
); however, with the emergence of social media and the expansion of information
jTOURISM REVIEW j
technology (IT), it developed into interactions between customers themselves and between
customer and company within a social context happening in a virtual world (Reichenberger,
2017). After the rise and widespread use of social media, tourism affected by the impact of
new media and technologies (Pourfakhimi et al., 2020), studies highlighted the importance
of virtual co-creation and examined the role of IT in co-creation as a crucial driver and
facilitator; among which, Neuhofer et al.’s (2012) study has contributed remarkably to both
virtual and online co-creation literature in the tourism industry.
Co-creation literature in tourism has concentrated more on creating personalized customer
experiences in services (Morgan et al.,2010). Campos et al. (2015) conducted a systematic
review of the co-creation literature in tourism with an emphasis on the co-creation of tourism
experiences. The majority of co-creation tourism studies have focused on tourism service
experiences, while the present study provides a summary of the most recent literature to
find out the state-of-the-art research works and the possible research gap in this field.
Based on the researchers’ knowledge and data given in Table 1, there is no mapping study
on co-creation in tourism. Therefore, this study provides a systematic review of summarizing
and structuring studies on co-creation in tourism to reinforce the understanding of research
on co-creation in tourism and the existing research gaps. A mapping study seems to be the
most appropriate approach to achieve this objective. Mapping study represents a specific
form of literature review with the purpose of examining topics related to identifying,
Table 1 List of articles reviewing co-creation literature
Source
Discipline/subject
area Purpose Research method
Alves et al. (2016) Business and
management
Identifying the applications of co-
creation of value, 1998–2015 (426
papers reviewed)
Literature review
(Bibliometric analysis)
Campos et al.
(2015)
Tourism
management
Literature review on co-creation of
tourism experiences, 2007–2014
(66 papers reviewed)
Literature review
Galvagno and Dalli
(2014)
Service
management
Exploring the past, present and
future state of the theory of value co-
creation, 2000–2012 (72 papers
reviewed)
SLR
Kaartemo and
Helkkula (2018)
Technology
application in
management
A systematic review on artificial
intelligence (AI) and robots in value
co-creation, 1996–2018 (61 papers
reviewed)
SLR
Kryvinska et al.
(2013)
Service science Conceptualization and providing an
insight about the state of S-D logic,
2004 –2013 (140 papers reviewed)
Literature analysis
Leroy et al. (2013) B2B marketing Literature review with the aim of
preventing the premature “black-
boxization” of the concept of value
co-creation, 2008–2012 (31 papers
reviewed)
Literature review
(Qualitative meta-analysis
or meta-synthesis)
Paredes et al.
(2014)
E-commerce B2C
contexts
Literature review on value co-
creation’s resources, 2000–2012
(69 papers reviewed).
Literature review
Tekic and
Willoughby (2019)
Firm innovation
management
definition of co-creation according
to two-stage systematic reviews in
innovation literature, 1979–2017 (77
papers reviewed)
Systematic review
Voorberg et al.
(2015)
Public management Systematic review of co-creation/
co-production with citizens in the
context of public, innovation,
1987–2013 (122 papers reviewed)
Systematic review
jTOURISM REVIEW j
analyzing and organizing the objectives, methods and content of earlier studies
(Wendler, 2012). Accordingly, the article has been organized as follows: The first section
deals with co-creation literature. In Section 2, a review of systematic studies executed on
co-creation is developed. As for Section 3, the mapping study research method is
explained whereby a comprehensive review of co-creation studies in tourism is also
presented in summary. Sections 4 and 5 puts forth the research findings and finally, offer
suggestions for future research. Finally, Section 6 mentions discussions and conclusions.
2. Literature review
Co-creation was first introduced by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). They argue that
value is created by the interaction between the company and consumers through co-
creation. It provides an opportunity for customers to create a service together relevant to
their own field of interest (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Co-creation is the collaborative
product development by the customer and the firm (Hoyer et al.,2010, p. 283). In-service
management literature; it is defined as “customizing a product or service received with a
high level of cooperation and collaboration of customer for the purpose of innovation”
(Chathoth et al.,2013). Co-creation has been defined in different contexts; however, it still
depends on the consumer’s view of value. Consumer value is important for understanding
both past progress and future avenues in tourism (Gallarza and Saura, 2020). The phrase
that “The customer is always a co-producer of value” was first stated by Vargo and Lusch
(2004). As the article was published, the authors commented and changed the phrase to as
follows: “Instead of being a co-producer of value, the customer is often a co-creator of
value.” The term “co-production” implies the customer’s participation in creating the value
suggested by the company (Harkison, 2018).
Recently, the discourse of value creation has shifted to cooperating and working with
customers using social technologies and different platforms (Payne et al.,2008). According
to several authors, intensifying the focus on intangible assets such as communications,
interaction and co-production across a wide range of business areas has led to the shift of
the company-oriented (product-oriented) paradigm to a paradigm that focuses on relational
marketing and customers as co-producers (Gummesson and Mele, 2010). Such a shift
introduces a new player in the field of value creation (i.e. the customer). The shift from
passive players (customers) to active players (co-creators) gained more and more interest.
Vargo and Lusch (2004) investigated more on the phenomenon of co-creation in 2004 and
introduced the service-dominant logic (S-D logic) that provides a basis for understanding
the roots of co-creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). S-D logic is a theoretical framework
developed for the co-creation of value between customers and producers (Lin et al.,2019).
This framework deals with the co-creation of value in networks, where different beneficiaries
exchange the resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). S-D logic presents the basic principles
of value co-creation in services. It describes the value as follows: “There is no value until an
offering is used” (Lusch and Vargo, 2006). In other words, the meaning of value in this logic
is tied to the “value in use.”
Co-creation marks a new era of experience economy (Fu and Lehto, 2018). As Binkhorst
and Den Dekker (2009) state, co-creation in experience economy increases the value for
both customers and service providers. According to Pine and Gilmore (1998), “experience
economy” highlights the proposition that “customers value the experience.” To put it
differently, consumers perceive value based on their consumption experiences and not the
function. Tourism is part of the experience economy, which depends on interactions
between users and employees. Within the employee-user interaction, co-creation can
discover the potential experience economy in the tourism section (Sørensen and Jensen,
2015). For example, luxury hotels are part of the experience economy where employees
perceive the experience based on their collaboration with each other and with the guests
(Brien et al.,2012). Therefore, in the experience economy, customers are not passive
jTOURISM REVIEW j
receivers; rather they are co-creators of experience, and therefore, co-creators of
experience value (Ant
on et al.,2018).
The literature identifies two major research streams in co-creation studies. The first stream
concentrates on describing nature and defining, conceptualizing and presenting examples
of co-creation applications. For instance, co-creation describes a collaborative and
collective process as follows: creating shared value between customer and company
(Rehner Iversen et al., 2005;Lusch and Vargo, 2006;Payne et al.,2008). The second
stream introduces the frameworks, drivers and key factors associated with implementing
this approach; they include sources, social trading platform, technology as a driver, etc
(Neuhofer et al., 2012;Chathoth et al., 2016;Z
atori, 2016;Yu et al.,2018). Researchers
have generated many terms and concepts to promote, expand and revise the concept of
co-creation, e.g. co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) co-production (Etgar,
2008), prosumption (prosumer) (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010) S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch,
2004) and customer-customer co-creation (Heinonen et al.,2013). Although the terms in co-
creation literature are sometimes used interchangeably, there are some differences
between them.
Following the recent advances in information and communication technology (ICT), the
customer-dominant logic (C-D logic) was introduced by Heinonen et al. (2013) as a new
ontological position that highlights the importance of customer-to-customer (C2C) co-
creation in providing services. Of course, Finsterwalder and Tuzovic (2010) proposed the
concept of C2C co-creation and showed that if a customer can not contribute properly, it
may lead to incomplete service experience for other customers. For example, if the first
customer does not act properly, the second customer may require more endeavor to co-
create the service. C2C co-creation logic has recently gained a growing interest among
researchers (Mathis et al., 2016;Reichenberger, 2017). Rihova et al. (2018) conducted an
experimental research on tourism and focused on the importance of value created by the
tourism network. Owing to the fact that consumers create experiences together; this
paradigm endorses C2C co-creation as a main value-creating resource (Neuhofer et al.,
2014).
2.1 Studies related to the meta-study of co-creation with a view to tourism
Researchers use the term “co-creation” in various areas. Thus, a variety of theoretical
approaches and perspectives are used in this field. As a result, the research process is
increasingly complicated (Galvagno and Dalli, 2014). Certain researchers recommend
analytical and systematic classification of the related literature (Saarija
¨rvi et al., 2013);
hence, some literature reviews of co-creation have been published in recent years.
According to Vargo and Lusch (2004), co-creation based on S-D logic concentrates on the
economic transactions on service and not on product. One example of pioneer service-
centered industry in experience economy is tourism. The unique characteristics of tourism
(simultaneous production and consumption of experiences) make co-creation important in
tourism (Tussyadiah and Zach, 2013).
This concept in tourism was first addressed by Binkhorst (2006) in his study “the co-creation
tourism experience.” Binkhorst (2006) claimed that tourists as innovation partners are still
ignored in the process of designing, reporting experience and evaluating innovation.
However, gradually with recognizing the significance of co-creation in tourism, particularly
in the hospitality industry (Zizka et al.,2018), researchers took it into more consideration. In
tourism studies, co-creation of value is defined “as the tourist’s interest in mental and
physical participation in an activity and its role in tourist experiences” (Prebensen et al.,
2016, p. 1). This definition of co-creation considers the role of customers important in the
creation of experience. A literature review conducted on co-creation in tourism has looked
to the role of players in experience creation (Campos et al.,2015). Table 1 shows a list of
articles reviewing co-creation literature.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
The SLR on co-creation in tourism, conducted by Campos et al. (2015), was limited to
studying the role of tourists in creating visitors’ on-site experiences. The article aimed at
proposing a psychology-focused definition of co-creation tourism experience and looked at
co-creation as an important element of target competitiveness. Therefore, regardless of the
growing studies on co-creation and review of co-creation literature, no study has yet
attempted to examine and summarize the articles concerning co-creation in tourism by
means of mapping study methods. However, the present study provides a summary of the
most recent literature to find out the state-of-the-art research works and the possible
research gap in this field. Hence, the novelty of the study is that it examines the newest
studies of co-creation in the field of tourism.
3. Research method
To review conducted research studies in a field, there are several methods, including SLR and
systematic mapping study (SMS). SMS provides an overview of a research area through
classification and counting contributions in relation to the categories of that classification
(Kitchenham and Charters, 2007;Petersen et al., 2008). It includes searching the literature to
identify what topics have been covered in the literature and where the literature has been
published (Petersen et al.,2008). SLR is a way to give a summary of the earlier studies related to
specific topics to identify missing areas in the current research works or to offer a background to
structure new research (Staples and Niazi, 2008). Though SMS and SLR share some
commonalities (for example, in terms of searching and study selection), they are different in
terms of goals and approaches of data analysis. While systematic reviews aim at synthesizing
evidence, also considering the strength of evidence, SMS is related to the structuring of a
research area (Petersen et al., 2015). In other words, SMS provides an overview of a particular
research area (Kitchenham et al., 2011). The Research questions in SMS are general as they
aim to discover research trends (e.g. publication trends over time, topics available in the
literature). On the other hand, the purpose of SLR aims at aggregating evidence, and hence, a
specific goal has to be formulated (Petersen et al.,2015).
The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the research conducted on co-creation in
tourism. To do this, it attempts to find out answers to the questions on categorizing and
structuring the research on co-creation in tourism using the mapping study method
recommended by Petersen et al. (2008). Results of a mapping study help to recognize
gaps for future research recommendations and direction guidance for appropriately
positioning new research activities (Petersen et al., 2008). Furthermore, they can identify
areas suitable for conducting SLRs and also areas where a primary study is more
appropriate (Kitchenham, 2007).
3.1 Research questions
Research questions in SMS are much broader than in SLR to address the wider scope of
the study (Kitchenham, 2007). Concerning the aim of the present study and
presuppositions of the SMS method, the research questions focus on categorizing and
structuring the co-creation tourism research. As this method deals with a wider scope of the
study, the questions are broader too. Table 2 shows the research questions.
3.2 Search steps
To increase the accuracy of the SLR, the process of searching the relevant literature must
be transparent (Jami Pour et al.,2016). SMS is a form of SLR that its processes of search
and analysis should be as transparent as possible. To do this, the process of search steps
was conducted based on the study of Petersen et al. (2008).Figure 1 shows the complete
SMS process used in the study (Petersen et al.,2008;Banaeianjahromi and Smolander,
2016).
jTOURISM REVIEW j
3.2.1 Selection of data sources and search strategy. The academic electronic databases
selected were Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, ProQuest, and
Sage and Taylor & Francis. These databases were selected as they cover the articles
published in the relevant research field. The search range was carried out based on
Table 2 Research questions
Research questions Description
RQ1. How the number of
publications changed over time?
