Cocreation of tourism experiences:
are food-related activities
being explored?
Susana Rach
~ao and Zelia Breda
Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
Carlos Fernandes
School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Viana do castelo, Portugal, and
Veronique Joukes
Department of Economics, Sociology and Management, University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose– This study analyses the dimensions of cocreation in on-site food-related activities.
Design/methodology/approach– A systematic literature review was conducted in two databases (Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science), and 67 peer-reviewed articles were identified on cocreation in tourism experiences.
Findings– The study reveals that food-related activities involving active participation are more likely to be successfully performed in more informal environments, in which culinary experiences cocreated by both tourists and hosts are favoured. Moreover, tourists who learn something new appreciate the value of cocreation within food tourism experiences better.
Research limitations/implications– Although the researchers used two renowned databases to conduct the systematic literature review, there is the risk that some manuscripts related to the topic were excluded. Practical implications– The transfer of new skills and knowledge through direct contact between tourists and hosts are prerequisites for the raise of the value of the cocreation process itself and of the final outcome of the cocreation experience. As a result, professional service providers should dedicate more attention to the inclusion of cocreative‘learning’ elements in the food tourism experiences they create.
Social implications– Due to the changing structure of the tourism ecosystem (technological advances), the manner in which experiences are designed, distributed and consumed (cocreated) is being transformed. The present study highlights some aspects to be developed by tourism destination managers.
Originality/value– This study is the first to explore food-related tourism experiences through the lens of cocreation.
Keywords Cocreation, Food tourism, Gastronomic experiences, Active participation, Systematic literature review, Learning dimension
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The increased interest in food and tourism is exemplified by the amount of recent journal publications over the last decade as well as by industrial activities, such as international conferences and food tourism reports (Ellis et al., 2018;Horng and Tsai, 2012;Okumus et al., 2018;Rach~ao et al., 2019;UNWTO, 2019). It is also clearly revealed in the growth of the food tourism market, including more diversified food-related activities and food-travel experiences (Robinson et al., 2018).
Given that most tourists also search for local/traditional cuisine during their holiday and given the importance of experiential food consumption in travel experiences, it should be remembered that food authenticity is acknowledged as a key element of the tourism destination identity (Ellis et al., 2018;Mkono, 2011;Stone et al., 2017;UNWTO, 2019;
Food-related
activities in
tourism
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:https://www.emerald.com/insight/0007-070X.htm
Received 21 October 2019 Revised 29 November 2019 Accepted 10 December 2019
British Food Journal © Emerald Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI10.1108/BFJ-10-2019-0769
Williams et al., 2018). In addition, the food-related identity is formulated byRobinson and Getz (2013)as a dimension of tourists’ food involvement. This is to say that the involvement of tourists in food-related activities may be leveraged through a growing number of places where the cocreation experience represents the local culture (Chen, 2018).
Cocreation can be defined as tourists’ active participation (physical by involving body actions and/or intellectual engagement) (Bertella, 2014;Campos et al., 2018;Richards and Raymond, 2000), in a wide range of destination activities in which tourists take part by cocreating or coperforming (Landry, 2010;Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003).
In general, in any leisure context (nature, sports and animal-based) in which tourists get involved through active participation in on-site experience activities (Campos et al., 2018), cocreated tourism experiences can be implemented as long as they imply social interactions among tourists, tourism providers and residents (Bertella, 2014;Bertella et al., 2018;Brejla and Gilbert, 2014; Bresciani et al., 2014, 2012; Bryce et al., 2017; Schuckert et al., 2018;
Reichenberger, 2017;Szmigin et al., 2017;Smed et al., 2016;Tung et al., 2017).
Research about cocreation experiences in food and wine contexts is still scarce (Adamo et al., 2019;Bruin and Jelincic, 2016;Campos et al., 2016;Richards and Wilson, 2006), despite the amount of studies investigating the positive contribution of food and wine tourism to regional development strategies (Gyimothy, 2017;Hjalager and Johansen, 2013;James and Halkier, 2016;Rinaldi, 2017;Tsai, 2016) and to the increase of travel consumption behaviour (Bruwer and Alant, 2009;Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002;Getz and Brown, 2006;Hall et al., 2003;Hoon et al., 2011;Ignatov and Smith, 2006;Robinson et al., 2018;Sparks, 2007).
Hence, the aim of this study is to analyse the dimensions of cocreation in on-site food-related activities (Chen, 2018;Chien et al., 2018;Williams et al., 2018) and to investigate which are the dimensions of active participation in food-related activities (Campos et al., 2018). The article is structured as follows: first, a contextualisation on cocreation of tourism experiences is provided; second, the research methods used are presented; third, the systematic findings are grouped and discussed and finally, the main conclusions and the areas for future research are listed.
Theoretical background to cocreation
In the beginning of the 2000s,Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)posited that personalised interactions between consumers and businesses are the basis for cocreating experiences and, therefore, for value creation. In line with this theoretical position, Vargo and Lusch (2004,
2008) developed the service-dominant logic (SDL) paradigm, a marketing approach, in which consumers are cocreating their own experiences with the firm (tourism service providers) and, therefore, cocreating a higher value proposition (Busser and Shulga, 2018). According to
Payne et al. (2008), the framework for cocreation is based on three main components: the customer, the supplier and the interactive encounter in which the consumer is engaged in a learning process. However, as argued byGr€onroos and Voima (2013), cocreation occurs only when there are direct interactions. Moreover, depending on the consumers’ level of participation in the cocreation process, value will be generated (Cabiddu et al., 2013). Furthermore, the creation of meaning or utility will encourage consumers to actively participate in cocreation practices (Ind and Coates, 2013). As such, there are four main thematic areas arising from the literature on cocreation (Figure 1): tourist firm cocreation, information and communication technologies (ICT) cocreation processes, cocreation in special interest tourism and cocreation in the context of the sharing economy.
The cocreation process in tourism experiences
Empirical and theoretical discussions about cocreation are substantial in the tourism literature, whereby a number of key dimensions of producing and consuming cocreation
experiences are proposed in different international contexts (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009;Mossberg, 2008).
