Zheng Xiang, Virgina Tech

HOW TO CITE:

Xiang, Z. (2017). Tourism innovations through big data analytics. In AIRTH Encyclopedia of Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality. Retrieved: <insert-date>, from http://www.airth.global

Introduction

Due to the widespread adoption of information technology such as smartphones and wearables by consumers and advances in hardware, software, storage, sensors, and networking, big data is being generated at tremendous speed in our society. Big data come in different forms and sources including Internet traffic, mobile transactions, online user-generated content, business transactions, and various sensor systems embedded in the environment. Generally speaking, analytics can be defined as the discovery and communication of meaningful patterns in data. Although conventional statistical tools are widely utilized, the process of analytics often involves a combination of statistics, computer programming and data visualization to quantify findings to generate and communicate useful insights, predictions, and decisions for business problems.  Big data analytics, therefore, aims to discover novel patterns and business insights that can meaningfully and, oftentimes in real time, complement traditional approaches of research such as focus group studies and consumer surveys.

Relevance for tourism innovation

Travel and tourism is a field with huge potential in developing big data analytics. Particularly, as an experience-based product the design and development of tourism requires a profound understanding of what today’s travelers need and want, how they move through and interact with physical and social spaces, and what leads to their enjoyment, happiness, and the realization of personal values. The focus on creating this knowledge increasingly relies upon our capabilities to capture, store, measure, and interpret data generated through different stages of the travel process in a timely fashion. In recent years, we have seen progress in several important areas of big data analytics, ranging from mapping the digital footprint of travelers to understanding their sentiments and preferences using online user-generated content. This will likely serve as the scientific foundation for tourism innovations in the future. 

Further readings

Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (Eds.). (2016). Analytics in Smart Tourism Design: Concepts and Methods. Springer.

Florian J. Zach, Washington State University

HOW TO CITE:

Zach, J.F. (2017). Knowledge redundancy in collaboration networks. In AIRTH Encyclopedia of Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality. Retrieved: <insert-date>, from http://www.airth.global

Introduction

The fragmented nature of tourism forces tourism service providers to collaborate. Collaboration is especially relevant for small organizations that need to collaborate to get access to resources[1]. As tourism destinations are typically characterized by small organizations von Friedrichs Grangsjö[2] found that destination businesses benefit from collaboration. The effectiveness of collaboration with other firms is to some extent determined by the degree of overlap (redundancy) of resources[3] and by the position of an actor within a network[4]. This encyclopedia entry discusses the effect of resource redundancy in collaborative innovation efforts.

Relevance for innovation

An organization’s position in a collaboration network is typically not the same as its position in a resource network. As organization’s possess different sets of resources that were historically developed they belong to different resource communities[5]. However, for collaboration organizations work with those that possess different resources or knowledge stocks or geographical positions to combine diverse inputs, especially those otherwise not accessible, for the innovation process[6]. In other words, collaboration and resource networks are decoupled[7]. Organizations that collaborate are thus embedded in multiple networks[8].  Indeed, an organization with a knowledge network rich of structural holes is less constraint in combining new knowledge as it is less influenced by dominant cognitive schemes[9]. Contrary, organizations that are at the center of a collaboration network hold a position with access to redundant knowledge; as such they hold a position of power with access to many, but with less opportunities to develop new ideas. On the other hand Schilling and Phelps[10] found that organizations embedded in tight networks that reach far to gain access to multiple knowledge communities are among the most innovative ones. Critical for innovation success is to determine if redundancy of resources or position in a collaboration network is more important in the innovation process.

Relevance for tourism

Knowing how and whom to combine for innovation activities is of particular interest for destination level decision makers as they have the opportunity to influence combinatorial opportunities across destination organizations. The geographic proximity among destination organizations enhances information and knowledge exchange as it facilitates face-to-face interaction[11]. In fact, the social nature of information rather than codified knowledge often provides the necessary who knows what distribution of knowledge[12]. Learning about the location or the owners of knowledge stocks, thus reduces cost. For tourism, it was found that knowledge redundancy is a primary factor to elect innovation partners[13]. However, redundancy reduces exposure to new ideas[14]. This suggests that tourism organizations prefer to mingle with organizations that possess similar knowledge. As such, destination level decision makers are well advised to attract new knowledge via new collaboration opportunities to facilitate collaboration that allows for knowledge combinations currently not exploited. Indeed, increased collaboration with a wider breadth of partners and knowledge stocks can result in new and quality improvements of existing tourism offerings[15].

Measurement scale

Original scale by Rindfleisch and Moorman[16]

Type: Seven-point semantic differential scale:

Please rate the degree to which the participant listed below compares to your firm in general:

1. Produces very different products – Produces very similar products
2. Has complementary new product development skills – Has overlapping new product development skills
3. Their engineers have different knowledge from ours – Their engineers have the same type of knowledge than ours
4. Has very different resources – Has very similar resources.