This question indicates the importance of the topic and its nature of being a trend
RQ2. Which countries have the most
articles in this field?
Answer to this question shows, which countries have the most attention paid to
co-creation in tourism research
RQ3. What is the most common
paper type?
Answer to this question identifies empirical and non-empirical studies and
indicates future directions
RQ4. What are the most common
research designs and methods
applied?
Answer to this question determines the commonly used designs and methods,
identifies the research gaps and finds the ignored approaches
RQ5. What kind of co-creation
space is studied in the articles?
Answer to this question indicates the co-creation space in different stages of
customer’s trip in tourism research and identifies the future research indirection
RQ6. Which sector of tourism is
most studied in the articles?
Answer to this question shows, which sector of tourism has gained much interest
of researchers and which sector has gained less interest
RQ7. What is the main research
focus in the literature about co-
creation in tourism?
Answer to this question determines the focus of current literature on co-creation
in tourism research and identifies the future indirection
RQ8. What are the main pre-
requisite forms of co-creation in the
articles?
Answer to this question shows how much customers (players) effort to interact
with service providers; it also provides a classification of co-creation dimensions
RQ9. What is the theoretical
underpinning of co-creation in
tourism research?
Answer to this question reveals the theoretical underpinning of the studies
conducted on co-creation in tourism research and finds out, which one is more
dominant
Figure 1 Search process
Figure 1 Search process
Process step Outcome Number of papers
Definion of research
quesons
Conducng inial
research
Removing of duplicates
and
any papers other than
conference and journal
Reading the tle,
abstract,
and keywords
Scanning the whole
content
Exclusion of the
Irrelevant papers
Review scope
All papers
Unique conferences
and
journal papers
Potenally relevant
papers
Relevant papers
Finally analysed
papers
All available literature
424
163
174
137
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
jTOURISM REVIEW j
previous systematic review studies of co-creation. the current literature considers “co-
production” synonymous with co-creation (Voorberg et al.,2015). Also, the term
“cocreation” was found in a small number of articles. In previous SLR studies in the field of
co-creation, words such as “participation,” “collaboration” and “active involvement” were
included in the searches (Dong and Sivakumar, 2017;Oertzen et al.,2018), so we selected
them, as well as the following words as keywords in this study:
“co-creation” and closely-related semantic terms such as “co-creation,” “co-production,” “high
participation,” and “collaboration,” together with subject area terms such as “tourism,” “tourist,”
“hospitality,” “hotel,” “tour” and “travel.”
In this step, the data range limiter was active and included all publications from 2006 (the
first publication on co-creation in tourism) to 2019.
3.2.2 Exclusion and inclusion criteria. One step in mapping study is the selection of relevant
articles according to the input and output measures and excluding the relevant once. The
input and output measures applied in this study are provided in Table 3.
Conference papers and scholarly articles published in journals were included, as they are
peer-reviewed and enjoy high quality. Dissertations, theses and expert reports were
excluded from the study because the results of such works are first published in journals
and conference proceedings (Wendler, 2012). Articles, which were doubted to be included
in the study, were read in detail in the final steps of the mapping process, leading to the
exclusion of 18 articles. This was carried out to minimize the risk of excluding relevant
articles, which is demonstrated in Step 5.
4. Classification scheme
For the analysis and classification of the selected articles in this study, the classification
scheme of Petersen et al. (2008) was used. This scheme, also which is known as
“keywording of abstracts,” is a systematic process in which referees first read the abstract
and look for keywords and concepts that would indicate the contribution of the article. Then
they combine the keywords of different articles and provide a set of classes that represent
the given population (final articles). When the abstract enjoys low quality for the selection of
significant keywords, the referees can choose the introduction or conclusion of the article to
study (Petersen et al.,2008,p.4).Figure 2 illustrates the classification scheme of the
present study.
The present research focus classification is based on the abstract keywording method and
includes the following eight categories:
1. Co-creation concept (C-CC): this category includes articles that discuss the concept
and forms of co-creation.
2. Co-creation antecedents (C-CA): articles that focus on the elements and dimensions,
which are prerequisite or antecedent to the process of co-creation and are usually
considered as input.
Table 3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion Exclusion
Papers that focus both on co-creation and tourism sectors
Peer-reviewed papers
English language papers
Only journal and conference papers
Papers that focus only on co-creation
Papers that focus only on tourism
Papers in languages other than English
Duplicate papers
Theses, dissertations and book
jTOURISM REVIEW j
3. Co-creation process (C-CP): articles in this category focus on how the process of co-
creation occurs, encounters process, interactions, co-creation mechanisms and co-
creation management.
4. Co-creation output (C-CO): this category includes articles that represent the output and
results of co-creation.
5. Co-creation context: this category includes articles that represent co-creation
facilitators.
6. C-CA and C-CO: this category includes articles that represent both co-creation
antecedents and output.
7. C-C APO: this category includes articles that represent co-creation antecedents,
process and output.
8. Other: tt includes multidimensional articles and falls into this category due to
dispersion.
Several dimensions have been created for classification in this study. Design/method
classification has been carried out based on the study of Wendler (2012) with a little
modification and according to the articles reviewed in this study. Another classification
scheme is based on paper type adopted from Chen and Hirschheim (2004), who classified
the articles into Empirical and Non-Empirical types. Co-creation space classification is
based on Neuhofer et al.’s (2012) study that includes physical, virtual, and physical and
virtual co-creation. The scheme for classifying the prerequisites of co-creation is based on
Oertzen et al.’s (2018) study on co-creation, which includes three categories of
“involvement,” “engagement,” and “participation.” Co-creation in tourism provided in the
conducted studies has these three recognized forms, which are discussed below as
follows:
䊏Involvement. this category includes articles that identify tourists’ involvement in the
supply chain, active involvement of all stakeholders, involvement of tourists in the
creation of experiences, tourists’ active involvement and tourists’ feedback.
䊏Engagement. this category includes articles that identify tourist-travel agency
engagement, active tourist –guide engagement, full engagement of the guests in
Figure 2 Classification scheme
Co-creaon Antecedent (C-CA)
Co-creaon Output (C-CO)
Research
focus
Co-creaon process (C-CP)
Co-creaon context
Research design
Case study/mulple case study
Survey Literature
Suvey & interview/
content/case
Interview &
observat
Experiment
Co-creaon
pre-requisite
Co-creaon’s
space
tourism Area/
context
Virtual
Physical
Virtual &
physical
Hospitality Tourism aracon &
events
Travel services
Tourism management
and markeng
Research method
Quantave
Quantave
Mix
Involvement Engagement Parcipaon
Narrave/ethnography
Interview/content
analysis
Co-creaon Concept (C-CC)
unknown
Co-creaon Antecedent &
Co-creaon Output (C-CA & C-CO)
Co-creaon Antecedent &
Process & Output (C-C APO)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
meaningful activities and a higher level of customer engagement with the travel
industry.
䊏Participation. this category includes articles that identify active participation, active
participation in communities, active participation with the locals, tourists and
professional, guests’ active participation in the service creation, customer-to-customer
(guest-to-host) interactions, social interaction, and tourist participation before, during
and after travel.
䊏Unknown. this category includes articles that unknown prerequisites.
5. Mapping results
The characteristics of the selected articles are presented in Table 4. Classification is based
on the research focus, type, method and area/context and the results are based on
mapping the result of 137 articles.
Table 5 lists the journals that printed articles on creation in tourism. As shown, the
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management with 14 articles, Tourism
Management with 13 articles, Current Issues in Tourism with 9 articles and International
Journal of Hospitality Management with 7 articles are the top journals that printed the most
articles in this field.
5.1 Time distribution of research (RQ1)
The present study deals with articles and conference papers published and indexed by
2019 on co-creation in tourism. The distribution of articles according to the publication year
is shown in Figure 3.
The frequency distribution of papers published on co-creation in tourism from 2006 to 2019
indicates the lowest frequency in 2006 with one published paper and the highest frequency
in 2019 with 36 published papers. Figure 3 shows the upward trend of articles published on
co-creation in tourism; particularly, the number of articles published in 2017–2019 has
increased, which proves the significance of co-creation in the tourism industry and the
nature of the issue that is considered as a trend.
5.2 Most productive countries (RQ2)
Most of the works have been done in China, Spain, Italy, Australia and the USA (Figure 4).
Based on Binkhorst and Den Dekker (2009), tourism is the income generator for many
countries and for many developed countries, it is an essential part of their quality of life. As
shown in Figure 4, the developed countries have paid the most attention to the issue of co-
creation in tourism. They include 10 countries that account for about 50% of total tourism
revenue according to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2018). In general, the
tourism industry is important in these countries and co-creation is a market-oriented
approach that will create a positive experience for tourists and a competitive advantage for
service providers.
5.3 Type of paper (RQ3)
In this part, the articles were classified into the following two types: empirical papers and
non-empirical papers. According to the mapping result, 86% of the published papers on
this topic are empirical papers and only 14% are non-empirical.
Studies, which fall under the empirical category, focus on observation and data, while non-
empirical studies rely on ideas and concepts (Alavi and Carlson, 1992). If articles result
from real data and observation, they fall under the empirical category and such data are
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4 Systematic map overview
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Abbes et al.
(2019)
C-CC C-C theory, tourism
experience theory
Interview Resort Participation
Empirical Ahn et al.
(2019)
C-CA Flow theory, customer co-
creation
Survey Resorts Participation
Empirical Altinay et al.
(2016)
C-CA S-D logic, social network
theory
Case study Accommodation Participation
Empirical Ant
on et al.
(2018)
C-CA and C-CO Co-creation of
experiences, co-creation of
value
Survey Museums Participation
Empirical Assiouras et al.
(2019)
C-CA and C-CO Social exchange theory, S-
D logic
Survey Hotel Engagement
Empirical Bertella (2014) C-CC S-D logic, C-C theory,
experiential consumption
Case study Wildlife tourism engagement
Empirical Bertella et al.
(2019)
C-CC C-C theory and animal-
based tourism
CAP Wildlife tourism Unknown
Non-empirical Benahmed and
Elkaddouri
(2017)
C-C context Experiential perspective,
C-C theory
Literature studies Tourism Involvement
Empirical Binkhorst and
Den Dekker
(2009)
C-CC Experience economy,
tourism network approach,
C-C theory
Ethnography Tourism Participation
Empirical Binkhorst
(2006)
C-CC Experience economy, C-C
theory
Literature studies Tourism unknown
Empirical Blazquez-
Resino et al.
(2015)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic Survey Tourism
destination
Involvement
Non-empirical Buhalis and
Foerste (2015)
C-CP Social, context-based,
mobile (SoCoMo)
marketing, C-C theory
Literature studies Tourism
destination
Engagement
Empirical Buhalis and
Sinarta (2019)
C-CP Real-time marketing, ICTs
and C-C theory
Case study Hotel Engagement
Empirical Buonincontri
and Micera
(2016)
C-CA and C-C
context
Experiential marketing,
smart tourism destination,
C-C theory
Multiple case
study
Tourism
destination
Participation
Empirical Buonincontri
et al. (2017)
C-CA and C-CO Experiential marketing, C-
C theory
Survey Hotels and
accommodation
Participation
Empirical Cabiddu et al.
(2013)
C-CP S-D logic, C-C theory, IT-
enabled value theories or
IT strategy alignment
Multiple case
study
Travel agency Participation
Non-empirical Campos et al.
(2015)
C-CP C-C theory, experiential
marketing,
Literature studies Tourism Participation
Empirical Campos et al.
(2016)
C-CP C-C Experience,
physiological theory
(attention and memory)
Interview Park Participation
Empirical Canestrino
et al. (2018)
C-CP C-D logic, value-creation
theory, experience
economy theory
Case study Hospitality Participation
Non-empirical Chathoth et al.
(2016)
C-C APO S-D logic, C-C theory,
experience economy
Literature studies Hospitality Engagement/
involvement
Empirical Chen et al.
(2015)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic Survey Restaurant Participation
Empirical Chen et al.
(2017)
C-CA and C-CO C-C theory, S-D logic Survey Travel agency Participation
Non-empirical Chathoth et al.
(2013)
C-CC S-D logic, C-C theory Literature studies Hotel Involvement/
participation
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Chathoth et al.
(2014)
C-C Context S-D logic, C-C theory Case Study Hotel Participation/
involvement
Empirical Cannas et al.
(2019)
C-CA C-C theory, S-D logic,
corporate social
responsibility
Interview Hospitality and
tourism firms
Involvement
Non-empirical De Jager
(2009)
C-CP Experience economy,
destination marketing, C-C
theory
Literature studies Tourism (DMO) Unknown
Empirical Dolan et al.
(2019)
C-CC social practice theory, S-D
logic
Case study Airline Engagement
Empirical Eccleston et al.