Rapidly, this approach was adopted by tourism research, placing tourists-creating value through tangible and intangible aspects (e.g., sharing information) (Adongo et al., 2017;
Blazquez-Resino et al., 2015;Liang, 2017;Melis et al., 2015;Prebensen et al., 2013;Rihova et al., 2015;Sfandla and Bj€ork, 2013).
The importance of tourists’ social interactions in different cocreation experience contexts was discussed at greater length by some authors (Bertella, 2015;Bertella et al., 2018;Brejla and Gilbert, 2014;Lin et al., 2018;Reichenberger, 2017;Tung et al., 2017). They documented interactions between tourists and tourists, tourists and residents and tourists and service providers.
A growing literature illustrates that ICT of a destination, particularly focusing on mobile devices (e.g., online platforms for searching and booking), provide an increasingly influential role in cocreating personal and real-time tourist information (Buhalis and Foerste, 2015;
Buonincontri and Micera, 2016;Eide et al., 2017;Jimenez-Barreto and Campo-Martınez, 2018;
Kelly et al., 2017;Lee et al., 2017a,2017b;Morgan et al., 2009;Neuhofer et al., 2012,2014;Polese et al., 2018;Rahmani et al., 2017;Tussyadiah, 2013;Von Solms and Von Solms, 2016;Wiltshier and Clarke, 2016). In addition, platforms that promote online cocreation have been developed by National Tourism Organisations to engage tourists and tourism service providers in innovative services’ development (Lee et al., 2017a,2017b).
Much of the literature surrounding the processes of tourism cocreation has focused on investigating the active role of tourists in archaeological heritage sites, museums and artistic/ creative contexts (Anton et al., 2017;Bryce et al., 2017;Magee and Gilmore, 2015;Murdy et al., 2016;Ross et al., 2017;Smed et al., 2016;Zatori, 2016).
The wide range of different and alternative spaces where tourists cocreate their own experiences play an important role to increase place attachment (Suntikul and Jachna, 2016) and a lasting memory value (Upadhya and Vij, 2016). Recent studies suggest that the perceived attractiveness of everyday life (Paulauskaite et al., 2017), living with local people and the demand for informal atmospheres (Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017;Schuckert et al., 2018) are identified as key dimensions in cocreation practices in travel experiences.
Cocreation has also been studied in special interest tourism, such as sports tourism (Shipway et al., 2016;Prebensen et al., 2015;Prebensen and Xie, 2017) and animal-based tourism (Bertella, 2014;Campos et al., 2017;Notzke, 2017). From these studies, it is perceived that tourists experience places actively, by cycling, sea rafting, dogsledding and swimming
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Sharing economy Tourist-firm co-creaon ICT co-creaon processes Special interest tourism Figure 1. Main components discussed in the literature on cocreationwith dolphins, among other activities, and this approach influences their level of expenditures, happiness and satisfaction (Buonincontri et al., 2017); individual self-growth and social connections (Lee et al., 2017a,2017b).
Previous studies have acknowledged the complexity of the tourism service system (Baccarani and Cassia, 2017), yet they have neglected the potential of cocreation in the development of food-related activities. The following sections provide a systematic literature review analysis of the studies that have been published during the last decade on cocreation and food tourism.
Methodology
Defining the review objective
Systematic reviews (SRs) provide objective, replicable and comprehensive coverage of a defined area (Pickering and Byrne, 2014;Weed, 2006). In addition, the efficient use of time and financial resources to refine large amounts of information is one of the advantages of this method (Elsevier, 2018;Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). To limit bias, an SR applies a particular methodology (Pickering and Byrne, 2014), as described in the following subsection.
SRs have been previously used in tourism studies, mostly in sports tourism (Weed, 2006), tourism networks (Zee and Vanneste, 2015), innovation in hospitality and tourism (Gomezelj, 2016), sustainable tourism (Carter et al., 2015), virtual and augmented reality in tourism (Yung and Khoo-Lattimore, 2017), wine tourism (Correia et al., 2017;Gomez et al., 2018), tourism planning and development (Sedarati et al., 2018), food tourism (Okumus et al., 2018), authentic dining experiences (Le et al., 2019) and the evolution of netnography in tourism research (Tavakoli and Wijesinghe, 2019).
An SR answers a predefined research question or a set of questions (Dwyer et al., 2012;
Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). In this way, two research questions (RQs) guided this study, namely,
RQ1. In general terms, to what extent do tourists engage in activities at destinations and does that active participation turn into cocreation experiences?
RQ2. More specifically, to what extent do tourists engage in food-related activities at destinations and does that active participation turn into cocreation experiences? Process of the systematic review– data extraction, search strategy and eligibility criteria An SR was conducted in July 2019 to contextualise the construct of cocreation in the tourism industry. The review protocol included English language publications, published in peer-reviewed journals in the subject areas of‘Arts and Humanities’, ‘Business, Management and Accounting’, ‘Economics, Econometrics and Finance’ and ‘Social Sciences’ of the Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases (Figure 2).
Scopus and the ISI Web of Science were selected as they are the broadest bibliographical databases of scientific literature subject to peer review (Elsevier, 2018;Clarivate, 2018) and also identified as the most powerful databases to perform systematic reviews (Yung and Khoo-Lattimore, 2017;Zee and Vanneste, 2015).
To develop a systematic analysis under a comparable theoretical framework, only journal publications were analysed (Pickering et al., 2015), namely, review, conceptual and empirical research articles. Because book chapters and book reviews do not go through a similar peer-review process as journal publications, they were excluded.
The SR used the following code scheme with Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ to
guarantee the relevance of the articles retrieved: (co-creation) AND (tourism) AND (experience) AND (food) OR (gastronomy) OR (culinary) OR (wine) whether they were in
the title, abstract or keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY). To avoid the exclusion of potential articles, the period covered was the widest allowed by the databases, from 1960 until 2018 (the extraction ended on July 15, 2019). To achieve the widest number of publications and to identify additional studies, academic social networks, such as ResearchGate (www. researchgate.com), were also used to contact the respective authors.