Adapted scale by Zach and Hill[17]

Type: Five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree; 5 = Strongly Disagree).

Thinking about [partner] please check the boxes that best match for statement:

1. Our collaboration partner produces very similar products or services to ours.
2. Our collaboration partner has complementary new product or service development skills.
3. Our collaboration partners’ personnel have the same type of knowledge as ours.

Dejan Križaj, University of Primorska

HOW TO CITE:

Križaj, D. (2017). Innovation newness. In AIRTH Encyclopedia of Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality. Retrieved: <insert-date>, from http://www.airth.global

Introduction

Following Daft’s dual-core general innovation model[1] and Hall&Williams’ tourism innovation approach[2], basic distinguishing innovation characteristics can be formed in two groups: content and appearance.

“Content” characteristics include: product, process, organizational, marketing and form types.  Characteristics like incremental or radical degree of novelty and innovation’s impact range define its “appearance”[3] [4] [5] [6] [7].  While innovation “content” can be described through different means of innovation categorization [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], innovation “appearance” has at least two perspectives. The first includes questions regarding how innovation appeared inside the firm’s system boundaries; i.e., how the innovation was perceived internally in the firm and what improved because of the adoption of the innovation[13]. The second perspective looks outside the firm’s system boundaries: how was the innovation perceived by customers, suppliers, markets and competitors and what was improved because of that [14] [15].

One promising fragmental way of dealing with the innovation appearance factors is focusing on innovations’ newness characteristics.

Relevance for innovation

Newness factors alone are not enough to make the innovation a successful one but when taken into account together with other “content” and “appearance” innovation categories inside the firm’s strategic plan they can contribute to greater competitiveness[16]. Appropriate knowledge about actual technological change and existent competition ecosystems can improve managers’ strategic decisions and engagements for which state-of-the-art insights into the newest trends are crucial.

Throughout innovation research history novelty and newness have been in the focus of innovation definitions. While theorizing about innovation’s newness characteristics Johannessen et al.[17] introduce three important questions: 1.) what is new, 2.) how new it is and 3.) to whom it is new. They claim that only after these questions are thoroughly answered and these answers declared at the beginning of each study can one compare different results and talk about a systematic approach to the plethora of possible innovation adopters and answers to what is new for them and how new it is in broader terms.

When focusing on its newness characteristics, innovation can be described as the intermediate stage on the continuum between invention and adoption[18]. Invention represents major developments in science or technology without already known implications. Adoption characterizes a firm’s first introduction of existing, already known solutions.

Relevance for tourism

Tourism firms operate in a highly interdependent business environment and their offer in most cases depends on several non-tourism firms and industries, including those in food, beverage, agriculture, architecture, culture, entertainment, health care, finance, information technology, education, safety, etc. Several authors assert that a supplier-driven process is one of the basic tourism phenomenon characteristic whereby firms mostly innovate with purchased products and services from their suppliers[19] [20] [21] [22]. Logically, there is not much “new to the world” products found in tourism where adoptions on the invention-adoption continuum are the more preferred type of innovation activity[23] and as such are generally not science-based[24].

Measurement approach

OECD Oslo Manual approach

Each invention starts its “first in the world” appearance somewhere on the globe. After that it is gradually diffused through different social systems at different diffusion rates[25] and adapted to local needs and environments in different ways. Although such diffused tourism adoptions are not generally perceived as innovations any more they can play a substantial role in the further development of the destinations where faster or slower diffusion of “already world known” innovations can still help to differentiate between otherwise not so different tourism destinations[26]. This “diffusion logic” of the invention-innovation-adoption continuum is manifested in the European Community innovation surveys (CIS). The data are collected every two years and its regularly updated methodology originates from the Oslo Manual[27], which in general does not cover tourism as a standard industry classification but still offers applicable research guidelines. The Oslo Manual’s defined minimum requirement for an innovation is that it must be new or significantly improved in regards to the firm. Aside from new products, processes, etc., that firms are the first to develop, innovations can also be adopted from other firms/organizations and are still treated as innovations for the firm. Firms are identified as innovative if they have introduced an innovation during the period of observation. So, adoption in Volo’s invention-adoption continuum is already classified as innovation in the OECD’s terms.