(2019)
C-CP Innovation, ICTs Case study Tourism Engagement
Non-empirical Ellis and
Rossman
(2008)
C-CP Experience economy Literature studies Park and
recreation
Engagement
Empirical Eraqi (2011) C-CO New marketing mix 4C,
experience of C-C theory
Survey Tourism Involvement
Empirical Fu and Lehto
(2018)
C-CP Family system theory,
experience economy
Survey and
interview
Family vacation Participation
Empirical Gomez-Oliva
et al. (2019)
C-CP Experience co-creation,
ICTs
Multiple case
study
Tourism
destination
Participation
Empirical Grissemann
and
Stokburger-
Sauer (2012)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic, C-C theory,
unified services theory,
social exchange theory,
equity theory, attribution
theory
Survey Travel agency Participation
Empirical Gre
`zes et al.
(2016)
C-CP C-C value theory Multiple case
study
Local agencies Involvement
Empirical Gonz
alez-
Mansilla et al.
(2019)
C-CO C-C theory Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Guan et al.
(2018)
C-CA S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Hotel Unknown
Empirical Hjalager and
Konu (2011)
C-CC Experience economy,
innovation and knowledge
transfer, cosmeceuticals in
wellness tourism
Case study Spa and wellness
tourism
Unknown
Empirical Hong and Lee
(2015)
C-C APO and
context
C-C theory, co-innovation
theory
Grounded theory Culture Village Participation
Empirical Hsieh and Yuan
(2011)
C-CP S-D logic, destination
image theory, metaphor
theory
Case study and
survey
Tourism
attraction
Unknown
Empirical Hsiao et al.
(2015)
C-CA Social exchange theory, C-
C theory
Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Im and Qu
(2017)
C-CA S-D logic, social cognitive
theory, C-C theory
Survey Restaurant Engagement
Empirical Jime
´nez-
Barreto and
Campo-
Martı
´nez (2018)
C-CA S-D logic, C-C theory Content analysis
and survey
Travel destination Participation
Empirical Johnson and
Neuhofer
(2017)
C-C APO S-D logic, value C-C, social
practice theory
Content analysis Hospitality
context
Engagement
Empirical Jung and Dieck
(2017)
C-C Context Value co-creation, ICTs Case study Cultural heritage
places
Engagement
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Kallmuenzer
et al. (2019)
C-CA Social capital theory, C-C
theory, S-D logic
Survey Hospitality Participation
Empirical Kamboj and
Gupta (2018)
C-CA and C-CO Technology-based
services, S-D logic, C-C
theory
Survey Hotel Engagement
Empirical Kim et al.
(2018)
C-CP and C-CO Value co-creation/co-
creative destination
branding
Case study and
surveys
Tourist attraction Involvement
Empirical Kim et al.
(2019)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Restaurants Involvement/
engagement
Empirical Lacanienta and
Duerden (2019)
C-CA C-C theory, experience
economy
Case study Park and
recreation
Participation
Empirical Lee et al. (2017) C-CA Experiential marketing, C-
C theory
Case study Heritage
elements
Involvement
Empirical Lei et al. (2019) C-CP S-D logic, C-C theory,
service innovation
Interview Hotel Engagement
Empirical Lei et al. (2019) C-CA and C-CO S-D logic and computer-
mediated communication
theories
Survey Tourism and
hospitality firms
Engagement
Non-empirical Li et al. (2017) C-CA Theory of planned
behavior, destination
marketing
Literature studies Destination
marketing
Engagement
Empirical Lin et al. (2017) C-CA Value co-creation, social
exchange theory, broaden-
and-build theory, resource
theory
Survey Tourism Engagement
Empirical Lin et al. (2018) C-CO C-C theory, S-D logic,
social capital theory
Survey Hotels Engagement
Empirical Lin et al. (2019) C-C APO S-D logic, social theory,
service system
Multi-method Restaurants Engagement
Empirical Lon
cari
cet al.
(2019)
C-CA and C-CO Tourism experience, C-C
theory, S-D logic
Survey Tourism Involvement
Empirical Ma et al. (2017) C-CA and C-CO S-D logic, co-innovation, C-
C theory
Survey Hotel Involvement
Empirical McCartney and
Chen (2019)
C-CA and C-CO Creative tourism, co-
creation experiences
Survey Heritage tourism Involvement
Non-empirical Majdoub (2014) C-CO S-D logic, CCT Literature studies Cultural tourism Unknown
Empirical Malone et al.
(2018)
C-CA S-D logic, C-D logic of
value creation
Phenomenology Tourism Involvement
Empirical Marques and
Borba (2017)
C-CP Creative tourism Case study Heritage city Engagement/
participation
Non-empirical Marasco et al.
(2018)
C-CO Economic innovation
theory and innovation
systems theory, S-D logic
Content analysis Tourism Involvement
Non-empirical Melis et al.
(2015)
C-CA S-D logic, C-C theory Literature studies Tourism
destination
Engagement/
involvement
Empirical Minkiewicz
et al. (2014)
C-CC and C-CA S-D logic, co-creation of
experience
CCA Heritage context Participation
Empirical Mijnheer and
Gamble (2019)
C-CP S-D logic, stakeholder
theory
Case study Heritage tourism Involvement
Empirical Morosan and
DeFranco
(2016)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Hotel Engagement
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Morosan and
DeFranco
(2019)
C-CA S-D logic, social
psychology, marketing
theory, information
systems
Survey Hotel Participation
Non-empirical Neuhofer et al.
(2012)
C-CA and C-C
context
Experience economy, C-C
theory
Literature studies Destination
tourism
Engagement
Non-empirical Nunes et al.
(2014)
C-CP S-D logic, C-C theory Literature studies Transportation Involvement/
participation
Empirical Neuhofer et al.
(2014)
C-CC Tourism experience theory,
ICTs, C-C theory
Case study Hospitality Engagement/
involvement
Empirical Ngamsirijit
(2014)
C-CP Creative tourism, C-C
theory
Data mining Tourism
attraction
Involvement
Empirical Navarro et al.
(2015)
C-CA S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Hospitality Involvement
Empirical Navarro et al.
(2014)
C-CP S-D logic, C-C theory Case study Hotel industry Participation
Empirical Ordanini and
Parasuraman
(2011)
C-CO S-D logic Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Oliveira and
Panyik (2015)
C-CP C-C theory, tourism
destination marketing
theory
Case study Tourism
destination
Engagement/
participation
Empirical Olsson (2012) C-CA C- D logic, experiential
marketing, relationship
marketing
Survey Tourist attraction Participation
Empirical Oxenswa
¨rdh
(2018)
C-CP Experience economy, C-C
theory, S-D logic
Case study Accommodation Participation
Empirical Oyner and
Korelina (2016)
C-CC and C-CO C-C theory, C-D logic Content analysis Hotels Engagement/
participation
Empirical Pera (2017) C-CP Customer value C-C
behavior theories
Narrative Hospitality Unknown
Non-empirical Phi and Dredge
(2019)
C-CC C-C theory, collaborative
exchange
Literature studies
(meta-narrative)
Tourism Unknown
Empirical Polese et al.
(2018)
C-CP S-D logic, service science,
Ecosystems view
Case study Smart tourism Participation
Empirical Prebensen and
Foss (2011)
C-CP Coping and C-C theory in
tourism, experience-based
theories
Narrative
strategy
Tour Participation
Empirical Prebensen
et al. (2013)
C-CA S-D logic, experiential
marketing
Survey Travel agency Participation
Empirical Prebensen and
Xie (2017)
C-CO Experiential consumption
theory, C-C theory, S-D
logic
Survey Adventure
tourism
Participation
Empirical Park and Allen
(2013)
C-CP Hospitality experience
theory, C-C theory
Case study Hotel Engagement
Empirical Rather et al.
(2019)
C-CA S-D logic, attachment
theory
Survey Tourist
destinations
Engagement
Non-empirical Rihova et al.
(2015)
C-CP S-D logic, value-in-social-
practice, experiential
consumption
Literature studies Tourism Participation
Empirical Rihova et al.
(2018)
C-CO C-D logic, practice-based
perspective
Observations
and interviews
Festival Participation
Empirical Reichenberger
(2017)
C-CA and C-CO C-D logic, social practice Interview Tourism visitor
(attraction)
Participation
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Revilla
Hern
andez
et al. (2016)
C-CO Tourism destination
marketing
Case study and
survey
Tourism
destination
Unknown
Empirical Ross and
Saxena (2019)
C-CP Creative tourism,
investment theory of
creativity
Interview Cultural heritage Engagement
Empirical Roy et al.
(2019)
C-CA and C-CO S-D logic, equity theory,
social exchange theory,
social identity theory
Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Schmidt-Rauch
and Schwabe
(2014)
C-CP C-C theory Experiment Travel agency Participation
Empirical Shaw et al.
(2011)
C-CC S-D logic, experience
economy, C-C theory
Case study Hotel Participation
Empirical Shen et al.
(2018)
C-CO C-C theory Survey Travel agency Participation
Empirical Shen et al.
(2018)
C-CC and C-CA C-C theory Survey Travel community Engagement
Empirical Schuckert et al.
(2018)
C-C APO Experience economy,
hospitality-exchange
network
Interview Hospitality Involvement
Empirical Shin et al.
(2019)
C-CA Empowerment and
approach/inhibition theory,
knowledge value co-
creation
Experiment Hotel Participation
Empirical Sigala (2019) C-CA Social entrepreneurship,
social value creation, S-D
logic
Case study Social restaurant Engagement
Non-empirical Sigala (2018) C-C APO Social CRM, C-C theory Literature studies Tourism Engagement
Empirical Slivar et al.
(2018)
C-CO Destination marketing
theory, Co-creation of
experience
Case study DMO Unknown
Empirical Salvado et al.
(2011)
C-CP C-C theory Survey and
content analysis
Travel Agency Participation
Empirical Sarmah et al.
(2017)
C-CA Service innovation, C-C
theory
Survey Luxury hotels Involvement
Empirical Sarmah and
Rahman (2018)
C-CA and C-CO Co-creative innovation, S-D
logic
Survey Hotel Participation
Non-empirical Sfandla and
Bjo
¨rk (2013)
C-CC Tourism experience
network, C-C theory,
network and system
theory, service theory
Literature studies Tourism
marketing
Involvement/
engagement
Empirical Smaliukiene
et al. (2015)
C-CP Value C-C approach, S-D
logic
Case study Hospitality Involvement/
participation
Empirical Santos-Vijande
et al. (2018)
C-CO C-C theory, S-D logic Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Sørensen and
Jensen (2015)
C-CA Value creation theory,
experiential marketing
Experiment Hotel Engagement
Empirical Sthapit (2018) C-CA Interactive value
formation, value co-
creation
netnography Travel agency Unknown
Empirical Suntikul and
Jachna (2016)
C-CO Experience economy, S-D
logic, C-C theory
Survey Heritage tourism Engagement
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 4
Paper type Authors Focus Theoretical underpinnings method Area/context
Pre-requisite
form
Empirical Su et al. (2016) C-CA New environmental
paradigm, cognitive
dissonance theory,
experience theory
Survey Nature-based
tourists ( Park)
Participation
Empirical Sugathan and
Ranjan (2019)
C-CA and C-CO Expectancy-value theory,
C-C theory
Experiment Tourism
destination
Participation
Empirical Tsai (2017) C-CA Organizational
ambidexterity, service
ecosystem theory,
innovation
Survey Hotel Participation
Empirical Tinson et al.
(2015)
C-CA Narrative Dark tourism Unknown
Empirical Trunfio and
Della Lucia
(2019)
C-CP C-C theory, destination
management
Multiple-case
study
DMO Engagement/
participation
Empirical Tseng and
Chiang (2016)
C-CO Resource-based theory, C-
C theory
Survey Travel agency Participation
Empirical Tsai (2017) C-CA Service ecosystem theory,
ambidextrous innovation
orientation
Survey Hotel Engagement/
participation
Empirical Tomassini
(2019)
C-CO C-C theory Narrative Tourism firms Unknown
Empirical Tuan et al.
(2019)
C-CA Resources theory, S-D
logic
Survey Tour service Participation
Empirical Wang et al.
(2011)
C-CA S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Travel agency Engagement
Empirical Wang (2018) C-CA S-D logic, interactive
marketing
Survey Cultural tourism
(Cultural Park)
Participation
Empirical Wiltshier and
Clarke (2017)
C-CA Virtual culture, experience
economy
Multiple case
study
Park, museum Unknown
Empirical Weiler and
Black (2015)
C-CO Experience economy Literature studies Tour guide Engagement
Empirical Wengel et al.
(2019)
C-CP Co-creation theory Participatory
research (Ketso)
Tourism Participation
Empirical Wu et al. (2018) C-CP and C-CO S-D logic, C-C theory Survey Hotel Engagement
Empirical Wu and Cheng
(2019)
C-CO Experiential marketing Survey Park Participation
Empirical Xie et al. (2019) C-CA C-C theory, customer need
knowledge
Survey Hotels Participation
Empirical Xie and Shi
(2019)
C-CO C-C theory, authentication
and identity theory
Interview and
survey
Heritage hotel Involvement
Empirical Xu et al. (2018) C-CO equity theory, S-D logic Experiment Attraction site Engagement
Empirical Xu et al. (2014) C-CO Justice theory, C-C theory Experiment Hotel Participation
Empirical Yang (2016) C-CA Destination imagery theory,
C-C theory
Survey Tourism
destination
Engagement
Empirical Z
atori (2016) C-C APO Experience-centric
management theory, C-C
theory
Interview and
observation
Tour guides Involvement
Non-empirical Zhang et al.