In total, 101 research articles were found. Yet, only 67 matched the selection criteria, as 22 were not completely related to the topic analysed; 11 were not available and one, to some extent, repeated another selected article in terms of content. In terms of methodological approach, 46 dealt with the RQ through a qualitative lens, 19 were quantitative in nature and two used mixed methods.
After a comprehensive reading of the 67 publications, they were grouped and categorised by the type of activities and approaches undertaken by researchers, as illustrated inTable I.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Literature search
Keywords: “co-creaon” AND “tourism” AND
“experiences” AND (food) OR (gastronomy) OR (culinary) OR (wine)
Databases: SCOPUS and ISI Web of Science
Inclusion criteria:
English-language only Journal publicaons only Full-text records only
Search results combined (n = 101)
Arcles screened on basis of tle and abstract
Included (n = 90) Excluded (n = 11) Not available for free (n = 9) Not found (n = 2)
Manuscript review
Arcles included in synthesis (n = 67) Excluded (n = 23) Not related (n = 22) Duplicate (n = 1) Qualitave approach (n = 46) Quantave approach (n=19) Mixed-methods approach (n=2) Screening Included Eligibility Ide n fic a o n
Source: Adapted from Moher, Iberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman (2009)
Figure 2. Study selection process based on a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart
Subsequently, the data collected were inserted into an Excel spreadsheet to perform the coding of all 67 articles through descriptive analysis.
Each article was extracted and coded in accordance with a framework that included (i) general characteristics of the article, such as authors, year, title, journal, key words and objectives; (ii) research approach, strategies and samplings; (iii) theoretical perspectives that addressed tourism cocreation experiences in general, narrowing to food tourism activities; (iv) typology of leisure activities studied and (v) active participation in tourism cocreation experiences (narrowing to food-related activities). To ensure data reliability, two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts.
The following section displays the systematic analysis of the articles published from 2008 to 2018 on cocreation and food tourism–related experiences.
BFJ
Data categories Subgroups
No. of references % Year of publication 2008 1 1.5 2009 2 3.0 2012 1 1.5 2013 3 4.5 2014 4 6.0 2015 11 16.4 2016 11 16.4 2017 24 35.8 2018 10 14.9 Destination Europe
Austria [3]; Denmark [2]; Finland [1]; Germany [1]; Hungary [1]; Ireland [2]; Italy [3]; Norway [5]; Portugal [1]; Poland [1]; Spain [4]; Sweden [1]; Switzerland [1]; United Kingdom [5]
31 63.3
Asia
China [1]; Japan [1]; Macau [1]; Malaysia [1]; Taiwan [1]; Thailand [1]; Tokyo [1]; United Arab Emirates [1]
8 16.3
America
Canada [1]; Grenada [1]; Jamaica [1]; United States of America [3] 6 12.2 Africa
Ghana [1] 1 2.0
Oceania
New Zealand [2]; South Australia [1] 3 6.1
Sample size <30 15 35.7 31–95 7 16.7 96–150 11 26.2 >151 9 21.4 Data collection technique Online questionnaire 10 13.7 Self-administered questionnaire 3 4.1
Questionnaire in form of face-to-face interview 8 11.0
In-depth interviews 9 12.3
Online structured interviews 1 1.4
Semistructured interviews 13 17.8 Structured interviews 1 1.4 Secondary data 13 17.8 Participant observation 5 6.8 Nonparticipant observation 3 4.1 Focus group 3 4.1 Online reviews 3 4.1 Workshop 1 1.4 Table I. Aggregation of the 67 selected articles by main methodological characteristics
Systematic review findings
Methodological characteristics of the articles in cocreation of tourism experiences
Table Idisplays the publishing frequency of the peer-reviewed articles from 2008 to 2018. It indicates that although the total number of publications is not very expressive, there is an increasing trend in the use of cocreation in tourism over the past four years.
Table I also illustrates the geographic setting of the selected studies. European destinations were analysed in 31 of the 67 studies (63.3 per cent), with Norway (5), the United Kingdom (5) and Spain (4) being the countries that earned the highest attention of academics. Of 67 studies, 18 studies were not associated with any destination, as they were literature reviews and conceptual studies and 12 studies applied mixed methods, using mainly in-depth interviews combined with participant observation and/or questionnaires.
Given the exploratory nature of several of the studies analysed, 35.7 per cent are composed of samples with less than 30 individuals. Larger sample sizes are found in the latest article publications, using netnography research strategies using thousands of online tourist reviews. The cocreation of tourism experiences was mostly examined through semistructured interviews, secondary data and online questionnaires.Table IIdepicts the main journals publishing on the topic of cocreation in tourism experiences.
Cocreation within the tourism industry has been developed and expanded around different theoretical perspectives. The cocreation processes in experiences have been analysed from marketing theories (i.e., SDL), management (tourism providers’ business orientation towards cocreation prerequisites), technology (i.e., mobile applications, virtual and augmented reality), psychology (i.e., tourists’ needs and motivations) and social exchange theories (social interactions among tourists, residents and tourism providers), among others, as illustrated inTable III.
Leisure activities in cocreation of tourism experiences
Table IVoutlines the type of leisure activities analysed in cocreation contexts, in accordance with the extracted articles. Particularly, the active participation dimension of cocreation in on-site activities was examined in the following: (i) museological activities (Anton et al., 2017;
Bryce et al., 2017;Magee and Gilmore, 2015;Ross et al., 2017;Smed et al., 2016); (ii) animal-based activities (Bertella, 2014; Campos et al., 2017; Eide et al., 2017;Notzke, 2017); (iii) sporting activities (Prebensen et al., 2015;Prebensen and Xie, 2017;Shipway et al., 2016) and (iv) collaborative guest–host activities in peer-to-peer accommodation (Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017;Paulauskaite et al., 2017;Schuckert et al., 2018).
