tourism and innovation in china and spain: a review of innovation research on tourism

Tourism Economics, 2013, 19 (2), 319–337 doi: 10.5367/te.2013.0198

Tourism and innovation in China and Spain:a review of innovation research on tourism

DIEGO R. MEDINA-MUÑOZ, RITA D. MEDINA-MUÑOZ AND

ALEXANDER ZÚÑIGA-COLLAZOS

Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Las Palmas de GranCanaria, Campus de Tafira, Edificio de Empresariales, Módulo C-3.04, 35017 LasPalmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain. E-mail: [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected].(Corresponding author: Diego R. Medina-Muñoz.)

Given the current economic contribution of tourism to the Chineseand Spanish national economies, tourism innovation in these twocountries becomes a vehicle for improving tourism competitivenessand sustainability. This article presents a comparative analysis of therelevance, recent growth and particularities of tourism andinnovation in China and Spain, with the objective of identifying thetourism innovation needs of each country. Innovation research ontourism is also reviewed as a means to a better understanding oftourism innovation activities in each country. This review of theacademic literature further examines the levels of analysis, theresearch topics and the major conclusions. In light of their findings,the authors then offer recommendations on how to enhance thetourism innovation performance and improve research on tourisminnovation in China and Spain.

Keywords: tourism innovation; innovation research; tourism competi-tiveness; China; Spain

The tourism industry is among the world’s most important industries,accounting for significant shares of global gross domestic product (GDP) andemployment – for 2010 these shares have been estimated at 9% and 8%,respectively (World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), 2011). As it is alsoconsidered a truly global economic sector, it is one of the few sectors throughwhich developing and less favoured regions can increase their participation inthe global economy and so move up the value chain toward the production ofhigher value-added services (World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011a). Moreover,the continuous and relatively rapid growth in international travel has enablednumerous countries to select tourism as an important economic sector to bedeveloped and promoted.

Among the countries benefiting from a high increase in tourism is China,which has managed to obtain double-figure growth in most of its regional

TOURISM ECONOMICS320

tourist destinations in terms of international arrivals and tourist receipts (WorldTourism Organization, 2012). Although Spain is regarded as one of the leadingdestinations in the world, ranked third in terms of international arrivals andsecond based on tourist receipts, its growth rates in major economic touristindicators are, in general, below the rates achieved by the rest of the world.The unstable political situation in other Mediterranean destinations, such asEgypt, Tunisia and Greece, might explain a recovery of tourism in Spainparticularly during 2011.

In this context, innovation is often pinpointed as a critical factor for successin any economic sector, including services and tourism (Hall and Williams,2008; Mayer, 2009). The travel and tourism offer and demand have traditionallybeen characterized by an immense capacity for innovation, the degree of which,in the tourism sector, is higher than usually believed (Hjalager, 2010). To givean example, tourism has been one of the main drivers of Internet use in theeconomy (Garau-Vadell and Orfila-Sintes, 2008). However, the effectiveness andimportance of innovation in tourism still remains unclear (Mayer, 2009). Anumber of reasons have been mentioned to justify the limited, slow and inertialrate of innovation, including the particularities of service innovation, the highpresence of small and medium-sized enterprises, the lack of adequate managerialand collaborative systems, the slow adoption of new technologies bydestinations and tourist firms, the absence of strong competition, and theimportance of mass tourism (Mayer, 2009; Ronningen, 2010).

In general, innovation has been recognized in economic literature as the keydeterminant in the growth and competitiveness of national economies (forexample, Porter, 1990; WEF, 2011b). According to Pinto and Guerreiro (2010),innovation has become a priority within the current economic political agenda,and the interest of innovation for regional development has grown since themid-1990s with the intensification of globalization. In both China and Spain,innovation has been recognized as the key factor in growth and competitivenessin their national economies (OECD, 2005; WEF, 2011a, 2011b).

Nevertheless, the classical innovation literature has traditionally beenconcerned with the manufacturing and technological industries (Rogers, 2004)while services, including tourism, have been gradually added to nationalinnovation systems. In tourism literature, innovation is an emerging researchtopic which, particularly over the last two decades, has been given greaterattention by academic researchers (Hall and Williams, 2008; Mayer, 2009;Hjalager, 2010). Moreover, Hjalager (2010) suggests that only recent researchon tourism and innovation is reaching a level that is comparable to the literatureon innovation in manufacturing industries. In addition, some scholars evenquestion whether the measurement of innovation and the theoreticalframeworks developed in relation to innovation in the manufacturing industryare applicable to services and tourism (Ronningen, 2010).