Krizaj et al.[28] and Zach et al. [29] approach

The authors of the Oslo Manual state that such broad definition of an innovative company may not be appropriate for all policy/research needs and permit more narrow research definitions. If we focus on the minimum requirement of the Oslo Handbook, innovation must be new or significant improvement at least at the company level. In addition to novelties at least at the company level, of course, certain innovation can be perceived as new even broader – at the level of: regions, countries, the union (EU, USA, etc.), the continent … At the opposite level, we can speak of a global level of innovation. Innovation occurs for the first time anywhere in the whole world (for example, the first appearance of a low-cost carrier business model). Thus, a multitude of all innovations introduced in a particular company at a given time can be new at different geographical levels, as shown in Table 1. Ci companies introduce diversified innovations Ii, j, which are new with different levels of innovation: among all the innovations it represents C4, there is also one – I4,5 – which is new on a global scale. By contrast, C3 only introduced innovation, a new one at the company level (I3.1 and I3.2).

Legend: Ci : company (i = 1 … N), Ii,j : innovations introduced in Ci (j = 1 … M)

Companies can be observed only in certain segments of tourism, such as the accommodation sector or only the cycling city tour operators and, if necessary, continue to be divided according to the chosen criteria: size, age, type … The company can introduce a novelty that is not new in comparison to all the industries in the region (e.g. internet telephony for consumers). However, this innovation can be the first (and thus more competitive) in the home region among small travel agencies (the first such agency that has introduced such a communication channel between businesses and consumers). Different sets of novelties give different innovation “appearances” (see introduction and [30] [31]).

Introduction

Except for in rare cases (e.g. in China) Forest Tourism has not been legally accepted yet, nor in legislation nor as a term in tourist dictionary. Although many tourist activities are taking place in a forest for a long time and are included in the current law, many of them haven’t been statistically monitored because there is none legal basis for it. Non-wood forest products (NWFP) and socio-cultural values (SCV) – including income of tourism and recreational forest use as a natural source of capital – are currently not recorded in forest management plans in most countries and their national statistical databases. Despite the fact most forestry and EU development documents[1] foster the tourist function of the forest, forestry legislation is adapting very slowly to the real needs on the demand side of the tourist sector. In existing legal acts, the admissibility of interference with the property right due to the use of forests for tourism and recreational purposes is regulated, but ineffectively. The main issue is how to coordinate free access to the forest and the implementation of tourist activities in the forest with responsible user behavior and nature protection. Free access to forests is not only an asset but also a responsibility. It is threatened by the lack of users’ responsibility and their interests which are not being coordinated with forest management and owners[2].

Relevance for innovation

To establish forest multifunctional management and planning as well as integrate interdisciplinary decision-making between tourist and forest participators it is needed to make a different and innovative approach in understanding the legal acknowledgment of various forest services and their multilateral importance. It is not just the matter of protection of forest as a natural source due to the multifunctional exploitation of the forest, but as well as the correct approach to the definition and recognition of individual products which arise from the forest as a natural capital source. That is why tourist sector (as well as other branches besides forestry and nature preservation sector) should recognize forest ecosystem services and their applicability in various economic activities as a starting point to develop national and regional development strategies and legal basis for multifunctional forest management. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has defined forest as the complete ecosystem type almost 15 years ago as the only one among the existing ones (land, cities, seas, islands, mountains, polar areas, coastal areas, land waters, cultivated land) that ensures the use of all ecosystem services and represents one of the natural sources of capital in tourism and wider. Multipurpose and sustainable forest management with the exploitation of all its ecosystem services is still a hot issue today, although it appeared in WCED strategic document in the 1980s already. Awareness of the usefulness of various economic activities will enable interdisciplinary linkage between disciplines, such as tourism and forestry. Forestry profession itself is unable to cope with the tourist demand for forest tourism activities already going on. Together they can achieve positive synergy effects in transferring of knowledge and establishment of an appropriate legal basis for Forest Tourism activities.

The legislation covers dealing with restrictions on property rights as well as with determining the appropriate management approach. The problem is that with the implementation of such legislation numerous dilemmas and concerns appear about restrictions of property rights and the related topics (the use and maintenance of forest roads, garbage disposal, traffic noise, emissions, equipping and arranging forests for tourism and recreational purposes). Good legislation is the one that in practice does not cause any additional tensions and conflicts, but it lowers the chances of conflicts and provides an appropriate balance between the interests of the public and individuals. In most cases, the situation is the opposite, and one of the concerns is, therefore, the efficiency of the addressed legislation – whether it hinders the possibilities and the development of tourism and recreational functions of the forest use. Sustainable use of biodiversity is the base for forest tourism, but with the limitation of negative impacts and sustainability principles, it needs to be integrated into national tourism policy. Therefore, the evaluation of all the forest tourist activities in the country is one of desired action and sub-objectives for the future as well as the implementation of national standards for responsible business practices in the tourism sector.