In the realm of museums, active participation in visitor activities can range from art workshops to film seminars and theatre performances at historical places. These activities have the ability to boost the learning dimension (Anton et al., 2017), the tourists’ creative input (Ross et al., 2017), the cocreation of transformative experiences (Magee and Gilmore, 2015) and the search for past authenticity (Bryce et al., 2017;Smed et al., 2016).
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Journals No. of studies
Tourism management 8
International journal of tourism research 7
Annals of tourism research 5
Current issues in tourism 5
International journal of contemporary hospitality management 4
Total 29
Table II. Top five journals for cocreation in tourism experiences research
In the domain of animal-based activities, the encounter with animals (e.g., dogs and horses) shapes two-way relationship experiences and raises the meaningfulness and the memorability of the cocreated experiences by means of physical active participation (Campos et al., 2017;Eide et al., 2017).
The cocreation dimensions arising from the sports tourism studies are mainly tourists’ self-perceived knowledge and skills and psychological cocreation (learning and sharing knowledge acquisition) (Prebensen et al., 2015;Prebensen and Xie, 2017). In addition, the temporary sports event settings and the cocreation of personal experiences reinforcing a sense of identity and belonging (Shipway et al., 2016) are also important outcomes from partaking in this type of activities.
In the field of collaborative guest–host activities (peer-to-peer), active participation is integrated into‘everyday life’ of the hosts. An often highlighted activity is cooking local dishes with the host of the peer-to-peer accommodation. It is the cultural exchange involving strong reciprocity (Schuckert et al., 2018), the immersion in local culture (Paulauskaite et al., 2017) by learning about the everyday lives of locals (Schuckert et al., 2018) through first-hand experiences of local food preparation (Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017) that leverages the perceived authenticity by guests (tourists).
Of the 67 studies analysed, 38 did not investigate any specific type of leisure activity, nor did they assume that cocreation implies interactive action in any of the approaches made.
BFJ
Perspectiveadopted Authors Frequency %*
Consumption behaviour
Ngamsirijit (2014);Mathis et al. (2016);Fu and Lehto (2018);
Paulauskaite et al. (2017);Rahmani et al. (2017)
5 7,5
Economic Adongo et al. (2017) 1 1,5
Exploratory Binkhorst and Den Dekker (2009);Bertella (2015);Brejla and
Gilbert (2014);Jimenez-Barreto and Campo-Martınez (2018);Lin
et al. (2018);Lin et al. (2015);Notzke (2017);Shipway et al. (2016)
8 11,9
Marketing (SDL) Blazquez-Resino et al. (2015);Busser and Shulga (2018);Chathoth
et al. (2013);Johnson and Neuhofer (2017);Kelly et al. (2017);Liang
(2017);Murdy et al. (2016);Prebensen et al. (2015);Santos-Vijande
et al. (2018);Sfandla and Bj€ork (2013);Thomas-Francois et al.
(2017);Upadhya and Vij (2016)
12 17,9
Management Baccarani and Cassia (2017);Del Vecchio et al. (2015);Eide et al.
(2017);Hwang and Seo (2016);Magee and Gilmore (2015);Melis
et al. (2015);Morgan et al. (2009);Mossberg (2008);Prebensen et al.
(2013);Rihova et al. (2015);Ross et al. (2017);Weiler and Black
(2015);Zatori (2016)
13 19,4
Museology Wiltshier and Clarke (2016) 1 1,5
Psychology Anton et al. (2017);Buonincontri et al. (2017);Campos et al. (2017);
Campos et al. (2018);Prebensen and Xie (2017);Lee et al.
(2017a,2017b);Sthapit et al. (2018);Suntikul and Jachna (2016);
Zatori and Beardsley (2017)
9 13,4
Sociology Bertella (2014);Bertella et al. (2018);Bryce et al. (2017);Schuckert
et al. (2018);Reichenberger (2017);Szmigin et al. (2017);Smed et al.
(2016);Tung et al. (2017)
8 11,9
Technology Buhalis and Foerste (2015);Buonincontri and Micera (2016);Gibbs
et al. (2016);Lee et al.(2017a,2017b);Li et al. (2017);Neuhofer et al.
(2012);Neuhofer et al. (2014);Polese et al. (2018);Tussyadiah (2013);
Von Solms and Von Solms (2016)
10 14,9
Notes: * Percentage is calculated based on N5 67 articles. SDL 5 service-dominant logic Table III.
Theoretical perspectives on cocreation in tourism experiences
Food-related experiences in cocreation tourism settings
The results from the SR show that only 10 articles somehow addressed food-related experiences in the tourism industry. Besides, the approach to food-related activities in the cocreation of tourism experiences is dispersed, as is shown through the summaries in the following.
From a hospitality perspective, it is stressed that tourists can explore other cultures by tasting local food products through the breakfast service (Polese et al., 2018). Within the peer-to-peer accommodation sector, cooking with local residents is a central activity for both hosts and guests (Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017). Furthermore, cooking with locals and consuming more‘authentic food’ seems to increase the perceived authenticity of the tourism experience (Adongo et al., 2017;Paulauskaite et al., 2017).
Tourists’ active participation in agritourism experiences, such as fruit and vegetable picking and bean pancake making, was found to be one of the critical factors to increase the value of cocreation (Liang, 2017). Tourists’ active participation was also addressed byFu and Lehto (2018), who considered‘enjoying local food’ as a cocreation variable. Nevertheless, this activity does not imply a physical participation, but only the rather passive consumption of local food.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Leisure activities No. of articles Authors Agricultural 1 Liang (2017)Animal-based 4 Bertella (2014);Campos et al. (2017);Eide et al. (2017);Notzke (2017) Collaborative (guest–
host)
3 Johnson and Neuhofer (2017);Paulauskaite et al. (2017);Schuckert et al.
(2018)
Cruise 1 Brejla and Gilbert (2014)
Creative 1 Ngamsirijit (2014);
Family and wedding 2 Bertella et al. (2018);Fu and Lehto (2018)
Fishery 1 Lin et al. (2018)
Handicrafts 1 Lin et al. (2015)
Museological 5 Anton et al. (2017);Bryce et al. (2017);Magee and Gilmore (2015);Ross
et al. (2017);Smed et al. (2016)
Music festival 1 Szmigin et al. (2017)
Nature 1 Rahmani et al. (2017)
Guided tours 2 Weiler and Black (2015);Zatori (2016)
Resort 1 Busser and Shulga (2018)
Shopping (souvenir) 1 Sthapit et al. (2018)
Sporting 3 Prebensen et al. (2015);Prebensen and Xie (2017);Shipway et al. (2016)
Volunteerism 1 Adongo et al. (2017)
Non-leisure activities 38 Baccarani and Cassia (2017);Bertella (2015);Binkhorst and Den Dekker
(2009);Blazquez-Resino et al. (2015);Buhalis and Foerste (2015);
Buonincontri and Micera (2016);Buonincontri et al. (2017);Campos et al.
