Co-creation of experiences in tourism: A conceptual perspective through a meta-review and thematic mapping

Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 2025, 29-51. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20250203 29 Co-creation of experiences in tourism: A conceptual perspective through a meta-review and thematic mapping Cocreación de experiencias en turismo: Una perspectiva conceptual a través de una meta-revisión y un mapeo temático Marta Andrade-Cunha University of Seville, Spain; Higher Institute of Business and Tourism Sciences (ISCET), Portugal; Polytechnic University of Cávado and Ave (IPCA), Department of Tourism and Marketing, Portugal, [email protected] Ana Irimia-Diéguez University of Seville, Department of Financial Economics and Operation Management, Member of the Andalusian Institute of Research and Innovation in Tourism (IATUR), Spain, [email protected] David Perea-Khalifi University of Malaga, Department of Economics and Business Administration, Spain, [email protected] Received: 19.12.2024; Revisions required: 17.02.2025; 18.03.202; Accepted: 24.04.2025 Abstract Co-creation of experiences can be defined as the process through which customers and organisations collaborate to create experiences. There has been a notable lack of knowledge regarding tourism experiences and their interrelationship with the co-creation process. This article aims to systematically review the scientific literature on the co-creation of tourism experiences and to delve deeper into the discussion of the different perspectives on tourism experiences, seeking to understand their connection to the co-creation process. To this end, a meta-review, including thematic mapping and content analysis, is applied to 82 articles published between 2009 and 2021, a year that marked the end of a particularly challenging period for the tourism industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The main contributions of this study are the presentation of new definitions of tourism experiences and the systematisation of the co-creation process, considering the supply-side dimensions, given that much of the existing literature predominantly focuses on the tourist perspective. Furthermore, the study identifies existing gaps and proposes a future research agenda. Keywords: Co-creation, Meta-review, Research agenda, Tourism experiences, Value-creation theories. Resumen La cocreación de experiencias es el proceso mediante el cual los clientes y las organizaciones colaboran para crear experiencias. Ha existido una falta de conocimiento sobre las experiencias turísticas y cómo se interrelacionan con el proceso de cocreación. Precisamente, el propósito de este artículo es revisar sistemáticamente la literatura científica sobre la cocreación de experiencias turísticas y profundizar en la discusión sobre las diferentes perspectivas del tema de las experiencias turísticas, comprendiendo su relación con el proceso de cocreación. Para ello, se aplica una meta-revisión que incluye un mapeo temático y un análisis de contenido a 82 artículos publicados entre 2009 y 2021, año que marca el final de un período desafiante para el turismo causado por la pandemia de COVID-19. Nuestras principales contribuciones son presentar nuevas definiciones de experiencias turísticas y una sistematización del proceso de cocreación de experiencias que toma en cuenta las dimensiones de la oferta, ya que la mayoría de la literatura analizada considera únicamente la perspectiva del turista. Además, nuestro estudio también identifica las brechas existentes y propone una agenda de investigación. Palabras clave: Cocreación, Meta-revisión, Agenda de investigación, Experiencias turísticas, Teorías de creación de valor. 1. Introduction There are various definitions of experiences, and multiple terms have been employed within tourism research, including "tourism of experiences", "tourist experiences", "tourism experiences", and "touristic experiences". Godovykh and Tasci (2020) argue that few definitions capture the holistic nature of experiences, defining tourism experiences as the "totality of cognitive, affective, sensory, and conative responses, on a spectrum of negative to positive, evoked by all stimuli encountered in pre-, during, and post-phases of consumption, affected by situational and brand-related factors, filtered through personal differences of consumers, eventually resulting in differential outcomes related to consumers". Creating a competitively strong customer experience has thus become a strategic objective (King et al., 2019), reinforced by the increasing relevance of tourism experiences in the aftermath of crises such as lockdowns and wars. Tiwari et al. (2023) further highlight human emotions as a critical factor influencing tourism experiences. To the best of our knowledge, there remains a lack of recent articles examining the different types of experiences (Kim et al., 2021; Walls et al., 2011). Kim et al. (2021) identify four types of experiences—entertainment, aesthetic, escapist, and educational— concluding that travellers belonging to profiles characterised by high levels across all four types are associated with greater travel satisfaction. This finding supports the notion that traveller satisfaction is more likely to be achieved through diverse travel content and experiences. Moreover, memorable tourism experiences and tourist satisfaction significantly influence the intention to recommend a destination (Çevrimkaya & Zengin, 2023). Walls et al. (2011) emphasise the need to clarify the multidisciplinary use Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 30 and application of the concept of experience, offering a set of definitions and exploring the facets of consumer experience from a demand-side perspective. The co-creation of experiences involves multiple actors and serves as a strategic approach to engage customers in the valuecreation process, delivering personalised and memorable experiences (Mohammadi et al., 2021). Authenticity and involvement have been shown to positively influence destination image (Uslu et al., 2024), while Carvalho and Alves (2023) underscore the crucial role of tourist and guest involvement in value co-creation. Higher levels of involvement in co-creation are strongly associated with increased satisfaction and positively impact tourists' willingness to pay (Rita et al., 2024). In this context, the co-creation experience has supplanted productand company-centric innovations as the foundation for value creation and the future of innovation (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009). Given the current intense competitiveness within the tourism industry, companies are increasingly seeking innovation and differentiation in their services, while tourists are actively pursuing opportunities for greater involvement with the destinations they visit and with the local communities. The study of experiences and the co-creation process has garnered significant scientific interest across various fields, particularly within the tourism sector, owing to the complexity inherent in the ecosystem services perspective (Richards, 2021; Lee et al., 2021). More broadly, co-creation has emerged as a transversal area of analysis, spanning multiple business sectors. Beyond tourism, it has been extensively examined by researchers in health care (Aghdam et al., 2020), coaching (Chatterjee et al., 2021), food studies (Rachão et al., 2020), technology (Belarmino & Koh, 2020; Mehraliyev et al., 2020), psychology (Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Hwang & Seo, 2016), and broader business contexts (Gallego et al., 2020). According to Mohammadi et al. (2021), the study of co-creation in tourism began in 2006. Most research indicates that co-creation primarily takes place within the physical context of interaction between the consumer and the service provider. In the tourism sector today, co-creation is closely connected to the concepts of value creation and experiences, with all three notions being strongly associated with the theory of the experience economy (Zhang et al., 2021; Hernández-Ortega & Franco, 2019; Trunfio & Campana, 2019). The academic literature on co-creation has predominantly focused on the perspective of customer–firm interaction (Freire & Veríssimo, 2021). However, other types of interactions—such as those between companies and residents, public agents, educational entities, or even the destination itself—are also relevant to the co-creation process and warrant further study. Tasci and Pizam (2020) highlight that the influence of different elements of the experienscape on stakeholders’ tendencies towards cocreation, co-production, or co-destruction has been largely overlooked and needs to be addressed in future research. It is evident that the co-creation of experiences in tourism requires deeper scientific investigation, as not all dimensions of the process have been studied with equal intensity, both prior to and during the coronavirus pandemic (Borges-Tiago et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Technological factors, particularly digital and online tools, have gained increasing importance for organisations and tourists. For organisations, technology serves as a means of providing information and selling experiences at the destination. For tourists, it facilitates searching for and accessing information, supports personalised purchasing decisions, enables bookings and payments, and fosters the exchange of ideas and experiences through social interaction (Lee et al., 2021). Digital technologies, therefore, enhance value co-creation by enabling more personalised, immersive, and efficient tourism experiences (Dang & Nguyen, 2023). Given the above, there remains a lack of understanding regarding the concept of tourist experiences and their meaning (Walls et al., 2011), as well as a need to analyse the interrelation between this concept and co-creation (Borges-Tiago et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). As previously noted, the co-creation of experiences in tourism requires deeper scientific exploration, with not all dimensions of the process having been studied in sufficient depth (Zhang et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is necessary to develop a research agenda to guide future investigations in this field (Esther & Teun Den, 2009). From an updated and more holistic perspective, this article aims to explore the various definitions of experience and their relationship with the co-creation process through a systematic literature review. In this context, the central objective will examine the concept of tourism experiences and its connection to value co-creation. Thus, understanding the concept of tourism experiences and its relationship with the co-creation process will present a challenge that can assist companies and destinations in enhancing tourist satisfaction. This article offers an original contribution by presenting a detailed thematic map of the existing literature on the co-creation of tourism experiences. This map not only organises the diverse approaches and themes that constitute this field of research but also provides a clear visual representation of the discipline’s evolution, highlighting the most extensively explored areas as well as those where significant gaps remain. By coherently structuring the literature, the map serves as a valuable tool for researchers, enabling them to identify aspects that require further investigation with greater precision. Furthermore, by pinpointing emerging topics and under-researched areas, the map supports the development of a focused research agenda, helping to optimise resource allocation and concentrate efforts on themes with strong potential to advance knowledge in the field. Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 31 The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound negative impact on tourism activity. According to data from the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2022), global tourism experienced declines in international arrivals of 73% and 72% in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Before the pandemic, digital transformation was not a strategic priority for some tourism companies despite the recognised benefits of enhancing customer experiences and fostering dynamic interaction and engagement. COVID-19 acted as a catalyst, repositioning digital innovation as a critical factor for resilience and recovery within tourism organisations (Lincényi & Bulanda, 2023; Sharma et al., 2024). By 2021, the sector had begun to emerge from its darkest period, with 2022 marking the initial recovery phase as international travel gradually rebounded. Recognising these dynamics, the present study focuses on analysing the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism up to 2021 while leveraging existing research to understand the transformative role of digital strategies in navigating this unprecedented crisis. In order to clarify, systematise, and relate the key concepts, this study seeks to answer the following general research question (RQ): what is the status of existing knowledge related to the co-creation of tourism experiences? To this end, a synthesis of definitions will be presented based on a systematic literature review methodology and aimed at identifying new areas for future research. In addition, the authors propose a classification of tourism experiences, considering the fundamental dimensions of the co-creation process, to help structure the content of future investigations. This is particularly important, as the co-creation process may vary depending on the type of experiences sought. This article offers a two-fold contribution. From a theoretical perspective, it reinforces the in-depth study of Experience Tourism, helping to clarify the concept holistically and illustrating its interaction with the co-creation process while presenting new opportunities for future scientific research. From a practical perspective, the study proposes a systematisation of the co-creation process of tourism experiences, encompassing all relevant dimensions. This approach supports a better understanding of experience co-creation, its digital automation, and the evaluation of its impact and tourists' satisfaction. The remainder of the article is organised as follows. Section 2 conceptualises the key issues; Section 3 describes the methodology applied; Section 4 presents and discusses the results; and Section 5 outlines the conclusions and highlights the contributions of this study. 2. Key issues conceptualization Understanding the different interpretations of the concept of experience in tourism is of great importance for subsequently assessing the best conditions under which the co-creation process can be developed and facilitated by companies and destination managers. Since several authors use different terminologies associated with tourism experiences, often without clear clarification, it may be difficult for future investigations to determine which conceptualisation of experiences is most appropriate for the context under analysis. Thus, developing a more holistic approach to tourism experiences is considered crucial. 2.1 Experiences in tourism Several authors (Tung & Ritchie, 2011; Loureiro, 2014; Chen & Rahman, 2018) distinguish between tourism experiences and tourist experiences. The former, tourism experiences, refers to the overall experience of the tourist at the destination, encompassing the emotions and feelings generated by the total consumption of the trip. In contrast, tourist experiences represent businesses and services that tourists can consume independently, relating to the supply offered by companies and the individual experiences lived during the trip. As Kandampully et al. (2018) affirm, experiences are unique and personal, as each consumer is unique and shaped by their background, making experiences difficult to define and manage. These authors highlight that, in hospitality, delivering superior customer experiences is essential for securing customer loyalty and that digitally advanced consumers now expect personalised experiences at every point of interaction. Similarly, Pezzi and Vianna (2015) argue that the personal and subjective nature of experiences makes their study even more complex and interesting but also challenging to frame. In their seminal work, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) argue that the consumption experience must be understood from a holistic perspective, encompassing the pre-purchase, experience, and outcome phases and emphasising the importance of emotions and the crucial role of interaction. Later, Pine and Gilmore (1998) highlighted that experiences are inherently personal, existing only in the mind of an individual who has been engaged on an emotional, physical, intellectual, or even spiritual level. More recently, Godovykh and Tasci (2020) proposed a more holistic perspective of experiences, presenting an experience model with four main components—emotional, cognitive, sensorial, and conative—and suggest using a combination of several measures to capture the totality of the tourism experience across the pre-visit, on-site, and post-visit stages, which should be incorporated into products and services at destinations. The concept of experience has been widely adopted in the tourism sector, driven by the intangible nature of the services offered and the need for organisations and destinations to develop innovative offerings that enhance brand positioning and effectively add value for tourists (Campos et al., 2015; Neuhofer et al., 2014). More recently, technological factors—particularly digital tools, services, and online access—have grown in importance, not only enabling organisations to operationalise and deliver experiences Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 32 at the destination, but also supporting tourists in their search for credible and secure information, facilitating social interaction, customisation, reservations, and payments (Lee et al., 2021). 2.2 Co-creation in tourism Co-creation concerns actors collaboratively creating something with or influenced by others (Buonincontri et al., 2017; Jaakkola et al., 2015). Sugathan and Ranjan (2019) argue that co-creation significantly influences the tourism experience. In this context, cocreation refers to the process directly linked to creating value for the tourist, which is reflected in the experience gained. The experience itself can be developed before, during, and after the consumption of tourist services acquired during trips and is shaped by various factors, contexts, resources, and agents (Eletxigerra et al., 2018; Esther & Teun Den, 2009). Most authors agree that cocreation cannot occur without interaction. Moreover, digital tools are increasingly seen as drivers of success in the tourism industry by facilitating improved customer interactions (Dang & Nguyen, 2023). Several research gaps have been identified. Some authors highlight the need for a deeper understanding of the role of technology in enhancing customers’ perceived value, experience, and engagement (Trunfio & Campana, 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). Carvalho et al. (2021) further emphasise the importance of exploring the dimensions of the co-creation experience: interaction, participation, engagement, and personalisation. Godovykh and Tasci (2020) point out that most customer experience research has failed to capture the different components that constitute the overall experience, while Phi and Dredge (2019) stress the necessity of better understanding co-creation from the perspectives of visitors, residents, destinations, organisations, and non-human actors. In light of the growing impact of customer value co-creation in the digital era on the tourism and hospitality sectors, Dang and Nguyen (2023) identified three primary areas for future research: technological, academic, and managerial. More recently, Jain et al. (2024) have further underlined the need to investigate value co-creation in digital transformations, including service robots, AI-enabled services, and machine learning. Furthermore, the study of co-creation can also extend to its opposite concept, co-destruction. However, the literature addressing this theme remains scarce (Freire & Veríssimo, 2021; Mohammadi et al., 2021). Co-destruction is described as the failure of the resource integration process to co-create the expected value (Smith, 2013; Freire & Veríssimo, 2021). Tasci and Pizam (2020) emphasise that the influence of different elements of the experienscape, connected to sensory elements and holistic participation, on various stakeholders’ tendencies towards co-creation, co-production, or co-destruction has been largely overlooked and should be explored in future research. At the core of these concepts lies the value chain of the experience provider and its interaction with the tourist. 