In this context, the objectives of this paper are twofold. Firstly, it aims toanalyse the importance and characteristics of tourism and innovation activitiesfor the national economies in China and Spain, with a view to identifyingpossible gaps between the tourism innovation needs in each country and theactual presence of tourism in the national innovation systems. Secondly, itundertakes a review of the academic research on tourism innovation in thesetwo countries from the year 2000, with the purpose of describing and

321Tourism and innovation in China and Spain

comparing the existing related literature, and identifying the major results andconclusions as an approach to the better analysis of tourism innovation.

Tourism and innovation in China and Spain

Tourism

China and Spain are considered to be two of the four most important touristdestinations in the world, together with France and the USA. Nevertheless, therelative contribution of tourism to the national economy and the evolution andgrowth of tourism in China and Spain are significantly different. In the firstplace, the tourism industry is the main engine of the Spanish economy,especially after the recent severe recession in the construction, financial and realestate sectors, with a direct and indirect contribution to national GDP estimated at15.3%. An even more important factor is that about 17.1% of total employ-ment in Spain is linked to the tourism industry (WEF, 2011a). In the case ofthe Chinese economy, tourism represents 9.2% of national GDP and 7.7% oftotal employment, which is lower than the contribution of other sectors,particularly agriculture and industry, which jointly generate 50% of total valueadded, almost three times the share of these activities in total value added inSpain, where the figure is 18.3% (OECD, 2011).

Secondly, with worldwide growth in the last five years (2005–10) averaging17.8% in international arrivals and 36.4% in international receipts, thoseindicators in China have shown higher growth rates (19.0% and 56.3%,respectively). On the contrary, Spain has witnessed some signs of maturity anda loss of tourist competitiveness, with growth rates that are below the averageworldwide (–5.72% and 9.38%, respectively). The differences in the growth oftourism, particularly over the last five years, suggest that the tourism modelof China and Spain may well show major differences, which could also influenceinnovation needs, priorities and activities.

In line with these factors, tourism innovation is particularly relevant forSpain due to the higher contribution of tourism to the national economy andthe country’s need to extend the life cycle of its destinations by innovating inorder to broaden the range of experiences offered to tourists at present, createnew tourism offers and attract new tourists to expand the market. In the caseof China, the rapid growth of tourism suggests the need to develop throughinnovation with a view to improving efficiency, sustainability, service quality,human resources, as well as destination management and planning.

There are differences in the tourism models of China and Spain that couldalso affect the need for tourism innovation. Firstly, Spain’s tourism infra-structure is ranked 8th internationally, with a large number of hotel rooms andcar rental facilities, while its air transport infrastructure also obtains good marksaccording to the WEF (2011a). However, in China, the ground transportinfrastructure gets middling marks and the country’s tourism infrastructureremains underdeveloped, with few hotel rooms available (WEF, 2011a).Secondly, Spain specializes in leisure travel, essentially sun and beach, culture-related and rural tourism, with business travel spending representing only 9.9%of the total. On the other hand, in China, business travel and international fairs


and exhibitions account for 24.7% of total tourist spending, and the leisure itoffers is focused on unique tourist attractions related to World Heritage naturaland cultural sites, together with Chinese culture and traditions (WEF, 2011a;WTTC, 2011). Thirdly, the profile and characteristics of its current touristdemand are different. Spain receives most of its visitors from Europeancountries, mainly France, Germany and the UK, while in China the majorityof international visitors come from Asia and the Pacific.

Innovation

Regarding Schumpeter’s (1934) perception of innovation, the most widespreadand internationally accepted definition of innovation comes from the OsloManual (OECD, 2005:46), which broadly defines innovation as ‘the implemen-tation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process,a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices,workplace organization or external relations’. However, there is, in fact, ageneral lack of agreement regarding how innovation is defined (Hjalager, 2010),particularly when the term is applied to destinations and tourist firms. Rogers(2004), for instance, defines innovation as an idea, practice, or object that isperceived as being new by an individual or other unit of adoption.

According to Hjalager (2010), a national innovation system can be seen asa historically grown subsystem of a national economy, which influencesinnovation patterns and commercial innovation activities substantially within acountry. This concept emphasizes collaboration between firms, publicinstitutions and other actors taking part in the innovation system, with a viewto enhancing the innovation performance of the firms and the economy (Mattssonet al, 2005; Pinto and Guerreiro, 2010). In this section, this approach is appliedto China’s and Spain’s innovation systems by using the available and comparabledata from the list of science and technology indicators regularly published bythe OECD (2009, 2011), the information used by the WEF (2011b) to elaboratethe Global Competitiveness Report, and Chinese and Spanish innovationstrategies.