(2018);Chathoth et al. (2013);Del Vecchio et al. (2015);Gibbs et al. (2016);
Hwang and Seo (2016);Jimenez-Barreto and Campo-Martınez (2018);
Kelly et al. (2017);Lee et al.(2017a,2017b);Li et al. (2017);Mathis et al.
(2016);Melis et al. (2015);Morgan et al. (2009);Mossberg (2008);Murdy
et al. (2016);Neuhofer et al. (2014);Neuhofer et al. (2012);Polese et al.
(2018);Prebensen et al. (2013);Reichenberger (2017);Rihova et al. (2015);
Santos-Vijande et al. (2018);Sfandla and Bj€ork (2013);Suntikul and
Jachna (2016);Thomas-Francois et al. (2017);Tung et al. (2017);
Tussyadiah (2013);Upadhya and Vij (2016);Von Solms and Von Solms
(2016);Wiltshier and Clarke (2016);Zatori and Beardsley (2017)
Note: Total: 67 articles
Table IV. Type of activities investigated in cocreation contexts (2008–2018)
The cocreation in food-related tourism experiences can be portrayed in the light of more relational means, such as sharing conversations, food and drinks with local residents (Bertella et al., 2018;Ngamsirijit, 2014); exchanging information with hospitality owners (Polese et al., 2018) and making tourists interact (Liang, 2017). All of these communication forms contribute to increase the value of cocreation.
Food-related activities are also viewed as strategies to promote intangible heritage. In other words, archaeological sites can use local and ancient traditions, as wine making processes and culinary experiences, to offer alternative and historic tourism experiences (Ross et al., 2017).
From a psychological perspective,Hwang and Seo (2016)suggested that factors such as personality traits and past experiences with food derive from tourists’ cultural backgrounds and, therefore, may influence the tourists’ perceived cocreation value of the food-related experience. Furthermore, the educational realm is also a determining factor as, by partaking in food-related activities, tourists aim at acquiring new skills and knowledge and having emotions (Liang, 2017;Ngamsirijit, 2014).
Discussion and conclusions
As shown in this study, the number of publications echoing cocreation and tourism experiences has increased since 2015 (Table I), although most of the articles about cocreation of food-related tourism experiences, in particular, were recently published (2017 and 2018). Overall, research in food and wine–related activities from a cocreation approach is still scarce. Tourists’ active participation in leisure activities at destinations
By actively engaging in cocreating (active participating) experiences, such as craft workshops, feeding animals, picking vegetables and cooking classes, tourists are consuming and producing their own experiences (Szmigin et al., 2017;Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008). At the same time, these ‘hands-on activities’ have the potential to enhance dimensions as learning and skill acquisition (Anton et al., 2017; Prebensen et al., 2015;
Prebensen and Xie, 2017;Schuckert et al., 2018) and, therefore, the tourists’ creative input (Ross et al., 2017).
Boosted by cocreation during on-site tourism activities, memorability is an experience outcome underpinned by several authors (Campos et al., 2016,2018;Morgan et al., 2009), which has the potential to stimulate tourists’ place attachment (Sthapit et al., 2018) and loyalty to the destination (Shulga et al., 2018) and their full collaboration in word-of-mouth marketing strategies (Zatori and Beardsley, 2017). In addition, as the personalisation of the encounter and the cultural exchange is higher (Schuckert et al., 2018) when tourists and residents participate in collaborative activities (cocreation interactions), the tourists experience higher levels of satisfaction (Shulga et al., 2018).
Tourists’ active participation in food-related activities at destinations
The social interaction occurring in on-site experiences between tourists (Liang, 2017), local residents (Bertella et al., 2018;Ngamsirijit, 2014) and hospitality owners (Polese et al., 2018) may be seen as enablers to raise the value of cocreation of food-related activities. The active role of the tourists in food-related activities is reflected in peer-to-peer contexts through direct contact between guests and hosts in culinary activities and within agritourism settings through hands-on activities (Liang, 2017).
Besides the active role of tourists during the cocreation processes of food-related activities, the place where the activities are carried out is crucial for the overall experience. Culinary experiences at residents’ homes are perceived as more authentic (Adongo et al., 2017;Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017;Paulauskaite et al., 2017), rather than official eating establishments identified in travel guides. Accordingly, the dimensions advanced in cocreation of food-related activities are mainly connected to the educational realm, as illustrated inFigure 3.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Increases Memorability Place attachment Loyalty SatisfactionLearning and new skills
Creative inputs Tacit knowle dge (local residents) Learning pr ocesses Emb e dding in the desti n ation Food-related activities Supplier (Service provider/host)
Interactive encounter (Tourist and supplier) Active participat
ion Co-creation Based on Figure 3. Dimensions of active participation in food-related activities
From the previous standpoints, it is apparent that food tourism has significant potential to actively involve tourists with the destinations’ culture and, therefore, to contribute to the identity management of destinations.