2.3 The co-creation of tourism experiences, a holistic perspective The co-creation of experiences can be defined as the process through which customers and organisations collaborate to create experiences (Buonincontri et al., 2017; Mathis et al., 2016). Based on the previous understanding of tourism experiences, it can be said that the co-creation process is present in both perspectives of destinations and companies and operates across two distinct dimensions. One dimension is more social, relating to the construction of involvement with companies and destinations, while the other is more spatial, involving the enjoyment of everything the destination has to offer. In addition, a third, more holistic perspective can be proposed, where the approach to experiences and their co-creation process encompasses all players in the tourism system, integrating both supply and demand perspectives, whether referring to tourists, companies, or destination agents. Figure 1 illustrates this holistic perspective of the co-creation process. Figure 1 - Holistic perspective of the co-creation process Source: own elaboration. Author 1, Author 2, Author 3, & Author 4. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 33 3. Methodology: Meta-review and thematic mapping A systematic literature review methodology is employed to develop a holistic understanding of the co-creation of tourism experiences, following the approach outlined by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Tranfield et al. (2003). According to Haddaway et al. (2022), reviews can be classified as either introductory or systematic. Introductory reviews are more illustrative, aiming to introduce concepts using selected examples. In contrast, synthetic or systematic reviews and maps seek to generate novel insights from an evidence base by combining studies or their findings through analytical methods. Considering the requirements of scientific research, a systematic review is considered more effective for summarising analyses on a specific issue (Snyder, 2019). It offers a synthesised and more transparent approach to research (Palmatier et al., 2018), used to identify, collect data, and critically assess the issues under investigation. The objective is to identify all empirical evidence that fits the pre-specified inclusion criteria (Snyder, 2019). Several authors offer different suggestions regarding the methodology to be applied. Among these, the synthesis method proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009), Tranfield et al. (2003), and Garza-Reyes (2015) is particularly noteworthy, comprising five stages: (1) question formulation; (2) location of studies; (3) evaluation and selection of studies; (4) analysis and synthesis. In this context, the general aim of the data analysis in this systematic review is to analyse and examine the literature critically, identifying the main ideas, dimensions, and relationships between tourism experiences and the co-creation process. With regard to the formulation of the research questions, corresponding to Stage 1, the main objective of this study is to explore the intersection between tourism experiences and the co-creation process. As illustrated in Figure 2, the focus is on scientifically examining the co-creation of tourism experiences from the perspective of the supply side, namely companies and destinations. Figure 2 - Research objective area Source: own elaboration. To achieve the proposed objective and address the research questions, it is necessary to clarify the topics under investigation and identify the literature to be included (Linnenluecke et al., 2020). Accordingly, several reference articles on the topic were reviewed prior to developing the research. The aim was to clearly understand the topics under analysis and identify which dimensions and aspects of tourism experiences and the co-creation process should be further explored. The outcome of this preliminary analysis led to the development of the section on conceptualising the key issues. In addition to the overarching research question (what is the status of the existing knowledge related to the co-creation of tourism experiences?), other more specific ones were also considered, namely: RQ1. What are the terms used to define experiences in tourism? RQ2. What is co-creation, and how does it relate to experiences? RQ3. How do the definitions presented fit into the perspectives of the co-creation process? RQ4. What are the theoretical frameworks used to analyze the co-creation process? Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 34 RQ5. How has the topic of the co-creation of tourism experiences been investigated? RQ6. Can new definitions of experiences be presented from the different perspectives of the co-creation process? Regarding Stage 2 (location of studies), an exhaustive search was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Both databases are considered the most relevant sources in the fields of tourism and management due to their comprehensive coverage of rigorously peer-reviewed journals, citation analysis capabilities, and advanced search functionalities, including article quality indexes such as JCR and SJR respectively. According to data from the WoS platform, approximately 75% of researchers recommend its use, recognising it as one of the principal references for scientific research and a leading global citation database. Using two databases helps to eliminate the biases associated with relying on a single source (Thome et al., 2016). Therefore, to understand the different interpretations of the concept of experiences in tourism and to subsequently assess the best conditions under which the co-creation process can be developed, in-depth research was conducted simultaneously in both the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, using the “TS” (Topic) field tag, and the Scopus database, considering all fields. The research was carried out between May and November of 2021 and pilot tests were done with these terms: “tourism experiences”; “tourist experiences”; “experiences and touris*”; “co-creation”; “co-creation process”; “tourism co-creaction”; “tourism co-creaction experiences” and “tourism co-creation experiences”. Due to the high number of results of the first search referring only to tourism experiences (14,608), the authors chose to explore a new, more specific search, considering the relationship between the two topics of co-creation and experiences. The research analyzed documents published between 2009 and 2021. The starting point, 2009, corresponds to the publication of the first review article on the topic under study, as identified in the databases consulted. The endpoint, 2021, was chosen because it marks the conclusion of the most critical phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the tourism sector beginning its recovery in 2022, as discussed in the Introduction. This timeframe provides a comprehensive historical perspective on the evolution of the topic while capturing the significant disruptions and transformations brought about by the pandemic. To avoid excluding relevant articles, the authors opted for a more comprehensive search using the terms "co-creation OR co-creation process" AND “*touris*" OR “tourist” OR “tourism”. Apart from selecting the Web of Science Core Collection, no additional filters were applied, allowing for an initial global overview of the number of articles potentially related to the central theme. For the evaluation and selection of studies (Stage 3), it was decided to include only review articles, as these, by their nature, tend to explore the state of the art and the conceptual foundations of the topics under study while also identifying research opportunities to address existing gaps. In this context, a systematic literature meta-review was applied. Since some review articles were not initially classified as reviews, an additional search was performed using the keywords "systematic" and "review". After applying the English language filter, 49 additional records were identified in WoS and three more in Scopus. Duplicate articles were excluded. To ensure that the search results aligned with the general research question, the titles, abstracts, and, when necessary, the introductions, conclusions, or full texts of the studies were reviewed. Following a complete reading, eight articles were excluded for being unrelated to tourism. To minimise any potential gaps, the research was further strengthened using a snowballing method: the term "meta-analysis" was added to the search, and the results were compared with the previously identified articles. However, this additional search did not yield any new review articles beyond those already selected. In the final stage, the authors selected 82 papers related to the main topic. Figure 3 illustrates the entire process, showing the documents excluded at each step and those selected after applying the filters, presented through a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 35 Figure 3 - PRISMA of the Systematic Literature Review Source: own elaboration. In Stage 4 (analysis and synthesis), 82 documents were reviewed, with particular emphasis placed on the abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, conclusion, and implications. An Excel database was created to record several associated fields, and a thematic mapping analysis was subsequently applied. In the context of bibliometrics, thematic mapping is used to analyse large volumes of scientific literature and allows the thematic structure of a research field to be visualised through a topic map. This technique is based on community detection algorithms, such as the Louvain algorithm, which is widely recognised for its effectiveness in identifying communities within large and complex networks (Blondel et al., 2008). The Louvain algorithm groups related terms into "communities" or clusters of keywords, identifying topics with a high density of internal connections, thereby suggesting a close conceptual relationship between them. This study employed Bibliometrix, an R package designed for comprehensive bibliometric analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Authors’ keywords extracted from the articles were used to build a co-occurrence network. From this network, the Louvain algorithm detected keyword subgroups, creating clusters representing specific topics within the study area. These topics are projected onto the thematic map based on two dimensions: density (the degree of development of the topic) and centrality (its importance or Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 36 relevance within the field). Accordingly, themes are distributed across four quadrants (Cobo et al., 2011; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017): Motor, Basic, Niche, and Emerging or Declining. This methodology has been applied across various research areas to identify emerging trends and consolidated themes, providing a structural view of knowledge within a particular field. For example, Cobo et al. (2011) demonstrate how thematic mapping enables researchers to identify and classify themes based on their evolution and relevance within the scientific field. This technique is particularly useful for guiding future research and strategic planning in emerging areas of study. Considering the methodology exposed previously, the results (stage 5) will be described sequentially in Section 4. 