Retaining tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs for destination competitiveness

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Dias, Á., González‐Rodríguez, M. R., & Patuleia, M. (2021). Retaining tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs for destination competitiveness. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(4), 701-712, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2436. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited." 1 Retaining Tourism Lifestyle Entrepreneurs for Destination Competitiveness Álvaro Dias* Universidade Lusófona/TRIE, Tourism Department, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal; ICSTE-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal and Universidad de Sevilla, Facultad Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Sevilla, Spain; [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0003- 4074-1586 Maria Rosario González-Rodríguez Universidad de Sevilla, Departamento Economía Aplicada I, Facultad Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Sevilla, Spain; [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0002-6484-4128 Mafalda Patuleia Universidade Lusófona, Tourism Department, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal; GOVCOPP, Aveiro, Portugal. [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0002-8401-1860 * Corresponding author. , Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal; ph: +351 914740112; [email protected]. Abstract Due to their representativeness in the universe of tourism businesses and the potential to generate innovation, tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs (TLEs) play an essential role in the competitiveness of tourism destinations. Despite this vital importance, the antecedents of innovation generated by these entrepreneurs and their willingness to stay at the destination are still under-explored. Findings from a survey of 178 TLEs, indicate that the context influences community attachment, and affects indirectly innovation and willingness to stay. Community attachment has a positive influence on entrepreneurial self-efficacy, innovation and willingness to stay. A transition of the context results to developing economies was also taken into consideration. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords: Lifestyle entrepreneurship; Local knowledge; Destination Competitiveness; Creative Tourism; Partial Least Squares. 2 1. INTRODUCTION Tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs (TLEs) represent a very expressive group in the universe of businesses operating in the tourism sector. They can be defined as ‘tourism business owners who are actively pursuing a different lifestyle’ (Bosworth & Farrel, 2011, p. 1475), meaning that they are regulated by financial and non-financial indicators (Thomas et al., 2011). There is also evidence that these entrepreneurs play an essential role in the destinations’ sustainability and innovation (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013; Yachin, 2019). Because they are embedded in the local community they have, on the one hand, a central concern with the preservation of the way of life, culture and environment of the places where they develop their activity (Bosworth & Farrell, 2011; Morrison, 2006). On the other hand, their community attachment allows them to access local knowledge that is unique and difficult to imitate (Hoarau, 2014). Additionally, this proximity facilitates the network with local stakeholders (Czernek, 2017). The facilitated access to the local community and networking enables them to offer more genuine and differentiated experiences bounded to the place (Richards, 2011), allowing to respond to the growing demand by tourists for products and services with characteristics associated with the place (Arias & Cruz, 2018). As such, these experiences constitute the basis of their competitiveness in relation to large companies and entrepreneurs from other locations (Mottiar, 2007). In this way, local knowledge and tourism resources become a source of global competitiveness (Dias et al., 2020b; Guercini & Ceccarelli, 2020). Previous research has recognized that TLEs are not only better than large companies in product and service innovation (Shaw & Williams, 2004), but also creating niche markets (Koh & Hatten, 2002), and promoting destination diversification (Bosworth & Farrell, 2011). As Ryan et al. (2012) state, they act as triggers of destination change and innovation. In this way, destinations benefit from the existence of these entrepreneurs both by attracting tourists seeking genuine and immersive experiences (Bredvold & Skålén, 2016) and by the spillover effect of innovation generated in these small-scale businesses (Zhang et al., 2015). Despite this prominent role, TLEs still remains an underexplored topic in academic research (Sun & Xu, 2019; Thomas et al., 2011). By pursuing lifestyle objectives, TLEs cannot be analysed using the same lenses of other business (Bosworth & Farrell, 2011; Carlsen, Morrison, & Weber, 2008). In particular, there is a need to extend existing knowledge about the TLEs innovation antecedents, particularly in the mechanisms leading to the integration of local knowledge into innovation processes (Hjalager et al., 2018; Yachin, 2019). Furthermore, given that TLEs runs unstructured businesses, its activities are pointed out as entrepreneurial bricolage (Arias & Cruz, 2018). Nevertheless, TLEs do not disregard business performance in running their business (Wang et al., 2019). Instead, they use their own individual indicators, associated to their perception of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. However, the way entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences decisions to innovate and to stay in a certain destination remains scarcely explored. In essence, these gaps stem from the fact that entrepreneurship in tourism is much centred in the person (Steyaert, 2007), and not considered as a process, as Fu et al. (2019) suggest, with less attention being paid to the dependent variables like innovation (Hoarau, 2014) and TLEs willingness to remain in a specific destination (Guercini & Ceccarelli, 2020). In this sense, this research aims to know the background of the innovation generated by TLEs. Given the importance of this innovation in tourist destinations, a second objective is to evaluate the factors that simultaneously influence the willingness to stay in a specific one. 3 The contributions of this research are fourfold in the context of TLEs research. First, it presents empirical results concerning the role that the context presents as a background to innovation