Managerial implications
The research findings point to a number of implications for practice. Food tourism activities involving active participation in more informal environments favour the culinary experience of tourists, when they cocreate/prepare their food with local residents. This is due to the changing structure of the tourism ecosystem, impacted mainly by technological advances (i.e., mobile devices), allowing to personalise experiences, as they can now be designed, distributed and consumed (cocreated) on an individual basis or for small groups. Nowadays, there is a wider network of people (peer-to-peer networks) providing food experiences in their homes (i.e., EatWith). This is possible through Internet-based platforms allowing the online booking directly with the provider (peer-to-peer services) and, therefore, reframing the established services (official restaurants) and changing the whole process of value creation in food tourism consumption.
The transfer of new skills and knowledge through direct contact between tourists and hosts, for example, the preparation of local dishes and/or picking of specific plants to create liquors, are prerequisites for a successful cocreation experience process and for the increase of the value of cocreation. As a result, positive learning outcomes are more likely to increase the value of cocreation of the food tourism experiences.
The physical setting, where food and wine activities take place, is noteworthy. The dining experience is delivered through the interior architecture, layout, employees and atmosphere. All of these elements combined should create an immersion in local culinary resources and provide a meaningful, creative and‘eatertainment’ experience.
Moreover, cocreation processes in the context of hotel services can be identified at specific times when customers and hotel staff interact directly. Of particular interest here is the hotel’s breakfast experience (common service purchased by hotel guests), where a good selection of local products can enhance the perceived authenticity of the food experience and its memorability. Limitations and future research
Although this systematic review has contributed to an understanding of the cocreation research in food-related experiences, it is constrained by certain limitations. First, two databases were used, Scopus and Web of Science, which may not include all relevant research on the topic. Second, some articles may have been overlooked because of the keywords applied. Therefore, additional keywords related to active participation, involvement and creativity may be added. And, finally, only journal publications in English language were extracted, disregarding book reviews and chapters and conference articles.
Although the literature addresses the complex processes of cocreation within the most diverse settings, to the best of our knowledge, scarce research has been found on the cocreative experiences of food tourists. Furthermore, it seems that only a limited number of providers foresee cocreation experiences in wine tourism settings, despite the high experiential profile of wine tourism activities.
As cocreation experiences involve multiple actors and appealing spaces where activities can take place, the use of new and different spaces for food tourism (dining experiences, cooking classes and/or food tours) could be an interesting issue to address as a growing number of tourists are willing to participate in food experiences outside the official eating establishments.
References
Adamo, G.E., Ferrari, S. and Gilli, M. (2019),“Creativity as a source of differentiation in urban tourism: the case of Torino city”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 302-310.
BFJ
Adongo, C.A., Badu-Baiden, F. and Boakye, K.A.A. (2017),“The tourism experience-led length of stay hypothesis”, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 18, pp. 65-74.
Anton, C., Camarero, C. and Garrido, M.J. (2017), “Exploring the experience value of museum visitors as a co-creation process”, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2017.
1373753.
Baccarani, C. and Cassia, F. (2017), “Evaluating the outcomes of service ecosystems: the interplay between ecosystem well-being and customer well-being”, TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 834-846. Bertella, G. (2014), “The co-creation of animal-based tourism experience”, Tourism Recreation
Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 115-125.
Bertella, G. (2015),“Celebrating the family abroad: the wedding tourism experience”, Annals of Leisure Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 397-413.
Bertella, G., Cavicchi, A. and Bentini, T. (2018),“The reciprocal aspect of the experience value: tourists and residents celebrating weddings in the rural village of Petritoli (Italy)”, Anatolia, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 52-62.
Binkhorst, E. and Den Dekker, T. (2009), “Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 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.
Brejla, P. and Gilbert, D. (2014),“An exploratory use of web content analysis to understand cruise tourism services”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 16, pp. 157-168.
Bresciani, S., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A.. (2014),“Strategic reflexivity in the hotel industry – a value based analysis”, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3, pp. 352-371.
Bresciani, S., Vrontis, D. and Thrassou, A. (2012), “Human resource management – practices, performance and strategy in the Italian hotel industry”, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 405-423.
Bruin, A. and Jelincic, D.A. (2016), “Toward extending creative tourism: participatory experience tourism”, Tourism Review, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Bruwer, J. and Alant, K. (2009),“The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: an experiential view”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 235-257.
Bryce, D., Murdy, S. and Alexander, M. (2017),“Diaspora, authenticity and the imagined past”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 66 pp. 49-60.
Buhalis, D. and Foerste, M. (2015), “SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: empowering co-creation of value”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, 151-161. Buonincontri, P. and Micera, R. (2016),“The experience co-creation in smart tourism destinations: a
multiple case analysis of European destinations”, Information Technology and Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 3, 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.
Busser, J.A. and Shulga, L.V. (2018), “Co-created value: multidimensional scale and nomological network”, Tourism Management, Vol. 65, pp. 69-86.
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 and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1309-1336. Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., do Valle, P.O. and Scott, N. (2018),“Co-creation of tourist experiences: a
literature review”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-400.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., Valle, P.O.D. and Scott, N. (2017), “Co-creating animal-based tourist experiences: attention, involvement and memorability”, Tourism Management, Vol. 63, pp. 100-114.
Carter, R.W.(Bill), Thok, S., O’Rourke, V. and Pearce, T. (2015), “Sustainable tourism and its use as a development strategy in Cambodia: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 797-818.
Charters, S. and Ali-Knight, J. (2002),“Who is the wine tourist?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 311-319.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R., 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.
Chen, Z. (2018),“A pilot study of the co-creation experience in traditional Cantonese teahouses in Hong Kong”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 506-527.
Chien, S., Wu, J. and Huang, C. (2018),““We made, we trust”: coproduction and image congruence in the food-tourism factories”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 310-317. Clarivate (2018), “Clarivate analytics”, [Online], available at: https://clarivate.com (accessed 17
November 2017).
Correia, S.M., Loureiro, M.C. and Cunha, N.P. (2017),“Wine prestige and experience in enhancing relationship quality and outcomes: wine tourism in Douro”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 434-456.
Del Vecchio, P., Secundo, G. and Passiante, G. (2015), “Modularity as suitable approach for the management of a tourism destination” in Proceedings of the 26th International Business Information Management Association Conference - Innovation Management and Sustainable Economic Competitive Advantage: From Regional Development to Global Growth, IBIMA, 2015, International Business Information Management Association, IBIMA, Madrid, Spain, pp. 2516-2525.