(2015)
C-CA C-C theory, social identity
theory
Literature studies Hospitality Engagement/
participation
Empirical Zhang et al.
(2018)
C-CA S-D logic and experiential
marketing, attitude theory,
destination image theory
Experiment Destination
tourism
Engagement
Empirical Zhang et al.
(2019)
C-CO C-D logic, value theory,
involvement–commitment
theory
Interview and
survey
Festival and
event
Involvement
Non-empirical Zhang (2019) C-CP Real-time co-creation Literature studies Tourism Unknown
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Table 5 Distribution of articles by journal
Journal No.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14
Tourism Management 13
Current Issues in Tourism 9
International Journal of Hospitality Management 7
Tourism Recreation Research 7
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 5
International Journal of Tourism Research 5
Annals of Tourism Research 4
Journal of Business Research 4
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3
Journal of Travel Research 3
Tourism Management Perspectives 3
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 2
Journal of Marketing Management 2
International Joint Conference on Service Sciences 2
Sustainability 2
Service Business 2
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 2
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 2
Journal of Vacation Marketing 2
Tourism Review 1
Services and Operations Management 1
Journal of Heritage Tourism 1
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 1
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 1
Journal of Service Management 1
Electron Markets 1
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1
Int. J. Intelligent Enterprise 1
International Conference on Tourism & Management Studies 1
International Journal of Safety and Security in Tourism and Hospitality 1
International Tourism and Leisure Symposium 1
The Service Industries Journal 1
Economic Research 1
Tourism Planning & Development 1
Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 1
Journal of Service Research 1
Italian Journal of Management 1
E-Review of Tourism Research 1
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1
Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics 1
Journal of China Tourism Research 1
Quality Innovation Prosperity 1
European Journal of Management and Business Economics 1
Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 1
Marketing Theory 1
Benchmarking: An International Journal 1
International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development 1
Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering 1
Tourism and Hospitality Research 1
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 1
Information Technology & Tourism 1
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 1
Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing 1
Technology Innovation Management Review 1
(continued)
jTOURISM REVIEW j
collected through quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (Chen and Hirschheim,
2004). While non-empirical papers are developed on the basis of existing-related articles or
literature. In this type of papers, the researcher does not experiment or collect data; rather
he/she intends to explain the topic under study based on the existing literature.
5.4 Research design and method (RQ4)
Research design is divided into three types of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
A quantitative research design consists of a logical set of procedures for collecting,
analyzing and reporting numerical data to answer research questions and test hypotheses
about specific variables. For the sake of investigating the research questions through
collecting textual and visual data, a qualitative research design reflects the participants’
viewpoint on the research questions (Myers, 2019). The mixed research design is a mixture
of quantitative and qualitative approaches. The results showed that there was no significant
Table 5
Journal No.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 1
Journal of Business Economics and Management 1
Marketing Places and Spaces 1
Third Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference 1
Figure 3 Article distribution by year of publication
112
8
35
9
16 14 16
26
36
2006 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 4 Most productive countries
0
5
10
15
20
25
jTOURISM REVIEW j
difference/gap in the number of studies with quantitative (49%) and qualitative (44%)
research designs.
Most studies in this classification have a quantitative or qualitative design; only 7% of the
studies were conducted with mixed design. Although the combination of quantitative-
qualitative design is the strong point of Research studies, the mixed design is not much
noticed in this field. Also, RQ4 represents the methods applied in studies on co-creation in
tourism. This classification was carried out based on the study of Wendler (2012) with a little
modification, according to the articles reviewed in this study. By reviewing the articles, the
most appropriate methods were selected for classification. Figure 5 shows these methods.
other’s classification includes methods that have been used only once and includes
customer critic approach (CCA) (Minkiewicz et al.,2014), Creative analytic practice (CAP)
(Bertella et al.,2019), participatory research (Ketso) (Wengel et al.,2019), grounded theory
(Hong and Lee, 2015), phenomenology (Malone et al., 2018), data mining (Ngamsirijit,
2014) and multi-method (Lin et al.,2019). The survey was the most commonly used
research design, which included 48 ones and then came the case study/multiple case
study method, which included 29 articles.
5.5 Co-creation space (physical/virtual) (RQ5)
According to the analysis, about 70% of the studies inspected co-creation in physical
space, about 28% considered co-creation in a virtual environment, and 2% studied co-
creation both in virtual and physical spaces. Virtual co-creation refers to using IT technology
for co-creation interactions (Neuhofer et al., 2012). Concepts included in this area are online
co-creation, mobile co-creation, virtual co-creation, IT-enabled co-creation, etc. On the
other hand, there lies the physical co-creation in the form of face-to-face interaction with
customers and organizations. Co-creation in tourism is more often realized physically in the
phase of travel. The studies have limited co-creation in a physical space (Hsieh and Yuan,
2011;Shaw et al., 2011;Olsson, 2012;Chathoth et al.,2014;Sørensen and Jensen, 2015;
Suntikul and Jachna, 2016) to on-site and during travel phases. However, by the advent of
social media and wide use of them by tourists, co-creation was more directed toward virtual
form; studies such as (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012;Park and Allen, 2013;
Neuhofer et al., 2014;Nunes et al.,2014;Oliveira and Panyik, 2015;Smaliukiene et al.,
2015;Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017) fall under this category and studies like (Neuhofer
et al.,2012
;Trunfio and Della Lucia, 2019) full into the virtual and physical categories.
Figure 5 Number of studies per research method
48
29
20
10 8 7 6 2 7
jTOURISM REVIEW j
5.6 Co-creation area/context (RQ6)
Concerning the classification made in various sections of tourism, Figure 6 shows that co-creation
is mostly applied in hospitality with the amount of 36%, which includes hotels, resorts and
restaurants. The hospitality industry is defined as a group of businesses that welcome guests and
passengers by providing them with accommodations, food and beverage or a combination of
them (Harrison and Enz, 2005). Research studies on co-creation in this class have mostly
considered hotels as the context of the study (Shaw et al., 2011;Navarro et al., 2014;Xu et al.,
2014;Morosan and DeFranco, 2016;Sarmah et al., 2017).
After hospitality, marketing and tourism management gained the attention of researchers
with a total rate of 28%. Studies falling under this category include tourism destination,
tourism firm, tourism marketing, and destination marketing orgnization DMO. For example,
Trunfio and Della Lucia (2019) studied the co-creation of value in destination management,
focusing on the way DMOs create their strategic approaches to the destination by
collaborating with the beneficiaries. Among the studies that selected “tourism firm” and
“tourism destination” as the context of study are (Li et al., 2017;Zhang et al., 2018;Gomez-
Oliva et al.,2019
;Lei et al.,2019).
Tourism attraction and events, with a rate of 22% is placed next to marketing and tourism
management. This class includes events, festivals and historical, natural and cultural
attractions. For example, the study of Wang (2018) can be placed in this category, which
studied the effect of interactive marketing on co-creation of value in cultural tourism with the
target population of visitors from parks. Prebensen et al. (2013) also selected tourist
attractions as the context of the study. Other studies related to this part are (Olsson, 2012;
Minkiewicz et al.,2014;Suntikul and Jachna, 2016;Rihova et al.,2018).
Travel services, with 12% includes services concerning to travel such tour guide, travel
agencies and Transportation (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012;Cabiddu et al.,
2013;Prebensen et al.,2013;Schmidt-Rauch and Schwabe, 2014). Other classification
includes wine tourism, wildlife tourism and wellness tourism. For more details, see Table 4.
Figure 7 shows another dimension to analysis the distribution of articles and presents the
number of articles per research method combined with the research area/context. In the
hospitality section, most of the studies applied the survey method and then a case study.
Also, the majority of studies in the field of attraction and events and travel services applied
surveys; in tourism management and marketing they used literature review and then survey
and case study.
Figure 6 Co-creation area/context
Hospitality
Tourism Aracon & Events
Travel Services
Tourism Management
& Markeng
Other
jTOURISM REVIEW j
5.7 Co-creation research focus (RQ7)
To answer this question and according to the classification extracted from the selected
articles using the keywording method (examining the topic, abstract and introduction), five
classes of CC-C, C-C A, C-C P, C-CO, C-C context, C-CA and C-CO and C-C APO were
identified. Based on previous SMS studies (Banaeianjahromi and Smolander, 2016), it is
noteworthy that each article was classified only by its main research focus.
5.7.1 Co-creation concept class. As shown in Figure 8, 9% of studies fall into this category,
which constitutes a small number of the whole studies. For example, Oyner and Korelina
(2016) identified five forms of co-creation in the hospitality industry using customer
engagement methods such as feedback, co-production, firm-driven service innovation,
customer-driven customization and co-creation. As it moves toward customization and co-
creation, the degree of customer effort in the process of co-creation increases (Oyner and
Figure 7 Number of articles per research method combined withresearch area/context
Interview / Content
Survey
Literature
Experiment
Survey & interview/Content/Case
Narrative / Ethnography
Interview / Observation
Other
Hospitality
Attraction
& events
Other
Tourism
management
& marketing
Travel
services
Case study
1
Figure 8 Research focus
C- C antecedent
C-C output
C-C concept
C-C context
C-C process
C-C A & C-C O
C-C A P O
Other
% 28%24
%15%12
%9
% 6
% 4
%2
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Korelina, 2016). In the feedback form, the degree of customer effort is low and the standard
service offering is high. Another study that falls in this class is Minkiewicz et al. (2014) that
includes three dimensions of co-creation identified in the heritage sector, namely,
engagement, co-production and personalization.
Shen et al. (2018) conceptualized three dimensions of co-creation, namely, engagement,
personalization and dependence and examined online interactivity as the main antecedent
of value co-creation. Binkhorst and Den Dekker (2009) and Binkhorst (2006) examined the
concept of co-creation in tourism, which included co-creation and tourism, co-creation in
experience economy and tourism experience network.
5.7.2 Co-creation antecedents class. In total, 28% of studies fall into this category that
constitutes the maximum number of the whole studies.
Articles that focused on prerequisite or antecedents to co-creation and are usually input
articles, as well as articles that studied effective factors on co-creation, are included in this
class. For example, Xie et al. (2019) and Im and Qu (2017a) identified the co-creation
drivers associated with consumers including knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy, which
were considered as antecedents of co-creation in the above studies. Innovativeness, ability
(skills and knowledge required for co-creation), socialization, willingness to co-creation and
participative behavior are effective psychological factors on customer participation in the
process of co-creation outlined in Sarmah et al. (2017) and Jime
´nez-Barreto and Campo-
Martı
´nez (2018). One of the most important prerequisites is resources, which are divided
into operant and operand resources (Chathoth et al.,2016). By integrating resources,
tourists can become a source of innovation for service organizations through the co-
creation of their value. Tourism producers who co-create value for other tourists become
operant resource that organizations may receive and develop their suggestions (Rihova
et al.,2015
).
Tsai (2017) considers co-creation capabilities as an antecedent, they include employee
engagement, customer participation and partner collaboration; these capabilities enable an
organization to go beyond organizational boundaries to effective management innovation
dynamic. Interaction, sharing and active participation (Buonincontri and Micera, 2016;
Chathoth et al., 2016) also fall into this category.
5.7.3 Co-creation process class. This category includes articles that focus on elements
related to the process of co-creation and explain how it occurs; this process usually
consists of main practices, routines, actions and mechanisms. Management methods,
participation strategies and methods of co-creation behavior fall into this category. For
example, resource integration shows how to integrate the resources of actors (Polese et al.,
2018); encounter processes refer to processes and procedures of interaction and
exchange between value co-creators or actors involved in the process (Navarro et al.,2014;
Mijnheer and Gamble, 2019); and management value creation (co) processes refer to
resources and processes used by managers to control their relationships with the players
involved in the process of value creation (co-creation) (Cabiddu et al.,2013;Navarro et al.,
2014;Mijnheer and Gamble, 2019).
Rihova et al. (2015) focus on the dynamic and contextual nature of C2C C-CP. In fact,
tourist C-CP presents in multiple social dimensions, namely, “detached tourist,” “social
bubble” and “communitas.” Polese et al. (2018) proposed a framework for innovation
management and value co-creation in smart service ecosystems. Within this framework,
resource integration between individuals and organizations can produce shared information
and co-creation in the short-term. They also point to the mechanisms of applying
technology to integrate resources, where IT plays a comprehensive role in the facilitation of
resource integration. Furthermore, they address the co-creation and innovation through a
continuous renewal of knowledge exchange.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Mijnheer and Gamble (2019) address the process of co-creation between managers and
local stakeholders and how to manage it. Value creation process management refers to
procedures, resources and processes applied by managers to manage their relationships
with local stakeholders. Polese et al. (2018) and Buhalis and Sinarta (2019) discuss
applying modern technologies in co-creation and mechanisms to use them. Eccleston et al.