The correct approach to establishing appropriate legal bases and maintaining the balance between public and private forest use is to understand the sustainable use of all ecosystem services of the forest primarily by the tourist profession (among others).  At the same time, the forestry profession has to become aware of the need for the integration of the tourism and other professionals in the creation of legal bases for forest tourist activities. For preserving, advancing and implementing management processes of the forest ecosystem services for tourist purposes, it is necessary to provide a legal basis for establishing additional forest protected areas first[3].

Relevance for tourism

Some countries around the world have already engaged in the more or less elaborate redefinition of legal bases for the tourist use of the forest in previous years. Europe is 40% covered with forest and wooded land which provides many social benefits, including recreation and tourism[4]. Irrespective of the recognition and the growing significance of SCV services and NWFP, which affect tourism industry, directly and indirectly, the assessment of their effects has been gradually and slowly included in sustainable forest management.  However, as shown in the 2015 MCPFE report, the EU states have started to promote and plan the use of NWFP. Most initiatives and legislation changes refer to setting up conditions for improving the commercial use of ecosystems (Bulgaria, Austria, Croatia, Montenegro, the United Kingdom) and encouraging recreational use of forests (Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, Romania, Ukraine and Slovenia). The efforts, addressing the integration of sustainable management with game animals in sustainable forest management and tourist development of forest habitat is also interesting (Hungary, Croatia, Germany). However, the key implementation measures concerning the use of non-wood goods and services are currently being addressed in only a few EU states. These states have initiated action plans, development of national or regional programs (only Finland, Austria and Spain), research projects (Romania) or subsidies in the field of supporting forest tourist activities (Sweden), (MCPFE, 2015, 130). However, the awareness of local municipalities is raising in last twenty years. For example, regular surveys of the current forest situation are performed by local foresters in Celje region in Slovenia from 2013 in order to implement social functions of the forest on the legal basis and to (main reason) protect urban forest by law[5].

The country’s forest coverage also represents a tourist potential that needs to be legalized so that existing tourism activities can be properly managed and statistically monitored. The leading forest countries are presented in table 1. Some of them have had a substantial increase of forest area since 1990 till 2015 (for example Bhutan and Montenegro, Samoa), while others recorded a decline of forest area (for example Belize, Brazil). The average forest cover of 217 world countries is 33%, while the average forest cover of the 30 most forest-rich countries is 73%.

Table 1: Forest area in % of the land area from 1990 to 2015 for the 30 most forested countries in the world (source: The World Bank IBRD, IDA, 12.07.2016: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&type=metadata&series=AG.LND.FRST). 

According to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) data, in 2016 the countries with the highest forest coverage in the world are Suriname (98% forest area), Micronesia Fd. Sts (92% forest area) and Seychelles (89% forest area). According to Seychelles National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015 — 2020[6], mangrove habitat management has received considerable attention over the last 20 years with the development of pilot management projects and ecotourism (boardwalks and canoeing) activities. Suriname strategic biodiversity plan 2012-2016 stated that it is the challenge to convert the concept of sustainability tourist approach into practice[7].

However, it is not only the countries, rich in forests, that practice the most recent forest management practices directed to the investing specific efforts to change legislation in the exploitation of ecosystem forest services. In the early 1980s, Ireland started to implement the policy of increasing forest areas by 17%. In 1990 it recorded only 7-percent coverage in forests (The World Bank IBRD, IDA, 12.07.2016). Since the 1990s mainly private reforestation increased. However, an extended period of time, required for the return of the invested capital, triggered questions about other non-wood forest product – NWFP possible ways of using the forest.  It showed that there is a wide range of NWFP – from leaves, essential oils, tannin, produced by trees to mushrooms, plants, bushes, as well as tourist services and recreation. The study examined a potential market for the main categories of NWFP and revealed the potential and opportunities offered by NWFP (non-wood forest products) as well as development opportunities in the tourist industry[8].

Conclusion

For the legal implementation of forest tourism activities, it is necessary to provide a proper and effective formulation of legal bases. For a (general as well as tourism) innovation-friendly approach to the legal basis for development and renovation of existing forest legislation, following activities should be taken into account:

1. To use a Forest Ecosystem Services paradigm as a starting point.
2. To implement interdisciplinary collaboration between tourism and forestry sector.
3. To establish a national statistical monitoring system for forest tourist activities.
4. To define rights and duties of all stakeholders (owners and managers, tourist organizations, local community, tourists and other users).
5. To introduce multifunctional forest management.
6. To renew the forestry legislation.

Implementation of the above key steps is shown in Table 2. Awareness and constant education of tourism professionals and users about the importance of ecosystem forest services are needed to avoid unnecessary legal conflicts in the further forest tourism development.

Table 2: Tourism innovation-friendly approach to the legal basis for development and renovation of existing forest legislation