and willingness to stay. Second, the innovation antecedents of these entrepreneurs are still little explored (c.f. Dias et al., 2020b; Thomas et al. 2011; Yachin, 2019). Thus, an empirical relationship is established between community attachment and innovation and willingness to stay. Third, this study introduces research on willingness to stay, as well as the role that context, community attachment and entrepreneur self-efficacy have in this retention of entrepreneurs. This is a subject scarcely discussed previously. Finally, this research addresses previous performance as a background in innovation, thus contributing to a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the motivation of entrepreneurs to innovate and invest in a particular destination, which has important implications for the success of destinations. This article is structured as follows. In the following section (2) the theoretical framework is developed and the conceptual model and its hypotheses are presented. The methodology is presented in section 3. Section 4 presents the results of the empirical study, which are discussed in section 5. Finally, the conclusions are presented in section 6, as well as the limitations and avenues for future investigations. 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1. Overall findings This study focused on extending existing knowledge about TLEs. This is a very significant group of tourism business owners whose specificities make it a different group of entrepreneurs from other sectors. In pursuing objectives other than financial ones, traditional models of innovation cannot simply be transposed, as Marchant and Mottiar (2011) argue. But he specifically addressed the topic of the innovation and willingness to stay antecedents. The antecedents studied were entrepreneurial context, community attachment, and self-efficacy. To test the hypotheses, a quantitative study was conducted on a sample of 178 Portuguese Tourism Lifestyle Entrepreneurs. The results allowed the identification of a set of relationships. First, the direct and positive relationship between context and community attachment were identified, as well as an indirect relationship with innovation and willingness to stay through community attachment. Furthermore, it was also found that community attachment influences positively entrepreneurial self-efficacy, innovation and willingness to stay. Finally, our results show a direct and positive relation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and innovation and willingness to stay. 6.2. Conceptual contributions This study contributes to the mainstream and tourism entrepreneurship knowledge. While early research on tourism entrepreneurship was focused on the personal traits of individual entrepreneurs, recent studies have been dedicated to study the factors influencing entrepreneurship activities. Specifically, this study develops an underexplored topic about one important topic about entrepreneurship in tourism. First, within entrepreneurship studies, the research on the factors influencing willingness to stay at the destination represents a key contribution, placing an important piece in the destination competitiveness framework. Second, this study integrates two dimensions usually separated in tourism innovation studies. By combining the effect of external and organizational dimensions this study frames a better understanding of the factors influencing the entrepreneurs’ innovativeness. Third, this is the first 4 study to combine innovation and willingness to stay as outcomes variables, which represent an powerful insight to destination competitiveness theory, reinforcing the idea that both constructs are an interdependent part of the destinations’ efforts to differentiate and build a sustainable value proposition. This study also contributes to the mainstream entrepreneurship literature by uncovering the link between the context and place attachment and entrepreneurial outcomes. Specifically, while the previous research is focused on the place and its influence on the entrepreneurial activity in a perspective let us call it 'passive' associated with the characteristics of the place, this study assumes the place in an 'active' dimension, being a relevant part of the innovation process itself. This study also builds on research on poor communities and developing countries. The context to which this study refers is part of the recognition that the basic conditions that precede it (education, funding, and access to channels) already exist, but that is not necessarily true in all realities. Thus, this study provides an interconnection between the two areas that suggests how the very conceptualization of the entrepreneurial context evolves. Following these various contributions, in line with Fu et al. (2019) this study reinforces the idea that research on entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism is a field with wide-ranging potential for development. 6.3. Practical contributions The results of this research provide important insights to improve tourism destination competitiveness. First, the importance of the context for retaining entrepreneurs and innovation. Investment in destination marketing is essential for the performance of these entrepreneurs. By attracting visitors and tourists, marketing strategies help to create and sustain a market for their businesses to prosper. However, this marketing should be appropriately targeted at specific segments of tourists who value creative and immersive experiences related to a particular lifestyle, not a mass market. Only in this way is it possible to develop a vibrant atmosphere that pleases both entrepreneurs and visitors. It will also be important to develop actions that contribute to strengthening the local identity and lifestyle, i.e. the community attachment. Ultimately, it is for these reasons that the entrepreneur has decided to invest in this place. For such initiatives as museums, events, fairs and other festivities can contribute to strengthen this identity and also to promote the destination and its entrepreneurs. In parallel, decision makers should also invest in creating a supportive environment for entrepreneurs, including better working and living conditions and market access, but especially a culture of entrepreneurship and stimulating atmosphere. Another important aspect to consider is related to the satisfaction of entrepreneurs with the performance of their business, or entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Thus, all initiatives that allow them to monitor their business performance and its social and environmental implications can help increase this level of satisfaction. 