(2019) consider applying modern technologies in the planning and development of co-
creation. Other studies in this category consider methods and mechanisms of asking
people’s thoughts and opinions. Wengel et al. (2019) propose participatory methods such
as “Ketso,” and Oliveira and Panyik (2015) suggest UGC as mechanisms of co-creation
behavior and asking people’s opinions. Nunes et al. (2014) recommend “crowdsourcing”
methods for co-creation. “Storytelling” is another method mentioned in the studies for co-
creation behavior (Pera, 2017). Process alignment is essential in the management of C-CP;
Cabiddu et al. (2013) studied the significance of this alignment in hotels. In general, as co-
creation in tourism research is a new issue, researchers have paid more attention to the
formation of co-creation and how the C-CP occurs (Figure 8).
5.7.4 Co-creation output class. This category includes articles that reflect the output and
results of co-creation. They focus on values co-created commonly for both customer and
company. For example, co-creation consequences include perceived value, satisfaction,
customer trust, loyalty and repeated interactions (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012;
Majdoub, 2014;Blazquez-Resino et al., 2015;Chathoth et al.,2016;Prebensen and Xie,
2017).
Z
atori (2016) states that the output of C-CP can determine such values as new knowledge,
personal development and increased well-being of consumers; at the same time, it can
develop some other values for service providers such positive word of mouth, return
customers and satisfied employees. Co-creation can lead to increased value for tourists
and tourist service providers. Sigala (2018) has also referred to co-creation consequences
and defines C-CO as the value created for the customer, firm, market/ecosystem and the
whole stakeholders. He claims that co-creation would create value for all players involved in
the process.
Wu and Cheng (2019) identify experiential relationship quality dimensions (experiential
satisfaction and experiential trust) as a consequence of experiential co-creation. They
emphasize that these dimensions would motivate customers to experience co-creation. In
general, what is referred to as the consequences of co-creation in articles implies that they
would create value for both firm and customer. Positive experience of this type of
collaboration with service providers would result in willingness for a continued long-term
relationship and active collaboration with the company in future; this would, in turn, lead to
reduced failure for development of new products and services resulting from applying
market-oriented approaches like co-creation (Kristensson et al.,2008).
5.7.5 Co-creation context. This group includes articles that reflect enablers of co-creation,
including IT infrastructures, culture, governance, organizational structure and environment.
As shown in Figure 8, few studies (2%) have been conducted with this research focus.
Although some infrastructures are required to implement the process of co-creation, this
area has not gained much attention. Benahmed and Elkaddouri (2017) talk about an
appropriate context that acts as the basis of various interactions to accomplish co-creation;
it includes all opportunities provided by ICTs to carry out co-creation activities. Chathoth
et al. (2014) and Buonincontri and Micera (2016) focusing on technology infrastructures and
integrated technology, suggest that technology infrastructures enable customer
engagement Integration of technology in service enablement increases customer
engagement. Social commerce platforms act as social relation enablers, and social media
sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube enable marketing organizations of destination
and tourists to build a social platform to interact, share the opinions and experiences and
create a sense of social experience (Neuhofer et al., 2012).
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Culture and organizational structure make the next dimension, which falls into this category.
A company with an open innovation culture creates a space for a high level of customer
engagement. In hotels where a top-down approach is the core of their management and
operations, this is considered as an obstacle for co-creation (Chathoth et al., 2014). Table 4
shows other classes of papers such as CC-A and C-CO and C-CAPO. Figure 10 indicates
the framework extracted from this section.
The bubble chart diagram in Figure 9 shows the mapping of 137 papers based on the
research method.
This bubble char diagram displays the number of per research focus and research design
combined with the research method. Also, surveys and case studies are the two most
frequent research methods; they are the most used research methods for the papers that
focused on CC-A. Case study and literature review are the most used research methods for
the papers that focused on CC-P. For other combinations, see Figure 9.
5.8 Pre-requisite forms of co-creation (RQ8)
In this section, prerequisite forms of co-creation are provided. Oertzen et al. (2018)
introduce three prerequisite forms for co-creation as follows: “involvement,” “engagement”
and “participation.” These three forms were identified in the studies conducted on co-
creation in tourism as the main prerequisite, where 38% of studies introduce “participation”
as a prerequisite for co-creation, followed by “engagement” and “involvement” (25% and
15%, respectively). A combination of prerequisite forms has also been found in some
studies, as illustrated in Figure 11.
In articles published on co-creation in tourism, the level of tourist participation varies in the
process of co-creation. Tourists are now very active and want to participate in the planning
of their journey, as well as in the process of creating the tourism experience (Za¨tori, 2013).
The dimensions of co-creation include tourists’ active participation and dynamic role in
providing services before, during and after travel (Z
atori, 2016). In the service industries
such as hospitality, consumers play an important role in co-creation and shared production,
as it is impossible for hotels to provide some services for customers without their own active
participation (Chathoth et al.,2013).
Figure 9 Number of articles per research focusing on design combined with the research
method
Case Study
Interview / Content
Survey
Literature
Experiment
Survey & Interview/Content/Case
Narrave / Ethnography
Interview / Observaon
Other
Quantave
Qualitave
Mix
C-C APO
C-CC
C-CA
C-C Conext
Other
C-CO
C-CA & C-CO
C-CP
62
jTOURISM REVIEW j
These three prerequisite forms are addressed in different forms in the studied articles. For
example, the prerequisite forms of “involvement” in the articles include as follows: active
involvement of all stakeholders, feedback from stakeholders, the involvement of tourists in
the creation of experiences and tourists’ active interaction with their supplier (Eraqi, 2011;
Ma et al.,2017;Wiltshier and Clarke, 2017;Kim et al., 2018). Forms of “engagement” as a
prerequisite for co-creation include as follows: tourist-travel agency engagement, full
engagement in activities, full engagement of the guests in meaningful activities, a higher
level of customer engagement, hotel active engagement with consumers and employee-
gust engagement (Neuhofer et al.,2012;Zhang et al.,2015;Chathoth et al., 2016;Oyner
and Korelina, 2016). The third prerequisite form of co-creation, which gained more attention
in studies, is “participation.” The studies show that customers’ effort level more in this form
for co-creation and move toward customization (Oyner and Korelina, 2016;Oertzen et al.,
2018). This form of prerequisite in co-creation studies in tourism include as follows: active
participation of tourists in communities, active participation with the locals, other tourists
and professionals (tour guide, hotel staff, [...]), active participation in service creation, and
inter-relationships among the customer participation in hotel service, and tourist
participation before, during and after travel (Olsson, 2012;Navarro et al., 2014;Chen et al.,
2015;Su et al.,2016).
Sigala (2016) stated that tourist participation in co-creation can occur at any level of
interaction, from very inactive to very active. Oertzen et al. (2018) consider involvement as
the lowest level of interaction and participation as the highest level of interaction between
the company and the customer. Concerning the three prerequisite forms of co-creation and
the degree of customer efforts in these forms, classification of dimensions of co-creation is
provided in Table 6.
Here, the degree of customers’ effort is determined by the role they play in cooperation with
the company. According to Oyner and Korelina (2016), if the level of customer effort is
limited in the process of co-creation, consumers will have limited freedom to create or
improve a service; this process starts and is controlled by the company. Dimensions of co-
creation here include customers’ low involvement and receiving feedback from customers.
If customers make a high degree of effort in the process of co-creation, the company will
give its co-creator participants freedom in action and decision-making, which will, in turn,
be a driving force for customers’ participation in the process of co-creation. Because of the
Table 6 Classification of the dimension of co-creation
Forms of co-creation Example and activity Pre-requisite forms Degree of effort in C-CP
Feedback, co-ideation, co-
learning/co-valuation
Reading and reviewing other tourists’ comments, idea
presentation, commenting, sharing, discussing and
evaluating opinions –participation of other tourists, vote
to designs presented
Involvement Low
;
High
Co-design, co-test, co-
marketing
Develop workshops with customers to co-design
solutions that improve the service experience, testing
sleep boxes at the airport, creating and presenting texts
and actions (taking and uploading a video/photo) –This
leads to sales and promotion of services and products
by customers
Engagement
Co-production, co-
consumption, customization
Using the company’s infrastructure not only to design
your own experience but also to produce it, full
engagement in service production, fully engage guests
in meaningful activities, customized entertainment
programs, customized menu, brand communities,
customer communities, interact and engagement
through multiple customer touchpoints and channels,
social interaction/C2C interaction
Participation
jTOURISM REVIEW j
interest and motivation of customers in co-creation, they tend to make more effort for co-
creation. Therefore, the more customer efforts are made in value co-creation, the higher
level of personalization of value will be created (Oyner and Korelina, 2016). See Table 6.
According to the findings of the studies reviewed, involvement, engagement and
participation are the prerequisites for co-creation that have been addressed in most
studies. These are prerequisites for co-creation; however, but, customer-provider
interaction is necessary for co-creation and without them, co-creation does not occur.
5.9 Theoretical underpinnings (RQ9)
Few studies have examined co-creation perspectives in the existing literature of co-
creation, comprehensively. For example, Galvagno and Dalli (2014), based on the
bibliometric analysis, presented three perspectives of co-creation, including service
science perspective, innovation and technology management perspective, and marketing
and consumer research. Also, Terblanche (2014), reported the following perspectives,
namely, service science, service logic, social systems approach and cultural and economic
perspective.
Service science is one of the main constitutive dimensions of value co-creation theory
(Galvagno and Dalli, 2014); it emphasizes on the co-creation of value between the customer
and the service provider. According to Vargo and Lusch (2004), companies should shift
their focus from the product to the service that they should offer to customers. Here, co-
creation has been evaluated in relation to S-D logic (Terblanche, 2014). Co-creation has
roots in S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2006) and there is no value until an offering is used
(Lusch and Vargo, 2006). Service science perspective is the most dominant in tourism co-
creation studies (Chathoth et al.,2013;Bertella, 2014;Nunes et al.,2014;Schmidt-Rauch
and Schwabe, 2014;Shen et al., 2018).
The next perspective is the cultural perspective. Researchers have studied the importance
of consumer culture theory (CCT) in co-creation discussions (Arnould, 2007) and sought to
understand the importance of cultural perspective in the field of consumption. According to
CCT (Arnould and Thompson, 2005), the co-creation value is based on a cultural framework
that focuses on how consumers understand, interpret and interact with the market offering.
Majdoub (2014) applies this theory in the tourism co-creation research and points out that
the value is in the consumption experience.
Another perspective is innovation and technology management. Studies on the Theories of
management and innovation focus on collaboration and open processes that involve users
and companies and technological platforms for customer engagement, and thus, fall into
this category. According to this perspective, the interaction between customers and
companies mediated by open technology platforms leads to innovation, customer
engagement and better service (Galvagno and Dalli, 2014). Specifically, articles that fall
within this perspective examine the virtual dimensions of customer-company interaction
(Kohler et al.,2009). Studies in tourism co-creation (Neuhofer et al., 2012) have focused on
virtual co-creation. Other studies include (Jung and Dieck, 2017;Gomez-Oliva et al.,2019).
Also, Hong and Lee (2015) and Ma et al. (2017) have considered a co-innovation theory.
The next perspective is the social system and shows that service exchange is affected by
social forces. It emphasizes that value should be value-in-social-context (Terblanche,
2014). Interaction, social structures and systems theories have been used in the social
system’s approach to co-creation (Terblanche, 2014). Studies on co-creation in tourism
(Rihova et al., 2015;Reichenberger, 2017;Sigala, 2019;Fu and Lehto, 2018) have been
mentioned this perspective.
The marketing and consumer research perspective focuses on the role of consumers in the
C-CP and shows consumers’ willingness to engage in co-production and interaction with
jTOURISM REVIEW j
companies (Dong et al.,2008). Zhang et al. (2018) point out the consumers’ attitudes
toward engagement whit companies in co-creation.
It is noteworthy that beyond service design, the experience is important to consumers and
the experience economic confirms this. In other words, consumers attribute value to
experience (Pine and Gilmore, 1998) that could lead to a next perspective on tourism co-
creation studies, called experiential perspective (Ellis and Rossman, 2008;Binkhorst and
Den Dekker, 2009;Neuhofer et al., 2014;Prebensen et al., 2013). Based on experiential
perspective, consumers are not only passive actors but also actors and producers of their
own experiences (Caru
`and Cova, 2013) and customer involvement as essential for defining
and designing the experience (Prebensen et al.,2013).
6. Discussions and conclusions
This study is the first SMS research on co-creation in tourism. It seeks to provide an
overview of the studies published on co-creation in tourism to answer the questions raised
in the study. Researchers can use the results of this study as a starting point for their
research projects.
During the study, after determining the research questions and strategy, articles published
on co-creation in tourism from 2006 to 2019 were downloaded from the scholarly
databases. After initial scanning, 137 articles were finally reviewed. Studies were classified
based on the research focus, type, design and method, prerequisite form and study area.