Dwyer, L., Gill, A. and Seetaram, N. (2012), Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, in Dwyer, L., Gill, A. and Seetaram, N., (Ed), Edward Elgar, UK, Cheltenham.
Eide, D., Fuglsang, L. and Sundbo, J. (2017),“Management challenges with the maintenance of tourism experience concept innovations: toward a new research agenda”, Tourism Management, Vol. 63, pp. 452-463.
Ellis, A., Park, E., Kim, S. and Yeoman, I. (2018),“What is food tourism?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 68, pp. 250-263.
Elsevier (2018), “Scopus - analyse search results”, [Online]. available at:https://www.elsevier.com/
solutions/scopus(accessed 17 November 2017).
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.
Getz, D. and Brown, G. (2006),“Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a demand analysis”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 pp. 146-158.
Gibbs, C., Gretzel, U. and Saltzman, J. (2016), “An experience-based taxonomy of branded hotel mobile application features”, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 175-199.
Gomez, M., Pratt, M.A. and Molina, A. (2019), “Wine tourism research: a systematic review of 20 vintages from 1995 to 2014”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.2018.1441267. Gomezelj, D.O. (2016),“A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, 516-558. Gr€onroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and
co-creation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41, pp. 133-150.
BFJ
Gyimothy, S. (2017), “The reinvention of terroir in Danish food place promotion”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1200-1216.
Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Michell, R., Macionis, N. and Cambourne, B. (2003), Food Tourism Around the World, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Hjalager, A. and Johansen, P.H. (2013),“Food tourism in protected areas – sustainability for producers, the environment and tourism?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 417-433. Hoon, Y., Kim, M. and Goh, B.K. (2011),“An examination of food tourist’s behavior: using the modified
theory of reasoned action”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1159-1165.
Horng, J.S. and Tsai, C.T.(Simon) (2012), “Culinary tourism strategic development: an Asia-Pacific perspective”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 40-55.
Hwang, J. and Seo, S. (2016),“A critical review of research on customer experience management: theoretical, methodological and cultural perspectives”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 2218-2246.
Ind, N. and Coates, N. (2013),“The meanings of co-creation”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No.1, pp. 86-95.
Ignatov, E. and Smith, S. (2006),“Segmenting Canadian culinary tourists”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-255.
James, L. and Halkier, H. (2016),“Regional development platforms and related variety: exploring the changing practices of food tourism in North Jutland, Denmark”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 831-847.
Jimenez-Barreto, J. and Campo-Martınez, 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.
Kelly, P., Lawlor, J. and Mulvey, M. (2017),“Customer roles in self-service technology encounters in a tourism context”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 222-238. Landry, C. (2010), “Experiencing imagination: travel as a creative trigger”, in Wurzburger, R.,
Aageson, T., Pattakos, A. and Pratt, S. (Ed), Creative Tourism a Global Conversation– How to Provide Unique Creative Experiences for Travelers Worldwide, Sunstonepress, City of Santa Fe, pp. 33-42.
Le, T.H., Arcodia, C., Abreu, M. and Kralj, A. (2019), “What we know and do not know about authenticity in dining experiences: a systematic literature review”, Tourism Management, Vol. 74, pp. 258-275.
Lee, G., Lee, J. and Tussyadiah, I.P. (2017a),“The roles of perceived internal and external benefits and costs in innovation co-creation: lessons from Japan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 381-394.
Lee, L.S., Shaharuddin, S.S., Ng, G.W. and Wan-Busrah, S.F. (2017b), “Co-creation tourism experience in perceived usability of interactive multimedia features on mobile travel application”, Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 2-9, pp. 155-161.
Liang, A.R.D. (2017),“Considering the role of agritourism co-creation from a service-dominant logic perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 61, pp. 354-367.
Li, S.C.H., Robinson, P. and Oriade, A. (2017),“Destination marketing: the use of technology since the millennium”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 95-102.
Lin, P.M.C., Peng, K.L. and Ren, L. (2015),“Xinpu persimmon dye: evolution from a local to a global industry”, Journal of China Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 214-228.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Lin, Y., Kelemen, M. and Tresidder, R. (2018),“Post-disaster tourism: building resilience through community-led approaches in the aftermath of the 2011 disasters in Japan”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1766-1783.
Magee, R. and Gilmore, A. (2015),“Heritage site management: from dark tourism to transformative service experience?”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 15-16, pp. 898-917.
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. and Del Chiappa, G. (2015),“Conceptualizing the value co-creation challenge for tourist destinations: a supply- side perspective”, Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 10, pp. 75-89.
Mkono, M. (2011),“The othering of food in touristic eatertainment: a netnography”, Tourist Studies, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 253-270.
Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J. and Altman D.G. (2009),“Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement”, PLoS Med, Vol. 6 No. 7, e1000097. Morgan, M., Elbe, J. and Esteban, C.J.de. (2009),“Has the experience economy arrived?”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 201-216.
Mossberg, L. (2008), “Extraordinary experiences through storytelling”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 195-210.
Murdy, S., Alexander, M. and Bryce, D. (2016),“Role conflict and changing heritage practice: ancestral tourism in Scotland”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 15-16, pp. 1494-1512. Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2012),“Conceptualising technology enhanced destination
experiences”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 1 No. 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 No. 2-3, pp. 255-276.
Notzke, C. (2017),“Equestrian tourism: animal agency observed”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:10.
1080/13683500.2017.1349081.
Okumus, B., Ali, M. and Ma, F. (2018),“Food and gastronomy research in tourism and hospitality: a bibliometric analysis”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 73, pp. 64-74. Paulauskaite, D., Powell, R., Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. and Morrison, A.M. (2017),“Living like a local:
authentic tourism experiences and the sharing economy”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 619-628.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008),“Managing the co-creation of value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, pp. 83-96.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences, Blackwell Publishing, UK.
Pickering, C. and Byrne, J. (2014), “The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 534-548.
Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D. and Byrne, J. (2015),“Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1756-1769.
Polese, F., Botti, A., Grimaldi, M., Monda, A. and Vesci, M. (2018),“Social innovation in smart tourism ecosystems: how technology and institutions shape sustainable value co-creation”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
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., Kim, H.L. and Uysal, M. (2015),“Cocreation as moderator between the experience value and satisfaction relationship”, Journal of Travel Research, doi:10.1177/0047287515583359. 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 Xie, J. (2017), “Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 166-176.
Rach~ao, S., Breda, Z., Fernandes, C. and Joukes, V. (2019), “Food tourism and regional development: a systematic literature review”, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 21, pp. 33-49. Rahmani, K., Gnoth, J. and Mather, D. (2017),“Tourists’ participation on web 2.0: a corpus linguistic
analysis of experiences”, Journal of Travel Research, doi:10.1177/0047287517732425. Reichenberger, I. (2017),“C2C value co-creation through social interactions in tourism”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 629-638.
Richards, G. and Raymond, C. (2000),“Creative tourism”, ATLAS News, Vol. 23, pp. 16-20. Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2006),“Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial
reproduction of culture?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1209-1223.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M. and Gouthro, M.B. (2015),“Conceptualising customer-to-customer value co-creation in tourism”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 356-363.
Rinaldi, C. (2017), “Food and gastronomy for sustainable place development: a multidisciplinary analysis of different theoretical approaches”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 9 No. 10, pp. 1-25. Robinson, R.N.S. and Getz, D. (2013),“Food enthusiasts and tourism: exploring food involvement
dimensions”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 1-24.
Robinson, R.N.S., Getz, D. and Dolnicar, S. (2018),“Food tourism subsegments: a data-driven analysis”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20, pp. 367-377.
Ross, D., Saxena, G., Correia, F. and Deutz, P. (2017),“Archaeological tourism: a creative approach”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 67, pp. 37-47.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., Lopez-Sanchez, J.A. and Pascual, 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.
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. Sedarati, P., Santos, S. and Pintassilgo, P. (2018), “System dynamics in tourism planning and
development”, Tourism Planning & Development, doi:10.1080/21568316.2018.1436586. Sfandla, C. and Bj€ork, P. (2013), “Tourism experience network: Co-creation of experiences in
interactive processes”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 495-506. Shipway, R., King, K., Lee, I.S. and Brown, G. (2016),“Understanding cycle tourism experiences at the
Tour Down under”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Shulga, L.V., Busser, J.A. and Kim, H.L. (2018), “Generational profiles in value co-creation interactions”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 196-217. Smed, K., Dressler, S. and Have, P. (2016), “The Vikings are here! Experiencing volunteering at a
viking heritage site”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 94-109.
Sparks, B. (2007),“Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1180-1192.
Stamboulis, Y. and Skayannis, P. (2003),“Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Sthapit, E., Coudounaris, D.N. and Bj€ork, P. (2018), “The memorable souvenir-shopping experience: Antecedents and outcomes”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 628-643.
Food-related
activities in
tourism
Stone, M.J., Soulard, J., Migacz, S. and Wolf, E. (2017), “Elements of memorable food, drink, and culinary tourism experiences”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, doi: 10.1177/
0047287517729758.
Suntikul, W. and Jachna, T. (2016),“The co-creation/place attachment nexus”, Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 276-286.
Szmigin, I., Bengry-Howell, A., Morey, Y., Griffin, C. and Riley, S. (2017),“Socio-spatial authenticity at co-created music festivals”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 63, pp. 1-11.
Tavakoli, R. and Wijesinghe, S.N.R. (2019),“The evolution of the web and netnography in tourism: a systematic review”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 48-55.
Thomas-Francois, K., Joppe, M. and von Massow, M. (2017),“Improving Linkages Through a Service-oriented Local Farmers–Hotel Supply Chain—An Explanatory Case in Grenada”, Tourism Planning and Development, pp. 1-21, doi:10.1080/21568316.2017.1338200.
Tsai, C.T.(SIMON) (2016),“Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18, pp. 536-548.
Tung, V.W.S., Chen, P.J. and Schuckert, M. (2017),“Managing customer citizenship behaviour: the moderating roles of employee responsiveness and organizational reassurance”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 23-35.
Tussyadiah, I.P. (2013),“Meta-design approach for mobile platforms supporting creative tourism experiences”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8015 No.4, pp. 733-739.
Upadhya, A. and Vij, M. (2016), “Creative tourist experience: role of destination management organizations”, Driving Tourism Through Creative Destinations and Activities, Vol. 2000, pp. 278-298.
UNWTO (2019), Guidelines for the Development of Gastronomy Tourism, UNWTO, Madrid, Spain. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 68, 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, pp. 1-10.
Von Solms, W. and Von Solms, R. (2016),“Co-creation: Tourism, technology and wellness”, in 2016 IST-Africa Conference, IST-Africa 2016, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Durban, South Africa, pp. 1-8.
Weed, M. (2006),“Sports tourism research 2000 – 2004: a systematic review of knowledge and a meta-evaluation of methods”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
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. 40 No. 3, pp. 364-378.
Williams, H.A., Yuan, J.J. and Williams Jr, R.L. (2018), “Attributes of memorable gastro-tourists’ experiences”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 1-22.
Wiltshier, P. and Clarke, A. (2016),“Virtual cultural tourism: six pillars of VCT using co-creation, value exchange and exchange value”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, doi: 10.1177/
1467358415627301.
Yung, R. and Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2017),“New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.
2017.1417359.
Zatori, 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. 10 No. 4, pp. 377-395.
Zatori, A. and Beardsley, M. (2017), “On-site and memorable tourist experiences: trending toward value and quality-of-life outcomes”, Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 13, pp. 17-45.
Zee, E. Van Der and Vanneste, D. (2015),“Tourism networks unravelled: a review of the literature on networks in tourism management studies”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 15, pp. 46-56.
Corresponding author
Susana Rach~ao can be contacted at:[email protected]
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:[email protected]