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive analysis of the research The years 2019 and 2020 were particularly prolific in the production of scientific content for literature reviews. Considering the 82 review studies identified in the tourism sector, the research preferences of the authors predominantly fall into the subsectors of hospitality, general tourism, and destinations. Most articles relate dimensions of the tourism sector to other areas of analysis, such as management (57%) and technology (31%—information systems and online tools). Only 17% of the articles demonstrate a concern with constructing an agenda or mapping research related to the topic under analysis. Regarding the type of scientific documents, the overall results surprisingly show that reviews constitute the majority, although they represent only 50% of the sample. This is followed by other types of research articles, which, despite including the word "review" in the title, were not classified as reviews in the databases. The publications span 48 scientific journals, reinforcing the importance of the topic, with contributions from 34 different countries. The Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management is the leading contributor to literature review research in this area, accounting for 10% of the sample. The top five contributing countries are the USA, Portugal, England, Spain, and Australia. Regarding the methodology of the literature reviews, a significant proportion of the authors opted for either basic literature reviews or systematic methods. However, only two studies employed a systematic methodology combined with bibliometric analysis, suggesting that future investigations could benefit from greater use of this latter approach. In addressing the topic, 23 papers present theoretical framework proposals, while 13 propose models, such as the competitiveness model for a creative tourism destination (Dias et al., 2021), a conceptual model depicting the dynamic system of consumer, technology, and co-creation behaviour (Zhang et al., 2020), and a model on co-creating tourism experiences through a traveller’s journey (Zhang, 2020). Other papers present findings aimed at informing future research directions or offer critical perspectives on existing literature reviews (Lee et al., 2021). 4.2 Content analysis The results presented address the specific research questions outlined in the Introduction. The three authors of this study independently conducted the coding process. Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated to assess intercoder reliability, yielding a value of 0.76, which indicates an acceptable level of agreement. 4.2.1 Terms used to define experiences in tourism This subchapter specifically answers the RQ1. What are the terms used to define experiences in tourism? Regarding the experiences in the tourism sector, different but related terms have been used, which can create confusion not only from a theoretical point of view but also from practitioners´ perspective. At least six different terms are used: tourism of experiences, tourist experiences, tourism experiences, touristic experiences, co-experiences, and experienscape, which are defined as follows: i) Tourism of experiences. This global term refers to a market trend linked to the experience economy, representing the entire economic system of tourism and its broader context. From a perspective of holistic enjoyment, the tourism of experiences encompasses the supply provided by companies or institutions within the destination territory, as well as the contributions shared by all tourism agents and the tourists themselves. These contributions may take various forms, with differing levels of intensity and involvement. ii) Tourist experiences. This concept refers specifically to the tourist consumer, although it considers only the experiences provided by companies, not those created by the destination itself. According to Vergopoulos (2016), the study of experiences must account for several contextual variables: (i) space, (ii) time, and (iii) tourist sociability, noting that space and time should not be considered independently. Tung and Au (2018) were among the first researchers to explore consumer reviews involving robotics based on five dimensions for evaluating user experiences. These dimensions are embodiment, emotion, human-oriented perception, feeling of security, and co-experience, all derived from research in human-robot interactions Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 37 (HRI). Their findings suggest that users and robots can co-create novel experiences, with some guests proactively seeking new opportunities to interact and communicate with robots to develop a certain level of relationship. iii) Tourism experiences. This term refers to the experiences of tourists provided by the territory and agents who facilitate the development of the destination, such as public entities. According to Tussyadiah (2014), the concept of tourism experience has evolved into a meta-concept, representing the value propositions of tourism destinations that facilitate desired experiences. Aragonez and Alves (2012) argue that governments, whether at the central or local level, must consider the following differentiating factors for cities: (i) valuing the specific attributes of the territory, (ii) guaranteeing the organisational dynamic coherence of the business fabric, and (iii) strengthening the innovation capacities of the business fabric. They also state that this objective can only be achieved through innovative policies supported by knowledge networks and oriented towards the market. According to Kotler et al. (1993), as cited by Briciu (2013), places must be organised as businesses and must promote themselves in order to respond adequately to global competition, technological change, and urban decay. Tourism destinations must provide satisfactory experiences for visitors, encouraging a positive image and leading them to recommend the place to others who may be potential visitors with a favourable impression (Qu et al., 2011). The way tourism experiences are developed at the destination will undoubtedly influence the tourist's perception. It is not sufficient to merely provide satisfactory experiences, as highlighted by the previous authors; instead, destinations must aim to create memorable experiences that remain in the consumer’s mind. Therefore, understanding both primary and associated preferences becomes a critical success factor. iv) Touristic experiences. This general term includes the set of all the experiences made available to tourists, regardless of whether they are provided by the destination/territory or by companies. v) Co-experiences. The concept is related to the value co-creation process. According to Kijima and Arai (2016), the coexperience is one of the four phases of the value co-creation process: co-experience, co-definition, co-elevation, and codevelopment. For Yang and Mattila (2016), the concepts of value and experience are closely related. Customers add value to experiences, and the main results derive from the co-creation of experiences created between customers and companies, regardless of the services created. Co-experiencing could also be presented as learning, maintaining, and modifying meaning in social interaction (Battarbee & Koskinen, 2008). Considering the research carried out, it was observed that this term is not widely used in the tourism sector since most researchers prefer to resort to the co-creation of experiences. vi) Experienscape. This term is defined by Tasci and Pizam (2020) as a set of sensory, functional, social, natural and cultural stimuli of a product/service environment which can result in positive or negative cognitive, affective, and behavioural reactions toward products, services, brands, and firms. Thus, the concept is related to a holistic perspective of experiences and simultaneously from a psychological view and connected to sensory elements and multi-stakeholder participation (Chen et al. 2020). Some studies explored concrete experiences, such as cultural (Seyfi et al., 2020), healthy water-based activities (Campón-Cerro et al., 2020), eco-cultural (Tiberghien et al., 2020), dark tourism (Iliev, 2020), events and tour settings (Richards et al., 2020), food and wine (Rachão et al. 2020), creative tourism (Wang et al., 2020), indigenous tourism (Wu et al., 2020), night cultural tourism (Chen et al., 2020), augmented reality experiences (Park & Stangl, 2020), sports (Peric, 2010), car tourism (Cudny, 2018), among others. 4.2.2 Understanding co-creation in tourism experiences Responding to RQ2 (What is co-creation and how does it relate to experiences?), five concepts associated with and explored by the authors were observed. The concepts explored were co-creation, the co-creation of experiences, experiences of co-creation, experience co-creation and co-destruction. All the authors of the selected articles agree that co-creation is an interaction process, although their views differ regarding the dimensions of this mechanism. Some authors adopt broader perspectives of the process, while others prefer to emphasise more specific aspects related to the supply side. In other cases, the discussion is associated with perspectives drawn from the psychology and behaviour of tourists. Focusing solely on the supply perspective, different dimensions of experience co-creation were identified (Appendix A): Supply— Business and Destination, Supply—Business, Supply—Destination, and a Holistic dimension encompassing both Supply and Demand. The concepts of the co-creation of experiences and experiences co-creation are understood similarly by most authors, with the latter term being used by three authors (Dias et al., 2021; Trunfio & Campana, 2019; Buonincontri et al., 2017). The concept of experiences of co-creation refers to the result acquired through the co-creation process and is found to be related to the concept of experiencescape (Richards, 2021; Tasci & Pizam, 2020), a multidisciplinary approach that strengthens the participation of multiple stakeholders. When the interaction process generates negative impacts, the concept of co-destruction emerges (Freire & Veríssimo, 2021; Laud et al., 2019). Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 44 angle, acting as a niche that indirectly supports the broader literature on the co-creation of experiences (Gretzel et al., 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). Two distinct groups are identified in the Emerging or Declining Themes quadrant (low development and low relevance). The first group, comprising social media, engagement, and hotels, represents emerging topics. Recent data from the Web of Science (WoS) shows a notable increase in the number of publications on these themes, reaching approximately 45 papers in 2024, which is triple the number published in 2018. Social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have become essential tools for engaging tourists, enabling them to actively participate in the tourism experience by sharing their stories and influencing others’ experiences. Although this area is not yet central in co-creation research, it is gaining traction due to its potential to influence how tourists engage with hotel services through social media (Leung et al., 2013). In contrast, the second group, which includes technology, hospitality, and value co-creation, reflects declining themes. Since 2018, publications on these topics have decreased by 58.33 per cent, with only five papers published in WoS in 2024. Although these topics once held a central position in tourism co-creation research, they have become less prioritised, indicating a shift in research focus within the field (Neuhofer et al., 2015). For instance, while augmented reality once generated significant interest within the hospitality sector, its application in co-creating experiences has declined as new trends, including social media engagement, big data, and the Internet of Things (IoT), have taken precedence. This framework provides valuable insights into the current trends in the co-creation of tourism experiences. Identifying key themes and their stages of development serves as a guide for researchers aiming to explore and contribute to this evolving field. As the research landscape continues to advance, scholars are encouraged to consider well-established concepts, such as Service-Dominant Logic and the sharing economy, alongside emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and social media engagement. Understanding how these elements intersect and influence the co-creation process will be crucial for advancing both the theoretical and practical applications of co-created tourism experiences. Researchers should focus on high-relevance topics, such as innovation and tourism experiences, while also exploring niche areas that offer unique opportunities for further investigation, such as smart tourism technologies. This approach will help generate new knowledge and shape the future of tourism experience co-creation. 4.2.6 New definitions of experiences according to the dimensions of the co-creation process Answering RQ6 (Can new definitions of experiences be presented from the different perspectives of the co-creation process?), it is the authors' opinion that it is possible to clarify the existing concept and definitions, presenting new definitions according to the dimensions of the co-creation process previously identified. These definitions promote a better and faster understanding of tourist experiences for professionals working in the area to enhance interactions within the dimensions of co-creation and simultaneously define satisfaction assessment processes with greater objectivity. In this sense, the following definitions are proposed: i. Tourism of Experiences (Holistic Perspective): Tourism of experiences, as an Experiences Dominant Logic, refers to a market trend related to the economy of experiences and represents the overall result of all interactions arising from the fruition of the tourist context, including the entire economic system of tourism, its natural dynamic, the macroeconomic factors, agents, community, public entities, tourists, resources and attractions. ii. Destination Experiences (Supply Perspective): Destination experiences refer to all experiences made available to tourists regardless of whether they are provided by the territory or by the agents that facilitate the destination development, such as private, public, locals and educational entities. The result is unique and personalized experiences co-created with the participation of any of the elements of the tourism system. iii. Touristic experiences (Supply Perspective - Companies): Touristic experiences refer to the set of all services, activities, conditions and information made available to tourists by companies, taking into account the tourists' expectations and wishes regarding the final result and their availability to interact during the co-creation process. These augmented co-experiences result from permanent innovation, a fusion of co-production and co-creation, adding extra value for tourists and companies. iv. Tourist experiences (Demand Perspective): Tourist experiences refer to how tourists interpret, live and feel the idealized experiences sought-after or consumed during the travel process, which can range from the idea or planning to the postconsumption phase. These experiences result from the tourist's state of mind, their preferences, their ability and availability to interact with the tourist environment and those who accompany them, and the experiences can generate different feelings and be more or less positive depending on the emotions enhanced by the context and the tourist's behaviour. Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 45 4.3 Gaps and future research Based on the literature review performed, relevant gaps were identified that represent opportunities for future research in the academic literature as explained as follows: 1. No review analyses have been identified that consider the different types of experiences in tourism from a global, objective, and up-to-date perspective. Although recent articles address various types of tourism (Aminudin & Jamal, 2020), they do not specifically focus on the different types of experiences. Thus, to address this gap, it would be valuable to create a ranking of experiences in order to identify which areas of tourism have not yet been explored and to deepen understanding of how different levels of experience are related and may influence one another (Richards, 2021). 2. Several future research directions have been identified based on the findings regarding the various research themes in the co-creation of tourism experiences. First, greater attention should be given to emerging themes such as social media, engagement, and hotels, analysing how these areas can shape user interactions and influence the co-creation process. This could be particularly valuable when considered alongside established themes, including co-creation and Service-Dominant Logic. Niche topics such as smart tourism also merit further exploration to better understand their role in co-creation and to elevate these themes in future studies. Established research has demonstrated how sharing economy platforms, such as Airbnb, facilitate collaboration between consumers and businesses, offering a foundation for investigating the dynamics of these interactions. In addition, the recent decline in focus on technology, hospitality, and value co-creation should be examined to understand this trend and identify potential revitalisation areas. Research should explore how innovative technologies can be effectively integrated to enhance the personalisation and adaptability of tourism experiences. Together, these research directions can provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding co-creation in tourism and foster innovative collaborations between consumers and companies. 3. Taking into consideration that the co-creation of experiences process results from different interactions depending on the spaces, times, acts and agents involved, it is important to explore in the future the co-creation process of the different types of experiences bearing in mind these differences. 4. Another relevant issue is understanding whether companies should develop different co-creation processes depending on the types of experiences that tourists want to enjoy. For example, Kim et al. (2021) present four types of experiences (entertainment, esthetical, escapist, and educational) and conclude that travellers belonging to profile groups pertaining to the high level of all four types of experiences were associated with higher travel satisfaction. This supports the fact that travellers´ satisfaction is more likely to be obtained with various types of travel content and experience. 5. Alternatively, it was found that several authors chose to address the topic of tourism experiences in a more specific way. In future studies, researchers can also examine, through qualitative and quantitative research, the tourism experiences according to the reason for the visit and the stage, whether pre, during or post. 6. Experiences are also related to innovation and must lead to collective practices that could be reproduced later; therefore, the process should be maintained in the future (Eide et al., 2017). Future investigations should consider the importance of digital contexts, innovation, and technology in organizations and destinations, improving the supply of experiences and facilitating the co-creation process. 7. As Alcoba et al. (2017) state, people value experiences remarkably. Thus, opportunities for future research also lie in understanding other stakeholders' contributions to the result of experiences co-created with tourists, as will be the case for populations, employees, educational and tourist training entities, public entities, and destination managers. 8. Testing new models of the co-creation of experiences would be very beneficial, especially if they include new digital technologies and help measure co-creation's impact on all the agents involved, including tourists. It is relevant to investigate how technological platforms and social media influence the experiences and interactions between customers, employees, firms, tourism resources, and locals (Lee et al., 2021). 9. Finally, further research is also needed to study the negative aspects (Freire & Verissimo, 2021) of tourism experiences and the impacts on the brands of destinations and companies. 