The classification scheme is provided in Figure 2. Answers to the questions can give a
comprehensive view to future researchers to examine the topic studied. The research
results of the study are summed up below as follows:
The results showed that researchers have paid rather particular attention to co-creation in
tourism in recent years and the number of articles on this topic has been growing (Figure 3).
As this concept was introduced in tourism only a decade ago, so studies on co-creation are
growing and future researchers can be sure that it is considered a trend in tourism,
considering that co-creation in tourism still requires more investigation.
Around 86% of all Research studies included in this study have been empirical types.
Although the number of studies in this field has been growing recently and few studies have
been conducted on the relevant literature review, yet non-experimental studies using meta-
study research methods and systematic review are required.
As co-creation is a participatory process and customer-oriented, tourism is service-oriented
(Li et al.,2018) and its sector is directly associated with customer experience, e.g.
hospitality (Ko
¨hler, 2011). It is recommended to use methods of data collection that
consider a consumer as an active participant in the process of data collection. By analyzing
the applied methods, this study will indicate, which studies are more commonly used and
which ones are neglected. Among the studies conducted, survey and case study methods
are more commonly used, while participatory methods such as action research have not
been used. One of the key methods going in line with presuppositions of co-creation has
been applied only once. A key presupposition of co-creation is “doing with,” and “CCA”
focuses on doing research “with consumers” not “on consumers” (Minkiewicz et al.,2014).
CCA method has been used only once to gather data in the heritage sector by Minkiewicz
et al. (2014).
Another method used in this field is “Ketso,” which belongs to the participatory action
research family used in social science research methods (Tippett et al., 2007). Ketso is a
tool that enables people to think and work together and can be used to gather data (Tippett,
2013). This method falls into “other” group in the classification scheme. In tourism, Ketso is
a qualitative research method that presents a new and creative way for tourism
investigators to co-create results with tourism stakeholders (McIntosh and Cockburn-
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Wootten, 2016). In studies on co-creation in tourism, this method has been used only once
by Wengel et al. (2019) to co-create knowledge and collaborative solutions. Although co-
creation centers on engagement and collaboration of stakeholders, methods such as action
research, which has a participatory nature, has not been used by investigators in this field.
Future researchers should focus more on participatory methods and consider a group of
customers (stakeholders) as co-researcher for data collection.
Other results revealed that researchers were more willing to consider the quantitative and
qualitative schemes separately. Although the combined quantitative-qualitative scheme is a
strong point for studies and can identify directions for future research to use a mixed design
according to the objective of the study, it has not gained much attention so far.
In the present study, the three countries active in co-creation in tourism include China,
Spain and Italy. The developed countries have paid the most attention to co-creation in
tourism research. Therefore, it is suggested that this issue be studied in developing
countries, as one of the ways to earn revenue in developing countries is tourism.
Our findings further showed that part of the tourism where co-creation has gained more
attention is the hospitality industry. Most of the researchers selected hotels (Ordanini and
Parasuraman, 2011;Chathoth et al.,2013;Sigala, 2016) and then tourism management and
marketing as the context of the study. One of the reasons that the hospitality sector (and
particularly hotels) has gained more attention originates from the nature of this sector. In
hospitality, production cannot be separated from consumption activities. This means that
production and consumption occur simultaneously. Therefore, consumer plays an important
role in co-creation and co-production because it is impossible for a hotel to provide a
service for a customer without hihe/sher active collaboration (Chathoth et al., 2013). Hence,
co-creation plays an important role here in creating positive experiences. Tourism attraction
and events and travel agencies are ranked next. It is noteworthy that only some sectors of
tourism have gained the attention of researchers to study in terms of co-creation. Although
the tourism industry is service-oriented and produces and consumes experiences
simultaneously by its nature (Tussyadiah and Zach, 2013), not all sectors have gained the
researchers’ attention. It is recommended that future researchers examine some other
sectors of tourism such as health tourism and education tourism, in terms of co-creation.
Finally, virtual co-creation has gained less attention by researchers. Although we face a
growing trend of using social media by tourists (Sigala, 2016) in the current decade, web
2.0 can be used for active customer collaboration to develop new customer-oriented
services. Moreover, as a social space, it can provide a wide spectrum of value for tourists
and allow them to become co-marketers, co-producers and co-designers (Sigala, 2009,p.
1345). Co-creation can occur in three phases of the trip (before, during and after) and
through the whole chain of value. This is made possible by using social media; however, it
seems that co-creation in social media or in the online space has not been examined
enough. Even the recent tourism co-creation papers have mostly studied co-creation in
physical space. With the increasing use of social media, it is recommended that future
researchers study co-creation occur in both virtual and physical spaces.
According to research focus classifications, studies conducted in this field concentrated
more on antecedents, which are prerequisites and as input to the process of co-creation. C-
CP and output were the next preferences. Co-creation context has not gained much
attention in this classification. Although it is crucial to identify and enhance enablers (e.g. IT
infrastructures and culture) and remove the obstacles to implement co-creation, they have
gained less attention by researchers. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no study has
addressed the guidelines and systematic steps to implement the C-CP. They have mostly
considered encounter processes. Future researchers are advised to consider these points
and develop a road map for co-creation implementation that outlines the related steps and
procedures systematically. Another important point is that most of the analyzed articles
jTOURISM REVIEW j
have studied the positive side of co-creation and few studies have explicitly studied the
dark side of co-creation in tourism (Abbes et al.,2019). So other researchers can study this
side of co-creation in tourism as a research gap.
The dimensions of tourism co-creation are more diverse than what is said in this study, and
the researchers are recommended to examine the dimensions of co-creation in the pre-
travel, on-trip and post-trip stages, separately.
Finally, according to the extracted theoretical underpinnings, the service science
perspective has been the most dominant perspective in co-creation in tourism studies with
an emphasis on co-creation rooted in S-D logic. One of the important perspectives was the
experiential perspective, which places more importance on experience rather than service
design. It is suggested that future researchers pay more attention to this theory and study
the role of experience economic assumption and experience theory in tourism and identify
its place in related tourism co-creation studies. Other findings of the study indicate that
studies on co-creation in tourism have mostly paid attention to the S-D logic paradigm as a
dominant paradigm in tourism research. Co-creation here encompasses interactions
between customer and service provider) Cabiddu et al., 2013;Chathoth et al.,2016)and
the paradigm of C-D logic has less been studied, referring to the interactions among
customers (C2C) that emphasize tourist-to-tourist co-creation in tourism and highlights the
Figure 10 Research framework co-creation in tourism
Context
- IT infrastructure
- Culture
- Governance
Antecedents
- Resources (operant &
operand)
- Movaon
- Psychological factors
- Capabilies
Concept
- Co-creaon form
- Co-creaon definion
- Co-creaon matrix
Process
- Co-creaon management
- Co-creaon mechanism
- Encounter process
- Resource integraon
Output
- Value for tourist
- Value for service
provider
- Value for stakeholder
-Value for ecosystem
Figure 11 Prerequisite forms of co-creation
Parcipaon
Engagement &
parcipaon
Engagement
Involvement &
parcipaon
Involvement
Involvement &
engagement
jTOURISM REVIEW j
importance of a social context (Rihova et al., 2015,2018;Reichenberger, 2017;Fu and
Lehto, 2018). According to Rihova et al. (2018), the contribution of the C-D logic paradigm
in tourism literature has not been fully incorporated. Therefore, in future studies on co-
creation in tourism, interactions among different customers should be considered as one of
the important elements of co-creation and not just customer-provider interactions.
It can almost be claimed that this study covers all articles published on co-creation in tourism
from the first appearance of this concept in tourism up to 2019. Moreover, the articles reviewed
in this study have been selected from the authentic scientific databases, on marketing and
tourism management, which are almost the most comprehensive sources of related articles. This
is certainly the first comprehensive study of the research works conducted on tourism using the
SMS that provides an overview of the studies carried out in this field.
References
Abbes, I., Bouslama, H. and Zemni, R. (2019), “The dark side of co-creation in a tourism experience: an
exploratory study of the different types of ill-being”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,Vol.36No.8,
pp. 928-940.
Ahn, J., Lee, C.K., Back, K.J. and Schmitt, A. (2019), “Brand experiential value for creating integrated resort
customers’ co-creation behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81, pp. 104-112.
Alavi, M. and Carlson, P. (1992), “A review of MIS research and disciplinary development”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol.8 No. 4, pp. 45-62.
Altinay, L., Sigala, M. and Waligo, V. (2016), “Social value creation through tourism enterprise”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 54, pp. 404-417.
Alves, H., Fernandes, C. and Raposo, M. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and contexts of application
and study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1626-1633.
Ant
on, C., Camarero, C. and Garrido, M.J. (2018), “Exploring the experience value of museum visitors as
a co-creation process”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1406-1425.
Arnould, E.J. (2007), “Service-dominant logic and consumer culture theory: natural allies in an emerging
paradigm”, Consumer Culture Theory, Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 57-78.
Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005), “Consumer culture theory (CCT): twenty years of research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-882.
Assiouras, I., Skourtis, G., Giannopoulos, A., Buhalis, D. and Koniordos, M. (2019), “Value co-creation
and customer citizenship behavior”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 78 No. 10,pp. 27-42.
Banaeianjahromi, N. and Smolander, K. (2016), “What do we know about the role of enterprise
architecture in enterprise integration?A systematic mapping study”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 140-164.
Benahmed, N. and Elkaddouri, A. (2017), “The role of the environment i tourism experience co-creation”,
Economic and Social Development, Book of Proceedings, pp. 1-10.
Bertella, G. (2014), “The co-creation of animal-based tourism experience”, Tourism Recreation Research,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 115-125.
Bertella, G., Fumagalli, M. and Williams-Grey, V. (2019), “Wildlife tourism through the co-creation lens”,
Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 300-310.
Binkhorst, E. (2006), “The co-creation tourism experience”, In XV International Tourism and Leisure
Symposium, Barcelona, pp. 1-13.
Binkhorst, E. and Den Dekker, T. (2009), “Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research”, Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 311-327.
Blazquez-Resino, J.J., Molina, A. and Esteban-Talaya, A. (2015), “Service-dominant logic in tourism: the
way to loyalty”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 706-724.
Brien, A., Ratna, N. and Boddington, L. (2012), “Is organizational social capital crucial for productivity
growth? An exploration of ‘trust’ within luxury hotels in New Zealand”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 123-145.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Buhalis, D. and Foerste, M. (2015), “SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: empowering co-creation of
value”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 151-161.
Buhalis, D. and Sinarta, Y. (2019), “Real-time co-creationand nowness service: lessons from tourism and
hospitality”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 563-582.
Buonincontri, P. and Micera, R. (2016), ” “The experience co-creation in smart tourism destinations: a
multiple case analysis of European destinations”, Information Technology & Tourism,Vol.16No.3,
pp. 285-315.
Buonincontri, P., Morvillo, A., Okumus, F. and van Niekerk, M. (2017), “Managing the experience co-creation
process in tourism destinations: empirical findings from naples”, Tourism Management, Vol. 62, pp. 264-277.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.W. and Piccoli, G. (2013), “Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 42, pp. 86-107.
Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., do Valle, P.O. and Scott, N. (2016), “Co-creation experiences: attention and
memorability”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 33No. 9, pp. 1309-1336.
Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., Valle, P.O.D. and Scott, N. (2015), “Co-creation of tourist experiences: a
literature review”,Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 369-400.
Canestrino, R., Bonfanti, A. and Magliocca, P. (2018), “Value co-creation in the hospitality industry:
learning from the vascitour experience”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, Vol. 107, pp. 23-48.
Cannas, R., Argiolas, G. and Cabiddu, F. (2019), “Fostering corporate sustainability in tourism
management through social valueswithin collective value co-creation processes”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 139-155.
Caru
`, A. and Cova, B. (2013), Consuming Experiences, Routledge, London.
Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Altinay, L., Chan, E.S.W., Harrington, R. and Okumus, F. (2014), “Barriers
affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer engagement in tourism service interactions”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 42, pp. 181-193.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F. and Chan, E.S.W. (2013), “Co-production versus
co-creation: a process based continuum in the hotel service context”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32, pp. 11-20.
Chathoth, P., Ungson, G.R., Harrington, R.J. and Chan, E.S.W. (2016), “Co-creation and higher order
customer engagement in hospitality and tourism services: a critical review”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 222-245.
Chen, J.-S., Kerr, D., Chou, C.Y. and Ang, C. (2017), “Business co-creation for service innovation in the
hospitality and tourism industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol.29
No. 6, pp. 1522-1540.
Chen, S.C., Raab, C. and Tanford, S. (2015), “Antecedents of mandatory customer participation in
service encounters: an empirical study”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,Vol.46,
pp. 65-75.
Chen, W. and Hirschheim, R. (2004), “A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information
systems research from 1991 to 2001”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 197-235.
De Jager, K. (2009), “Co-creation as a strategic element of tourism destination competitiveness”,
Proceedings 3rd International Conference of Destination Branding and Marketing, pp. 190-207.