6.4. Limitations and future research This research also presents some limitations that may point to avenues for future research. The first is related with the sample. The generalization of the result is limited due to the purposive sampling method applied in a single country. Further research could explore data from other countries, and, if possible, apply a probabilistic sample. The various dimensions of innovation have not been explored in this study, in particular co-creation, which is very much associated with the type of experiences of TLEs. It would therefore be interesting to understand 5 how value can be created through cooperative processes of co-creation and how this contributes to entrepreneurial self-efficacy and innovation. It would also be interesting to understand the moderating role of the region of origin of entrepreneurs, not least because it is known that entrepreneurs from outside have more difficulty in establishing a local network of cooperation and being integrated into the community (c.f. Dawson et al., 2011). Finally, our study found that there is no direct relationship between context and innovation. It will be interesting to explore this topic and understand the reasons for this result. REFERENCES Arias, R. A. C., & Cruz, A. D. (2019). Rethinking artisan entrepreneurship in a small island. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 25(4), 633-651. DOI: 10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0111 Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). 'Staying within the fence': Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 8(5), 378-392. DOI: 10.1080/09669580008667374 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi. Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94 Banco de Portugal (2020). Central de Balanços do Banco de Portugal. Available on December, 23rd 2020 at https://www.bportugal.pt/QS/qsweb/Dashboards Besser, T. L., & Miller, N. (2001). Is the good corporation dead? The community social responsibility of small business operators. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(3), 221- 241. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00094-4 Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2-3), 311-327. DOI: 10.1080/19368620802594193 Bosworth, G., & Farrell, H. (2011). Tourism entrepreneurs in Northumberland. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1474-1494. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.015 Bredvold, R., & Skålén, P. (2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity construction: A study of the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 56, 96-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.023 Carlsen, J., Morrison, A., & Weber, P. (2008). Lifestyle oriented small tourism firms. Tourism Recreation Research, 33(3), 255-263. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2008.11081549 Chok, S., Macbeth, J., & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’and implications for sustainability. Current issues in Tourism, 10(2-3), 144-165. Cooper, C. (2015). Managing tourism knowledge. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 107- 119. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2015.1006418 Czernek, K. (2017). Tourism features as determinants of knowledge transfer in the process of tourist cooperation. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(2), 204-220. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2014.944107 Dawson, D., Fountain, J., & Cohen, D. A. (2011). Seasonality and the lifestyle “conundrum”: An analysis of lifestyle entrepreneurship in wine tourism regions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 551-572. DOI : 10.1080/10941665.2011.597580 De Bruin, A., & Jelinčić, D. A. (2016). Toward extending creative tourism: participatory experience tourism. Tourism review, 71(1), 57-66. DOI: 10.1108/TR-05-2015-0018 6 Dias, Álvaro; Gonzalez-Rodriguez, M. Rosario & Patuleia, Mafalda (2020a). Developing Poor Communities through Creative Tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change. 1-21 https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1775623 Dias, Á., Silva, G. M., Patuleia, M., & González-Rodríguez, M. R. (2020b). Developing sustainable business models: local knowledge acquisition and tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1835931 Dias, Á., Silva, G. M., Patuleia, M., & González-Rodríguez, M. R. (2021). Transforming local knowledge into lifestyle entrepreneur’s innovativeness: exploring the linear and quadratic relationships, Current Issues in Tourism. Vol Ahead of Print, Number Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1865288 Drake, G. (2003). ‘This place gives me space’: Place and Creativity in the Creative Industries. Geoforum, 34(4), 511-524. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7185(03)00029-0 Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity nexus. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 47-76). Springer, New York, NY. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 29–50. DOI: 10.2307/3151312. Fu, H., Okumus, F., Wu, K., & Köseoglu, M. A. (2019). The entrepreneurship research in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.005 García-Rosell, J. C., Haanpää, M., & Janhunen, J. (2019). ‘Dig where you stand’: values-based co-creation through improvisation. Tourism Recreation Research, 44(3), 348-358. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2019.1591780 GEM (2020). Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Attitudes. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Available at https://www.gemconsortium.org/economy-profiles/portugal#pb [Accessed November 19, 2020] Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism management, 21(6), 547- 560. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00004-2 Guercini, S., & Ceccarelli, D. (2020). Passion driving entrepreneurship and lifestyle migration: insights from the lutherie of Cremona. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1-20. DOI: 10.1007/s10843-020-00269-1 Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of business venturing, 22(1), 119-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.005 Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044- 1060. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2018.1560456 Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & Lee, C. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship performance: The effects of place identity, self-efficacy, and gender. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 36-51. DOI: 10.1177/0047287513513170 Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. 