5. Conclusions and implications This study offers a comprehensive view of experience co-creation in tourism, addressing both tourist and business perspectives. The findings reveal that co-creation is a multifaceted process, in which the interaction between actors within the tourism ecosystem plays a decisive role in value generation. In particular, digitalisation and technological platforms have been identified as key catalysts for tourists' active participation, enabling greater personalisation and adaptability of experiences. Furthermore, cocreation has proven crucial in building memorable experiences and strengthening the emotional connection between tourists and destinations. This study not only synthesises existing research on experience co-creation in tourism but also proposes a future Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 46 research agenda to guide the development of more effective strategies within the industry. The integration of technology and user engagement is expected to remain crucial for the continued evolution of this field and for the creation of innovative and meaningful tourism experiences. From a theoretical perspective, this study expands co-creation knowledge by highlighting the importance of integrating models that consider tourists' cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. The level of tourist participation directly influences the perception of the experience's value, reinforcing the need for personalised strategies. Furthermore, the existing literature tends to fragment the study of co-creation, indicating the need for interdisciplinary approaches that address the interconnectivity between technology and social interaction. It is crucial to incorporate theories of consumer behaviour and the experience economy to develop a more holistic framework. Moreover, the thematic map presented acts as a comprehensive resource to guide researchers, offering a solid foundation for the development of new lines of inquiry that contribute to the growth and consolidation of the cocreation of tourism experiences as a relevant and multidisciplinary field of study. On a practical level, the findings present relevant implications for the tourism industry. It has been demonstrated that effective cocreation strategies require a combination of digital tools, user-centred design, and collaboration among multiple stakeholders, including tourists, businesses, and local communities. This study highlights that tourism companies adopting participatory approaches in designing their services improve customer satisfaction and generate greater loyalty and competitive differentiation. Furthermore, the results show that incorporating emerging technologies such as big data and the Internet of Things (IoT) can enhance co-creation, facilitating interaction and the personalisation of experiences. This study represents a valuable opportunity for tourism destination managers to innovate by integrating emerging technologies into their services, aligning with new trends, and ensuring that experiences are personalised, inclusive, and enriching for all stakeholders. As the industry evolves, the key lies in maintaining flexibility and embracing technological advancements while prioritising value creation for tourists and local communities. In addition, tourism companies are urged to continue exploring innovative strategies to foster active tourist participation, adapt to shifting trends, and enhance the overall experience. Tourism managers can use this study to select the most effective strategies to enhance the co-creation process of the experiences they offer to the market and develop new solutions to improve tourist satisfaction and achieve competitive advantages. Specifically, the research shows that it is possible to enhance the outcomes of tourism experiences, making them more intense and adding value for tourists if companies and destination managers adopt a more holistic and integrative perspective of the co-creation process. This includes developing offers that actively involve the participation of the destination, tourists, former tourist clients, residents, and other agents who collaborate in developing and promoting the destination, such as digital tourism sales and communication platforms. As a concluding remark, holistic co-creation emerges as the most effective strategy for fostering innovation, preserving cultural authenticity, and generating long-term value in the tourism industry. As the most valuable dimension, this delivers the greatest added value for all stakeholders: (1) For tourists, it provides dynamic, highly personalized, and interactive travel experiences, enhancing overall satisfaction; (2) For tourism businesses, it enables the creation of unique, differentiated products, boosting customer retention; and (3) For destination managers, it shifts their role from logistical managers to experience curators, creating a significant competitive advantage. Nevertheless, this study also has certain limitations. The literature review focused primarily on academic sources, which could underestimate the practical evolution of co-creation in business settings. Future research could explore how macroeconomic and socio-political factors can influence the implementation of co-creation strategies. It would also be valuable to investigate how cocreation can be integrated with regenerative tourism models, promoting more sustainable and responsible experiences with local communities. Additionally, expanding the analysis period from 2021 to 2025 would provide insights into more recent developments in the field. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Instituto Andaluz de Investigación e Innovación en Turismo (IATUR) for their support. Credit author statement Andrade Cunha Marta: Writing - Original draft preparation, Writing - Review & Editing, Conceptualization, Visualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Methodology and Investigation; Irimia-Diéguez Ana: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing, Methodology, Supervision, Validation and Reviewing; Perea-Khalifi David: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing. Declaration of competing interest: There are no conflicts of interest. Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 47 References Adhikari, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Appraisal of literature on customer experience in tourism sector: review and framework. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(4), 296-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1082538 Aghdam, A. R., Watson, J., Cliff, C., & Miah, S. J. (2020). Improving the theoretical understanding toward patient-driven health care innovation through online value cocreation: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), e16324. https://doi.org/10.2196/16324 Alcoba, J., Mostajo, S., Ebron, R.A., & Paras, R. (2017). Balancing value co-creation: culture, ecology, and human resources in tourism industry. In Handbook of Research on Strategic Alliances and Value Co-Creation in the Service Industry (pp. 285-304). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-5225-2084-9.ch015 Aminudin, N., & A. Jamal, S. (2020). Types of tourism: the travelogue of the greatest traveller. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(2), 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-05-2018-0089 Aragonez, T., & Alves, G. (2012). Marketing territorial: O futuro das cidades sustentáveis e de sucesso. In Santos, José António C., Ribeiro, F. P., & Águas, P. Book of Proceedings – Tourism and Management Studies International Conference Algarve 2012 (pp. 316-329), University of Algarve. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2008). Co-Experience: product experience as social interaction. Product Experience, 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50022-8 Belarmino, A., & Koh, Y. (2020). A critical review of research regarding peer-to-peer accommodations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 84, 102315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.05.011 Bharwani, S., & Mathews, D. (2021). Techno-business strategies for enhancing guest experience in luxury hotels: a managerial perspective. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 13(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-09-2020-0121 Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(23), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620802594193 Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 Borges-Tiago, T., Veríssimo, J., & Tiago, F. (2022). Smart tourism: a scientometric review (2008-2020). European Journal of Tourism Research, 30, 3006-3006. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v30i.2593 Briciu, V. (2013). Differences between place branding and destination branding for local brand strategy development. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov Series VII: Social Sciences, 6(55), 9-14. Buhalis, D. (2020). Technology in tourism-from information communication technologies to eTourism and smart tourism towards ambient intelligence tourism: a perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2019-0258 Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through personalisation of services. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_28 Buonincontri, P., Morvillo, A., Okumus, F., & Van Niekerk, M. (2017). Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations: empirical findings from Naples. Tourism Management, 62, 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.014 Campón-Cerro, A.M., Di-Clemente, E., Hernández-Mogollón, J.M., & Folgado-Fernández, J.A. (2020). Healthy water-based tourism experiences: their contribution to quality of life, satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 17, 1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061961 Campos, A.C., Mendes J., Oom do Valle, P., & Scott, N. (2015). Co-creation of tourist experiences: a literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 369-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1081158 Carvalho, P., & Alves, H. (2023). Customer value co-creation in the hospitality and tourism industry: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 250-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2021-1528 Carvalho, M., Kastenholz, E., & Carneiro, M. J. (2021). Co-creative tourism experiences–a conceptual framework and its application to food & wine tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 48(5), 668-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1948719 Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2015). Co-creating the collective service experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 276-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2014-0170 Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. (2013). Co-production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.009 Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Harrington, R. J., & Chan, E. S. (2016). Co-creation and higher order customer engagement in hospitality and tourism services: A critical review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 222-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-102014-0526 Chatterjee, A., Gerdes M., Prinz A., & Martinez S. (2021) Human coaching methodologies for automatic electronic coaching (ecoaching) as behavioral interventions with information and communication technology: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(3): e23533. https://doi.org/10.2196/23533 Chen, H., & Rahman I (2018). Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives, 26, 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.10.006 Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 48 Chen, J.-S., Kerr, D., Chou, C.Y., & Ang, C. (2017). Business co-creation for service innovation in the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29, 1522–1540. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0308 Chen, N., Wang, Y., Li, J., Wei, Y., & Yuan, Q. (2020). Examining structural relationships among night tourism experience, lovemarks, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty on “cultural heritage night” in South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176723 Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003 Çevrimkaya, M., & Zengin, B. (2023). The mediating role of memorable tourism experience on tourist behavior: A perspective on organized tours. Tourism & Management Studies, 19(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2023.190205 Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002 Cudny W. (2018). Theoretical Approach. In Car Tourism. Economic Geography (pp. 9–39). Springer, Cham. Dang, T. D., & Nguyen, M. T. (2023). Systematic review and research agenda for the tourism and hospitality sector: co-creation of customer value in the digital age. Future Business Journal, 9(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-023-00274-5 De Larrea, G. L., & Gregory, A. M. (2020). Informing timeshare exchange services on the drivers of customer-driven co-production. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102645 Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (pp. 671-689), Sage Publications, London. Dias, Á., González-Rodríguez, M. R., & Patuleia, M. (2021). Creative tourism destination competitiveness: an integrative model and agenda for future research. Creative Industries Journal, 16(2), 180-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2021.1980672 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 Eide, D., Fuglsang, L., & Sundbo, J. (2017). Management challenges with the maintenance of tourism experience concept innovations: toward a new research agenda. Tourism Management, 63, 452-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.029 Eletxigerra, A., Barrutia, J.M., & Echebarria, C., (2018). Place marketing examined through a service-dominant logic lens: a review. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 9, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.11.002 Ellis, G.D., Freeman, P.A., Jamal, T., & Jiang, J. (2019). A theory of structured experience. Annals of Leisure Research, 22(1), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1312468 Femenia-Serra, F., Neuhofer, B., & Ivars-Baidal, J. A. (2019). Towards a conceptualisation of smart tourists and their role within the smart destination scenario. The Service Industries Journal, 39(2), 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1508458 Freire, R.R., & Veríssimo, J.M.C. (2021) Mapping co-creation and co-destruction in tourism: a bibliographic coupling analysis. Anatolia, 32(2), 207217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1855594 Gallego, C., Mejía, G.M., & Calderón, G. (2020). Strategic design: origins and contributions to intellectual capital in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 873-891. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2019-0234 Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2015). Green lean and the need for six sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 6(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2014-0010 Godovykh, M., & Tasci, A.D.A. (2020). Customer experience in tourism: a review of definitions, components, and measurements. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100694 Golestaneh, H., Guerreiro, M., Pinto, P., & Mosaddad, S. H. (2022). On the role of internal stakeholders in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 15(2), 202-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-05-2020-0041 Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8 Haddaway, N. R., Lotfi, T., & Mbuagbaw, L. (2022). Systematic reviews: a glossary for public health. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 51(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948221074998 Hernández-Ortega, B., & Franco, J.L. (2019). Developing a new conceptual framework for experience and value creation. Service Business, 13, 225– 248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-018-0379-4 Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/208906 Hwang, J., & Seo, S. (2016). A critical review of research on customer experience management: theoretical, methodological and cultural perspectives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2218–2246. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0192 Iliev, D. (2020). Consumption, motivation and experience in dark tourism: a conceptual and critical analysis. Tourism Geographies, 23(5-6), 963-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1722215 Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015). Service experience cocreation: conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 182-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2014-0323 Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 49 Jain, S., Sharma, K., & Devi, S. (2024). The dynamics of value co‐creation behavior: a systematic review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(1), e12993. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12993 Jamilena, F.D.M., Polo Peña, A. I., & Rodríguez Molina, M. Á. (2017). The effect of value-creation on consumer-based destination brand equity. Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 1011–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516663650 Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Jaakkola, E. (2018). Customer experience management in hospitality: A literature synthesis, new understanding and research agenda. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 21-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0549 Kijima, K., & Arai, Y. (2016). Value co-creation process and value orchestration platform. In: Kwan S., Spohrer J., Sawatani Y. (eds.) Global Perspectives on Service Science: Japan. Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3594-9_10 Kim, J.H., Oh, H. S., & In-seog, S., (2021). Tourism experiencing and travel satisfaction: a latent profile analysis. Northeast Asia Tourism Research, 17, 79-95. King, C., Murillo, E., Wei, W., Madera, J., Tews, M.J., Israeli, A.A., & Kong, L. (2019). Towards a shared understanding of the service experience–a hospitality stakeholder approach. Journal of Service Management, 30(3), 410-428. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2018-0375 Laud, G., Bove, L., Ranaweera, C., Leo, W. W. C., Sweeney, J., & Smith, S. (2019). Value co-destruction: a typology of resource misintegration manifestations. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(7), 866-889. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0022 Lee, M., Ahn, J., Shin, M., Kwon, W., & Back, K.-J. (2021). Integrating technology to service innovation: key issues and future research directions in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 12(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-01-2019-0013 Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: a literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.750919 Lincényi, M., & Bulanda, I. (2023). Use of marketing communication tools in tourism in accommodation facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Tourism and Services, 14(26), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.29036/jots.v14i26.440 Line, N.D., Dogru, T, El-Manstrly, D., Buoye, A., Malthouse, E., & Kandampully, J. (2020). Control, use and ownership of big data: A reciprocal view of customer big data value in the hospitality and tourism industry. Tourism Management, 80, 104106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104106 Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678 Loureiro, S. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioural intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.010 Lugosi, P. (2014). Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue operation. Tourism Management, 40, 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.005 Ma, S., Gu, H., Wang, Y., & Hampson, D.P. (2017). Opportunities and challenges of value co-creation: the role of customer involvement in hotel service development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3023-3043. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-20160479 Mariani, M., Baggio, R., Fuchs, M., & Höepken, W. (2018). Business intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(12), 3514-3554. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2017-0461 Mason, R., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 391-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00084-5 Mathis, E. F., Kim, H. L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., & Prebensen, N. (2016). The effect of co-creation on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.023 Mehraliyev, F., Chan, I.C.C., Choi,Y., Koseoglu, M.A., & Law, R. (2020). A state-of-the-art review of smart tourism research, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(1), 78-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1712309 Mohammadi, F., Yazdani, H.R., Jami Pour, M., & Soltani, M. (2021). Co-creation in tourism: a systematic mapping study. Tourism Review, 76(2), 305343. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-10-2019-0425 Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technology enhanced experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 340– 350. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1958 Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2015). Smart technologies for personalized experiences: a case study in the hospitality domain. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0182-1 Palmatier, R.W. Houston, M.B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4 Park, S., & Stangl, B. (2020), Augmented reality experiences and sensation seeking. Tourism Management, 77, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104023 Peric, M. (2010), Sports tourism and system of experiences. Tourism & Hospitality Management, 16(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104023 Pezzi, E., & Vianna, S. L. G. (2015). A experiência turística e o turismo de experiência: um estudo sobre as dimensões da experiência memorável. Revista Turismo Em Análise, 26(1), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1984-4867.v26i1p165-187 Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 50 Phi, G. T., & Dredge, D. (2019). Collaborative tourism-making: An interdisciplinary review of co-creation and a future research agenda. Tourism Recreation Research, 44 (3), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1640491 Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review (July-August), 98-105 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 514. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 Qu, H., Kim, L., & Im, H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32(3), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.014 Rachão, S., Breda, Z., Fernandes, C., & Joukes, V. (2020), Cocreation of tourism experiences: are food-related activities being explored?. British Food Journal, 122(3), 910-928. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2019-0769 Richards, G., King, B., & Yeung, E. (2020). Experiencing culture in attractions, events and tour settings. Tourism Management, 79, 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104104 Richards, G. (2021). Evolving research perspectives on food and gastronomic experiences in tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(3), 1037-1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1217 Rita, P., Tiago, M. T. B., & Sousa, N. (2024). Empirical Insights into Co-Creation, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Pay in Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Tourism and Services, 15(29), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.29036/jots.v15i29.804 Sarasvuo, S., Rindell, A., & Kovalchuk, M. (2022). Toward a conceptual understanding of co-creation in branding. Journal of Business Research, 139, 543-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.051 Serravalle, F., Ferraris, A., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Christofi, M. (2019). Augmented reality in the tourism industry: a multi-stakeholder analysis of museums. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.002 Seyfi, S., Hall C. M., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2020). Exploring memorable cultural tourism experiences. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(3), 341-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2019.1639717 Sharma, P., Jain, K., Kingshott, R.P.J., & Ueno, A. (2020). Customer engagement and relationships in multi-actor service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 121, 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.031 Sharma, S., Dogra, J., & Khan, S. (2024). Destination resilience and transformations in the tourism sector: new tendencies in destination development and management. Tourism & Management Studies, 20(4), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20240402 Sigala, M. (2017). Collaborative commerce in tourism: implications for research and industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(4), 346-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.982522 Smith, A. M. (2013). The value co-destruction process: A customer resource perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 1889–1909. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2011-0420 Snyder, H., (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Sørensen, F., & Jensen, J.F. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management, 46, 336346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009 Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K.R., (2019). Co-creating the tourism experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.032 Tasci, A.D.A., & Pizam, A. (2020). An expanded nomological network of experienscape. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 999-1040. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2018-0988 Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., & Scavarda, A.J. (2016), Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Production Planning and Control, 27(5), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464 Tiberghien, G., Bremner, H., & Milne, S. (2020). Authenticity and disorientation in the tourism experience. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 30, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100283 Tiwari, A. V., Bajpai, N., & Pandey, P. (2023). The role of human emotions in memorable tourism experience and revisit intention. Tourism & Management Studies, 19(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2023.190102 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Tregua, M., D’Auria, A., & Costin, H. (2020). #10yearschallenge: how co-creation permeated tourism research. A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Tourism Research, 24, 2409. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v24i.411 Trunfio, M., & Campana, S. (2019). Drivers and emerging innovations in knowledge-based destinations: towards a research agenda. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 14, 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100370 Tung, V., & Ritchie, J. R. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367-1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009 Tung, V.W.S., & Au, N. (2018). Exploring customer experiences with robotics in hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(7), 2680-2697. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0322 Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513172 Andrade-Cunha, M., Irimia-Diéguez, A., & Perea-Khalifi, D. (2025). Tourism & Management Studies, 21(2), 29-51 51 Uslu, A., Recuero-Virto, N., Eren, R., & Blasco-López, M. (2024). The role of authenticity, involvement and experience quality in heritage destinations El rol de la autenticidad, la involucración y la calidad de la experiencia en los destinos patrimoniales. Tourism and Management Studies, 20(3), 7981. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20240306 Vargo (2008). Customer integration and value creation: paradigmatic traps and perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 211-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508324260 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vergopoulos, H. (2016). The tourist experience: an experience of the frameworks of the tourist experience? Via Tourism Review, (10) 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4000/viatourism.1352 Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang Y., & Kwun, D.J.W. (2011). Understanding the consumer experience: an exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &Management, 20(2), 166-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.536074 Wang, C., Liu, J., Wei, L., & Zhang, T. (2020). Impact of tourist experience on memorability and authenticity: a study of creative tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1711846 World Tourism Organization. (2022). Tourism grows 4% in 2021 but remains far below pre-pandemic levels. Retrieved on August 28, 2024, from https://www.unwto.org/news/tourism-grows-4-in-2021-but-remains-far-below-pre-pandemic-levels Wu, T., Lin, Y., Wall, G., & Xie, P. F., (2020). A spectrum of indigenous tourism experiences as revealed through means-end chain analysis. Tourism Management, 76, 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103969 Yang, W., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). Why do we buy luxury experiences? Measuring value perceptions of luxury hospitality services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9), 1848e1867. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2014-0579 Zhang, P., Meng, F., & So, K. K. F. (2021). Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1333–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520938873 Zhang, T. (2020). Co-creating tourism experiences through a traveler’s journey: a perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 56-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2019-0251 Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., & Cobanoglu, C. (2020). Value co-creation and technological progression: a critical review. European Business Review, 32(4), 687-707. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2019-0149 Appendix A. Supplementary information Table A1. Authors approach the topic of co-creation of experiences Authors Perspective: Offer / Demand / Holistic Sarasvuo et al. (2022); Golestaneh et al. (2021); Freire & Verissimo (2021); Mohammadi et al. (2020); Eletxigerra et al. (2018); Melis et al. (2015); Dougali et al. (2015); Binkhorst & Den Dekker (2009) Supply - Business and Destination Richards (2021); Lee et al. (2021); Pasca et al. (2021); Bharwani & Mathews (2021); Zhang (2020); Line et al. (2020); Sharma et al. (2020); Serravalle et al. (2019); Hernández-Ortega & Franco (2019); Ellis et al. (2019); King et al. (2019); Laud et al. (2019); Eide et al. (2017); Alcoba et al. (2017); Lugosi (2014); Chathoth et al. (2013) Supply - Business Dias et al. (2021); Buhalis et al. (2020); Jamilena et al. (2017); Del Vecchio et al. (2015); Tussyadiah (2014) Supply - Destination Carvalho et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020a); Zhang et al. (2020b); Rachao et al. (2020); Belarmino & Koh (2020); De Larrea & Gregory (2020); Tasci & Pizam (2020); Tregua et al. (2020); Trunfio & Campana (2019); Altinay & Taheri (2019); Sigala (2018); Campos et al. (2018); Kandampully et al. (2018); Femenia-Serra & Neuhofer (2018); Ma et al. (2017); Buonincontriet al. (2017); Chathoth et al. (2016) Holistic - Supply and Demand Stankov et al. (2019); Phi & Dredge (2019); Galvagno & Giaccone (2019) Not Specific Source: own elaboration.