Dolan, R., Seo, Y. and Kemper, J. (2019), “Complaining practices on social media in tourism: a value co-
creation and co-destruction perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 73, pp. 35-45.
Dong, B. and Sivakumar, K. (2017), “Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and
boundaries”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.45 No. 6, pp. 944-965.
Dong, B., Evans, K.R. and Zou, S. (2008), “The effects of customer participation in co-created service
recovery”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 123-137.
Eccleston, R.E., Hardy, A.L. and Hyslop, S. (2019), “Unlocking the potential of tracking technology for co-
created tourism planning and development: insights from the tourism tracer Tasmania project”, Tourism
Planning & Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of service exchange and
value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol.39
No. 2, pp. 327-339.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Ellis, G.D. and Rossman, J.R. (2008), “Creating value for participants through experience staging: parks,
recreation, and tourism in the experience industry”, Journal of Park & Recreation Administration,Vol.26
No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Eraqi, M.I. (2011), “Co-creation and the new marketing mix as an innovative approach for enhancing
tourism industry competitiveness in Egypt”, International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Etgar, M. (2008), “A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Finsterwalder,J. and Tuzovic, S. (2010), “Quality in groupservice encounters: a theoretical exploration of
the concept of a simultaneous multi-customer co-creation process”, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 109-122.
Fu, X. and Lehto, X. (2018), “Vacation co-creation: the case of Chinese family travelers”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 980-1000.
Gallarza, M.G. and Saura, I.G. (2020), “Consumer value in tourism: a perspective article”, Tourism
Review, Vol. 75 No. 1,pp. 41-44.
Galvagno, M. and Dalli, D. (2014), “Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review”, Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 643-683.
Gomez-Oliva, A., Alvarado-Uribe, J., Parra-Meron
˜o, M.C. and Jara, A.J. (2019), “Transforming
communication channels to the co-creation and diffusion of intangible heritage in smart tourism
destination: creation and testing in ceutı
´(Spain)”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 14, pp. 38-48.
Gonz
alez-Mansilla, O
´., Berenguer-Contrı
´, G. and Serra-Cantallops, A. (2019), “The impact of
value co-creation on hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 75, pp. 51-65.
Gre
`zes, V., Lehmann, B.G., Schnyder, M. and Perruchoud, A. (2016), “A process for co-creating shared
value with the crowd: tourism case studies from a regional innovation system in Western Switzerland”,
Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 32-39.
Grissemann, U.S. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2012), “Customer co-creation of travel services: the role
of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1483-1492.
Guan, X.-H., Xie, L. and Huan, T.C. (2018), “Customer knowledge sharing, creativity and value co-
creation: a triadmodel of hotels,corporate sales employees and theircustomers”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 961-979.
Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010), “Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and
resource integration”, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 181-198.
Harkison, T. (2018), “The use of co-creation within the luxury accommodation experience –myth or
reality?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71, pp. 11-18.
Harrison, J.S. and Enz, C.A. (2005), Hospitality Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, Wiley.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T. and Voima, P. (2013), “Customer dominant value formation in service”,
European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 104-123.
Hjalager, A.-M. and Konu, H. (2011), “Co-branding and co-creation in wellness tourism: the role of
cosmeceuticals”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 879-901.
Hong, S.-G. and Lee, H.-M. (2015), “Developing gamcheon cultural village as a tourist destination
through co-creation”, Service Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 749-769.
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh, S.S. (2010), “Consumer cocreation in new
product development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.283-296.
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y.-H. and Chen, W.J. (2015), “The effect of servant leadership on customer value co-
creation: a cross-levelanalysis of key mediating roles”, Tourism Management, Vol. 49, pp. 45-57.
Hsieh, P.H. and Yuan, S.T. (2011), “Regional tourism service ecosystem development: a co-creation and
imagery based approach”, 2011 International Joint Conference on Service Sciences, pp. 267-271.
Im, J. and Qu, H. (2017), “Drivers and resources of customer co-creation: a scenario-based case in the
restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 64, pp. 31-40.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Jami Pour, M., Manian, A. and Yazdani, H.R. (2016), “A theoretical and methodological examination of
knowledge management maturity models: a systematic review”, International Journal of Business
Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 330-352.
Jime
´nez-Barreto, J. and Campo-Martı
´nez, S. (2018), “Destination website quality, users’ attitudes and the
willingness to participate in online co-creation experiences”, European Journal of Management and
Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 26-41.
Johnson, A.G. and Neuhofer, B. (2017), “Airbnb–an exploration of value co-creation experiences in
Jamaica”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 2361-2376.
Jung, T.H. and Dieck, M.C. (2017), “Augmented reality, virtual reality and 3D printing for the co-creation
of value for the visitor experience at cultural heritage places”, Journal of Place Management and
Development, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 140-151.
Kaartemo, V. and Helkkula, A. (2018), “A systematic review of artificial intelligence and robots in value co-
creation: current status and future research avenues”, Journal of Creating Value,Vol.4No.2,
pp. 211-228.
Kallmuenzer, A., Peters, M. and Buhalis, D. (2019),“The role of family firm image perception in host-guest
value co-creation of hospitality firms”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 1-18.
Kamboj, S. and Gupta, S. (2018), “Use of smart phone apps in co-creative hotel service innovation: an
evidence from India”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 23No. 3, pp. 1-22.
Kim, H., Stepchenkova, S. and Babalou, V. (2018), “Branding destination co-creatively: a case study of
tourists’ involvement in the naming of a local attraction”, Tourism Management Perspectives,Vol.28,
pp. 189-200.
Kim, E., Tang, L. and Bosselman, R. (2019), “Customer perceptions of innovativeness: an accelerator for
value co-creation”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 43No. 6, pp. 807-838.
Kitchenham, B. (2007), “Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering”,
EBSE Technical Report, Keele University & Department of Computer Science University of Durham.
Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007), “Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering”, Tech. rep., Technical report, EBSETechnical Report EBSE.
Kitchenham, B.A.,Budgen, D. and Brereton, O.P. (2011), “Using mapping studies as the basis for further
research –a participant-observer case study”, Information and Software Technology,Vol.53No.6,
pp. 638-651.
Ko
¨hler, T. (2011), “Co-creation in the hospitality industry”, Master’s Thesis, International Tourism
Management Heilbronn University, 30 September.
Kohler, T., Matzler, K. and Fu
¨ller, J. (2009), “Avatar-based innovation: using virtual worlds for real-world
innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7, pp. 395-407.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008), “Key strategies for the successful involvement of
customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 474-491.
Kryvinska, N., Olexova, R., Dohmen, P. and Strauss, C. (2013), “The SD logic phenomenon-
conceptualization and systematization by reviewing the literature of a decade (2004–2013)”, Journal of
Service Science Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-94.
Lacanienta, A. and Duerden, M.D. (2019), “Designing and staging high-ouality park and recreation
experiences using co-creation”, Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, Vol. 37No. 2, pp. 118-131.
Lee, L.S., Shaharuddin, S.S., Ng, G.W. and Wan-Busrah, S.F. (2017), “Co-creation tourism experience in
perceived usability of interactive multimedia features on mobile travel application”, Journal of
Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), Vol. 9 Nos 2/9, pp. 155-161.
Lei, S.I., Wang, D. and Law, R. (2019), “Hoteliers’ service design for mobile-based value co-creation”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31No. 11, pp. 4338-4356.
Lei, S.I., Ye, S., Wang, D. and Law, R. (2019), “Engaging customers in value co-creation through mobile
instant messaging in the tourism and hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Leroy, J., Cova, B. and Salle, R. (2013), “Zooming in VS zooming out on value co-creation: consequences
for BtoB research”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1102-1111.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Li, K.X., Jin, M. and Shi, W. (2018), “Tourism as an important impetus to promoting economic growth: a
critical review”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 26, pp. 135-142.
Li, S.C.H., Robinson, P. and Oriade, A. (2017), “Destination marketing: the use of technology since the
millennium”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 95-102.
Lin, Z., Chen, Y. and Filieri, R. (2017), “Resident-tourist value co-creation: the role of residents’ perceived
tourism impacts and life satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 61, pp. 436-442.
Lin, S., Yang, S., Ma, M. and Huang, J. (2018), “Value co-creation on social media: examining the
relationship between brand engagement and display advertising effectiveness for Chinese hotels”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30No. 4, pp. 2153-2174.
Lin, P.M.C., Peng, K.-L., Ren, L. and Lin, C.W. (2019), “Hospitality co-creation with mobility-impaired
people”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 77, pp. 492-503.
Lon
cari
c, D., Peris
ˇi
c Prodan, M. and Dla
ci
c, J. (2019), “The role of market mavens in co-creating tourist
experiences and increasing loyalty to service providers”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraz
ˇivanja,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2252-2268.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006), “Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-288.
McCartney, G. and Chen, Y. (2019), “Co-creation tourism in an ancient Chinese town”, Journal of China
Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
McIntosh, A.J. and Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2016), “Using ketso for engaged tourism scholarship”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 56, pp. 148-151.
Ma, S., Gu, H., Wang, Y. and Hampson, D.P. (2017), “Opportunities and challenges of value co-creation:
the role of customer involvement in hotel service development”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 3023-3043.
Majdoub, W. (2014), “Co-creation of value or co-creation of experience? Interrogations in the field of
cultural tourism”, Safety and Security in Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 1 No. 7, pp. 13-31.
Malone, S., McKechnie, S. and Tynan, C. (2018), “Tourists’ emotions as a resource for customer value
creation, cocreation, and destruction: a customer-grounded understanding”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 843-855.
Marasco, A., De Martino, M., Magnotti,F. and Morvillo, A. (2018), “Collaborative innovation in tourism and
hospitality: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 2364-2395.
Marques, L. and Borba, C. (2017), “Co-creating the city: digital technology and creative tourism”,
Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 24, pp. 86-93.
Mathis, E.F., Kim, H.L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J.M. and Prebensen, N.K. (2016), “The effect of co-creation
experience on outcome variable”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 57, pp. 62-75.
Melis, G. McCabe, S.D. and Chiappa, G. (2015), “Conceptualizing the value co-creation challenge for
tourist destinations: a supply-side perspective”, Marketing places and spaces, pp. 75-89.
Mijnheer, C.L. and Gamble, J.R. (2019), “Value co-creation at heritage visitor attractions: a case study of
gladstone’s land”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 32, pp. 1-12.
Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J. and Bridson, K. (2014), “How do consumers co-create their experiences? An
exploration in the heritage sector”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 30-59.
Morgan, M., Lugosi, P. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2010), The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and
Managerial Perspectives, Channel View Publications.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2016), “Co-creating value in hotels using mobile devices: a conceptual
model with empirical validation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 52, pp. 131-142.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2019), “Co-creation of value using hotel interactive technologies:
examining intentions and conversion”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1183-1204.
Myers, M.D. (2019), Qualitative Research in Business and Management, Sage, London.
Navarro, S., Andreu, L. and Cervera, A. (2014), “Value co-creation among hotels and disabled
customers: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 813-818.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Navarro, S., Garz
on, D. and Roig-Tierno, N. (2015), “Co-creation in hotel –disable customer interactions”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 7, pp. 1630-1634.
Neuhofer, B. (2016), “Value co-creation and co-destruction in connected tourist experiences”, In
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, pp. 779-792.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2012), “Conceptualising technology enhanced destination
experiences”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 36-46.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2014), “A typology of technology-enhanced tourism
experiences”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 340-350.
Ngamsirijit, W. (2014), “Value creation in creative tourism: co-creation through data mining”, International
Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 2 Nos2/3, pp. 255-276.
Nunes, A.A., Galva
˜o, T.E. and Cunha, J.F. (2014), “Urban public transport service co-creation: leveraging
passenger’s knowledge to enhance travel experience”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 111, pp. 577-585.
Oertzen, A.-S., Odekerken-Schro
¨der, G., Brax, S.A. and Mager, B. (2018), “Co-creating services –
conceptual clarification, forms and outcomes”, Journal of Service Management,Vol.29No.4,
pp. 641-679.
Oliveira, E. and Panyik, E. (2015), “Content, context and co-creation: digital challenges in destination
branding with references to Portugal as a tourist destination”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 53-74.
Olsson, A.K. (2012), “Spatial aspects of member retention, participation and co-creation in tourism
settings”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Ordanini, A. and Parasuraman, A. (2011), “Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic
lens: a conceptual framework and empirical analysis”, Journal of Service Research,Vol.14No.1,
pp. 3-23.
Oxenswa
¨rdh, A. (2018), “Processes of value co-creation at a tourist accommodation”, Quality Innovation
Prosperity, Vol.22 No. 3, pp. 36-54.
Oyner, O. and Korelina, A. (2016), “The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation on
customer satisfaction: searching for new forms of co-creation in the russian hotel industry”, Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 327-345.
Paredes, M.R., Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C. (2014), “Resources for value co-creation in e-
commerce: a review”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 111-136.
Park, S.-Y. and Allen, J.P. (2013), “Responding to online reviews: problem solving and engagement in
hotels”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008), “Managing the co-creation of value”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Pera, R. (2017), “Empowering the new traveller: storytelling as a co-creative behaviour in tourism”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 331-338.