7 Higuchi, Y., & Yamanaka, Y. (2017). Knowledge sharing between academic researchers and tourism practitioners: A Japanese study of the practical value of embeddedness, trust and co-creation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10), 1456-1473. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1288733 Hjalager, A. M., Kwiatkowski, G., & Østervig Larsen, M. (2018). Innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2017.1287002 Hoarau, H. (2014). Knowledge acquisition and assimilation in tourism-innovation processes. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 14(2), 135-151. DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2014.887609 Ioannides, D., & Petersen, T. (2003). Tourism ‘non-entrepreneurship’in peripheral destinations: a case study of small and medium tourism enterprises on Bornholm, Denmark. Tourism Geographies, 5(4), 408-435. DOI: 10.1080/1461668032000129146 Jaafar, M., Abdul-Aziz, A. R., Maideen, S. A., & Mohd, S. Z. (2011). Entrepreneurship in the tourism industry: Issues in developing countries. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 827-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.003 Kibler, E., Fink, M., Lang, R., & Muñoz, P. (2015). Place attachment and social legitimacy: Revisiting the sustainable entrepreneurship journey. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 24-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.04.001 Koh, K. Y., & Hatten, T. S. (2002). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player in tourism development studies. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 3(1), 21-48. DOI: 10.1300/J149v03n01_02 Komppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination–A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.007 Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., & Tanvig, H. W. (2015). Rural entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the rural–between place and space. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 21(1), 5-26. DOI: 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2013-0205 Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523. DOI: 10.1108/02651330610703427 Lai, P. H., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Grimstad, S. (2017). Operating small tourism firms in rural destinations: A social representations approach to examining how small tourism firms cope with non-tourism induced changes. Tourism Management, 58, 164-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.017 Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 285-303. Lampel, J., & Germain, O. (2016). Creative industries as hubs of new organizational and business practices. Journal of Business Research. 69(7), 2327–2333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.001 Lindström, K. N., & Larson, M. (2016). Community-based tourism in practice: Evidence from three coastal communities in Bohuslän, Sweden. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 33(33), 71–78. Maitland, R. (2010). Everyday life as a creative experience in cities. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 176-185. DOI: 10.1108/17506181011067574 8 Marchant, B., & Mottiar, Z. (2011). Understanding lifestyle entrepreneurs and digging beneath the issue of profits: Profiling surf tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs in Ireland. Tourism Planning & Development, 8(2), 171-183. DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2011.573917 Martínez-Román, J. A., Tamayo, J. A., Gamero, J., & Romero, J. E. (2015). Innovativeness and business performances in tourism SMEs. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 118-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2015.07.004 Morrison, A. (2006). A contextualisation of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12(4), 192-209. DOI: 10.1108/13552550610679159 Moscardo, G. (2014). Tourism and community leadership in rural regions: Linking mobility, entrepreneurship, tourism development and community well-being. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(3), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.890129 Mottiar, Z. (2007). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and spheres of inter-firm relations: The case of Westport, Co Mayo, Ireland. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(1), 67-74. DOI: 10.5367/000000007780007326 Porter, B. A., Orams, M. B., & Lück, M. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship tourism: An alternative development approach for remote coastal communities where awareness of tourism is low. Tourism Planning & Development, 15(2), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2017.1312507 Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of tourism research, 38(4), 1225-1253. DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2011.07.008 Richards, G., & Marques, L. (2012). Exploring creative tourism: Editors introduction. Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice. 4(2), 1-12 Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor's Comments: A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in" MIS Quarterly". MIS quarterly, iii-xiv. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2014). SmartPLS 3.0. Hamburg: www.smartpls.de. Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2011). Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities: value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era. Production Planning & Control, 22(5-6), 447-472. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2010.536619 Ryan, T., Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, B. (2012). The dynamic role of entrepreneurs in destination development. Tourism Planning & Development, 9(2), 119-131. DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2011.630747 Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998-4010. Schilar, H., & Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2018). Tourism activity as an expression of place attachment–place perceptions among tourism actors in the Jukkasjärvi area of northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(sup1), S42-S59. DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2017.1389123 Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer and management in tourism organisations: An emerging research agenda. Tourism Management, 30(3), 325-335. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.023 Shrivastava, P., & Kennelly, J. J. (2013). Sustainability and place-based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 83-101. DOI: Sørensen, F., & Jensen, J. F. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management, 46, 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009