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S. and Mattsson, M. (2008), “Systematic mapping studies in software
engineering”, In 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
(EASE), Vol. 12, pp. 1-10.
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S. and Kuzniarz, L. (2015), “Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping
studies in software engineering: an update”, Information and SoftwareTechnology, Vol. 64, pp. 1-18.
Phi, G.T. and Dredge, D. (2019), “Collaborative tourism-making: an interdisciplinary review of co-creation
and a future research agenda”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 284-299.
Pilon, F. and Hadjielias, E. (2017), “Strategic account management as a value co-creation selling model
in the pharmaceutical industry”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 310-325.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Polese, F., Botti, A., Grimaldi, M., Massimiliano, M. and Monda, A. (2018), “Social innovation in smart
tourism ecosystems: how technology and institutions shape sustainable value co-creation”,
Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Pourfakhimi, S., Duncan, T. and Coetzee, W.J. (2020), “Electronic word of mouth in tourism and
hospitality consumer behavior: state of the art”, Tourism Review.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Prebensen, N.K. and Xie, J. (2017), “Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and
satisfaction in tourists’ consumption”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 166-176.
Prebensen, N.K., Kim, H. and Uysal, M. (2016), “Cocreation as moderator between the experience value
and satisfaction relationship”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 934-945.
Prebensen, N.K., Vittersø, J. and Dahl, T.I. (2013), “Value co-creation significance of tourist resources”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 42, pp. 240-261.
Prebensen, N.K. and Foss, L. (2011), “Coping and co-creating in tourist experiences”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F.J. (2010), The Power of co-creation: Build It with Them to Boost Growth,
Productivity, and Profits, Simon and Schuster. New York, NY.
Rather, R.A., Hollebeek, L.D. and Islam, J.U. (2019), “Tourism-based customer engagement: the
construct, antecedents, and consequences”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8,
pp. 519-540.
Rehner Iversen, R., Gergen, K.J. and Fairbanks, R.P. (2005), “Assessment and social construction:
conflict or co-creation?”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 689-708.
Reichenberger, I. (2017), “C2C value co-creation through social interactions in tourism”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 629-638.
Revilla Hern
andez, M., Santana Talavera, A.P. and L
opez, E. (2016), “Effects of co-creation in a
tourism destination brand image through twitter”, Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing,Vol.2
No. 2, pp. 3-10.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Gouthro, M.B. and Moital, M. (2018), “Customer-to-customer co-creation practices
in tourism: lessons from customer-dominant logic”, Tourism Management, Vol. 67, pp. 362-375.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M. and Gouthro, M. (2015), “Conceptualising customer-to-customer value
co-creation in tourism”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 356-363.
Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010), “Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of capitalism in
the age of the digital prosumer”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-36.
Ross, D. and Saxena, G. (2019), “Participative co-creation of archaeological heritage: case insights on
creative tourism in alentejo, Portugal”, Annalsof Tourism Research, Vol. 79, pp. 1-14.
Roy, S.K. Balaji, M.S. Soutar, G. and Jiang, Y. (2019), “The antecedents and consequences of value co-
creation behaviors in a hotel setting: a two-country study”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, pp. 1-16.
Saarija
¨rvi, H., Kannan, P.K. and Kuusela, H. (2013), “Value co-creation: theoretical approaches and
practical implications”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
Salvado, J.O.M.G., Ferreira, A.M.A.P. and Costa, C.M.M. (2011), “Co-creation: the travel agencies new
frontire”, Tourism & Management Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 229-244.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., L
opez-S
anchez, J.A
´. and Pascual-Fernandez, P. (2018), “Co-creation with clients
of hotel services: the moderating role of top management support”, Current Issues in Tourism,Vol.21
No. 3, pp. 301-327.
Sarmah, B. and Rahman, Z. (2018), “Customer co-creation in hotel service innovation: an interpretive
structural modeling and MICMAC analysis approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol.25
No. 1, pp. 297-318.
Sarmah, B., Kamboj, S. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Co-creation in hotel service innovation using smart
phone apps: an empirical study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol.29
No. 10, pp. 2647-2667.
Schmidt-Rauch, S. and Schwabe, G. (2014), “Designing for mobile value co-creation –the case of travel
counselling”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Schuckert, M., Peters, M. and Pilz, G. (2018), “The co-creation of host–guest relationships via
couchsurfing: a qualitative study”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,pp. 220-234.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Sfandla, C. and Bjo
¨rk, P. (2013), “Tourism experience network: co-creation of experiences in interactive
processes”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 495-506.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A. and Williams, A. (2011), “Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for
tourism management: examples from the hotel industry”, Tourism Management,Vol.32No.2,
pp. 207-214.
Shen, H., Li, X. and Zhang, Y. (2018), “A study on Brand equity of online tourism enterprises based on
user value co-creation”, In Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 14, pp. 111-130.
Shen, H., Wu, L., Yi, S. and Xue, L. (2018), “The effect of online interaction and trust on consumers’ value
co-creation behavior in the online travel community”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, pp. 1-11.
Shin, H., Perdue, R.R. and Pandelaere, M. (2019), “Managing customer reviews for value co-creation: an
empowerment theoryperspective”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1-19.
Sigala, M. (2009), “E-service quality and web 2.0: expanding quality models to include customer
participation and inter-customer support”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 10,pp. 1341-1358.
Sigala, M. (2016), “Social media and the co-creation of tourism experiences”, In The Handbook of
Managing and Marketing Tourism Experiences, pp. 85-111.
Sigala, M. (2018), “Implementing social customer relationship management: a process framework and
implications in tourism and hospitality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 2698-2726.
Sigala, M. (2019), “A market approach to social value co-creation: findings and implications from
“mageires” the social restaurant”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 27-45.
Sinkovics, R.R., Kuivalainen, O. and Roath, A.S. (2018), “Value co-creation in an outsourcing
arrangement between manufacturers and third party logistics providers: resource commitment,
innovation and collaboration”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 563-573.
Slivar, I., Peris
ˇa, A. and Horvat, A. (2018), “Destination marketing organizations’ use of humor and co-
creation: an exploratory study from Croatia”, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems,Vol.16
No. 2, pp. 238-248.
Smaliukiene, R., Chi-Shiun, L. and Sizovaite, I. (2015), “Consumer value co-creation in online business:
the case of global travel services”, Journal of Business Economics and Management,Vol.16No.2,
pp. 325-339.
Sørensen, F. and Jensen, J.F. (2015), “Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience
encounters”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 336-346.
Staples, M. and Niazi, M. (2008), “Systematic review of organizational motivations for adopting CMM-
based SPI”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 50 Nos 7/8, pp. 605-620.
Sthapit, E. (2018), “Exploring the antecedents of value no-creation: cruise tourists, perspective”, Anatolia,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 617-619.
Sthapit, E. and Bjo
¨rk, P. (2019), “Sources of value co-destruction: uber customer perspectives”, Tourism
Review, Vol. 74 No. 4,pp. 780-794.
Su, C.-J., Lebrun, A.-M., Bouchet, P., Wang, J.-R., Lorgnier, N. and Yang, J.-H. (2016), “Tourists’
participation and preference-related belief in co-creating value of experience: a nature-based
perspective”, Service Business, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 823-846.
Sugathan, P. and Ranjan, K.R. (2019), “Co-creating the tourism experience”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 100, pp. 207-217.
Suntikul, W. and Jachna, T. (2016), “The co-creation/place attachment nexus”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 52, pp. 276-286.
Tekic, A. and Willoughby, K. (2019), “Co-creation–child, sibling or adopted cousin of open innovation?”,
Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 274-297.
Terblanche, N.S. (2014), “Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production of value by
customers”, Professional Accountant, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.1-8.
Tinson, J.S., Saren, M.A.J. and Roth, B.E. (2015), “Exploring the role of dark tourism in the creation of
national identity of young Americans”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31 Nos 7/8, pp. 856-880.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Tippett, J. (2013), “Creativity and learning? Participatory planning and the co-production of local
knowledge”, Urbanand Regional Ecology and Resilience, pp. 439-442.
Tippett, J., Handley, J.F. and Ravetz, J. (2007), “Meeting the challenges of sustainable development - A
conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning”, Progress in Planning,
Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-98.
Tomassini, L. (2019), “The co-creation of diverse values and paradigms in small values-based tourism
firms”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Trunfio, M. and Della Lucia, M. (2019), “Co-creating value”, Destination Management Levering on
Stakeholder Engagement’’, E-Reviewof Tourism Research, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 195-204.
Tsai, S.-P. (2017), “Driving holistic innovation to heighten hotel customer loyalty”, Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 15, pp. 1604-1619.
Tseng, F.-M. and Chiang, L.-L.L. (2016), “Why does customer co-creation improve new travel product
performance?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 2309-2317.
Tuan, L.T., Rajendran, D., Rowley, C.and Khai, D.C. (2019), “Customer value co-creation in the business-
to-business tourism context: the roles of corporate social responsibility and customer empowering
behaviors”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 39, pp. 137-149.
Tussyadiah, I. and Zach, F. (2013), “Social media strategy and capacity for consumer co-creation among
destination marketing organizations”, In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism,
pp. 242-253.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Tummers, L.G. (2015), “A systematic review of co-creation and
co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey”, Public Management Review,Vol.17No.9,
pp. 1333-1357.
Wang, S.-M. (2018), “Effects of interactive marketing on value co-creation in cultural tourism”, Journal of
Interdisciplinary Mathematics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 489-497.
Wang, W., Hsieh, P. and Yen, H.R. (2011), “Engaging customers in value co-creation: the emergence of
customer readiness”, In 2011 International JointConference on Service Sciences, pp. 135-139.
Weiler, B. and Black, R. (2015), “The changing face of the tour guide: one-way communicator to
choreographer to co-creator of the tourist experience”, Tourism Recreation Research,Vol.40No.3,
pp. 364-378.
Wendler, R. (2012), “The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study”, Information
and Software Technology, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1317-1339.
Wengel, Y., McIntosh, A. and Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2019), “Co-creating knowledge in tourism research
using the ketso method”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Wiltshier, P. and Clarke, A. (2017), “Virtual cultural tourism: six pillars of VCT using co-creation, value
exchange and exchange value”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 372-383.
Wu, H.-C. and Cheng, C.C. (2019), “Relationships between experiential risk, experiential benefits,
experiential evaluation, experiential co-creation, experiential relationship quality, and future experiential
intentions to travel with pets”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 108-129.
Wu, J., Law, R. and Liu, J. (2018), “Co-creating value with customers: a study of mobile hotel bookings in
China”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4,pp. 2056-2074.
Xie, L., Guan, X. and Huan, T.C. (2019), “A case study of hotel frontline employees’ customer need
knowledge relating to value co-creation”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 39,
pp. 76-86.
Xie, P.F. and Shi, W.L. (2019), “Authenticating a heritage hotel: co-creating a new identity”, Journal of
Heritage Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-80.
Xu, H., Liu, Y. and Lyu, X. (2018), “Customer value co-creation and new service evaluation: the
moderating role of outcome quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 2020-2036.
jTOURISM REVIEW j
Xu, Y., Marshall, R., Edvardsson, B. and Tronvoll, B. (2014), “Show you care: initiating co-creation in
service recovery”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 369-387.
Yang, F.X. (2016), “Tourist co-created destination image”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,Vol.33
No. 4, pp. 425-439.
Yu, C.H., Tsai, C.C., Wang, Y., Lai, K.K. and Tajvidi, M. (2018), “Towards building a value co-creation
circle in social commerce”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 108, pp. 10-11.
Za¨tori, A. (2013), Tourism Experience Creation from a Business Perspective,Corvinus University
NIVERSITY of Budapest,Budapest.
Z
atori, A. (2016), “Exploring the value co-creation process on guided tours (the ‘AIM-model’) and the
experience-centric management approach”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 10No. 4, pp. 377-395.
Zhang, C.X., Fong, L.H.N. and Li, S. (2019), “Co-creation experience and place attachment: festival
evaluation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81, pp. 193-204.
Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D. and Ding, X. (2018), “Experience value cocreation on destination
online platforms”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57 No. 8, pp. 1093-1107.
Zhang, T. (2019), “Co-creating tourism experiences through a traveler’s journey: a perspective article”,
Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 1.
Zhang, T., Kandampully, J. and Bilgihan, A. (2015), “Motivations for customer engagement in online co-
innovation communities (OCCs) a conceptual framework”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 311-328.
Zizka, L., Stierand, M., Buhalis, D., Murphy, H. and Do
¨rfler, V. (2018), “In search of co-creation experts in
tourism: a research agenda”, Annual Research Conference In CHME, pp. 1-19.
Further reading
Mandrella, M., Zander, S. and Kolbe, L.M. (2016), “IT-based value co-creation: a literature review and
directions for future research”, In 2016 49th HI International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),
pp. 287-296.
Corresponding author
Hamid Reza Yazdani can be contacted at: hryazdani@ut.ac.ir
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
jTOURISM REVIEW j