China, which is placed by the WEF (2011b) in the category of efficiency-driven economies, is now a key global player in research and development(R&D) in terms of absolute size, with gross domestic expenditure on R&Drepresenting 1.70% of total GDP in 2009 (see Table 1), which is slightly lowerthan the 1.90% achieved by the European Union. Even more importantly, sincethe year 2000, the percentage of GDP spent on R&D in China has increasedto almost ten times the amount spent by the European Union (88.9% and9.2%, respectively), and the Outline of the National Medium- and Long-termPlan for Science and Technology Development (2006–2020) aims to raise it to2.5% by 2020. The evolution of this indicator suggests the extraordinary effortmade by the Chinese government and the private sector to obtain competitiveadvantage in science and technology. Most R&D performed in China involvesexperimental development and the shares of basic and applied research are muchlower than in OECD countries (OECD, 2009).

Overall, Spain faces difficulties in strengthening its innovation performance.As shown in Table 1, in the year 2000, the gross domestic expenditure for R&Dover total GDP was almost the same as in China (0.9%). Nevertheless, the


Table 1. Main science and technology indicators, China and Spain, 2000–9.

2009 2005 2000 2009/05 2009/00

ChinaGross domestic expenditure on R&D(% of GDP) 1.7 1.3 0.9 28.8% 88.9%

Researchers (per 1,000 employed, full-timeequivalent) 1.5 1.5 1.0 0% 50.0%

Triadic patent families (number) 667 308 71 116.6% 839.4%Exports of ICT goods (US$ million) 356,301 234,086 44,135 52.2% 707.3%Number of telecommunication access paths(per 1,000 inhabitants) 85.1 58.8 18.2 44.7% 367.6%

SpainGross domestic expenditure on R&D(% of GDP) 1.4 1.1 0.91 23.2% 51.6%

Researchers (per 1,000 employed, full-timeequivalent) 7.0 5.7 4.7 22.8% 48.9%

Triadic patent families (number) 226 219 144 3.2% 56.9%Exports of ICT goods (US$ million) 5,428 7,197 5,355 -24.6% 1.4%Households with access to homecomputers (%)* 66.3 54.6 30.4 21.4% 118.1%

Households with access to theInternet (%)* 54.0 35.5 _ 52.1% _

Number of telecommunication accesspaths (per 1,000 inhabitants) 177.1 154.7 103.7 14.5% 70.8%

Note: *Data for China are unavailable.Source: OECD (2011).

growth rate of this indicator for the period 2000–2009 was much lower in thecase of Spain (51.6%). Yet, over the last decade, Spain has strengthened itsinnovation intensity relatively more than the average for the 27 European Unioncountries, narrowing the large gap that previously existed. As a result, for thelast decade, Spain has significantly increased the number of researchers, whoare the central element of the R&D system, by up to seven researchers perthousand employees in 2009, which is slightly higher than the 6.9 achievedby the European Union, and almost five times the 1.5 obtained by China (seeTable 1), which has decreased the number of government research institutes andimproved the quality of the researchers (OECD, 2009).

According to the WEF (2011b), China is ranked 29th in innovation whileSpain occupies the 39th position in a list of 142 countries. Major innovationchallenges for Spain are related to increasing the government’s procurement ofadvanced technological products, improving university-industry collaboration inR&D and promoting higher company spending on R&D. Nevertheless, Spainis better ranked (28th, while China is ranked 77th) in the table fortechnological readiness. This measures the agility with which an economyadopts existing technologies to enhance the productivity of its industries, withspecific emphasis on its capacity to lever fully information and communication


technologies (ICT) in daily activities and production processes in order toachieve increased efficiency and competitiveness (Table 1 shows data aboutaccess to home computers and the Internet, and the number of telecommuni-cation access paths). Even though China shows double-digit growth inpenetration rates of Internet use and mobile telephony, additional progressseems to be needed in the use of the Internet and the availability of the latesttechnologies.

Although patents and exports of ICT goods might not be appropriate formeasuring innovation in services and tourism, classical innovation literature hasprimarily been concerned with manufacturing industries and patent-basedindicators are generally used to measure innovation intensity (for example,Hjalager, 2010; OECD, 2011). To be specific, in 2009, China filed 667 triadicpatent families, which are defined as a set of patents registered in the threemost prestigious offices (see Table 1). This number is about three times thatachieved by Spain. When these patents can be expressed relative to totalpopulation, China has less than 0.5 patent families per million inhabitants,which is extremely low in comparison with the average of 30.3% in theEuropean Union. Moreover, although China has become the world’s largestexporter of ICT goods (see Table 1), it appears to be an assembler of ICTequipment, importing the electronic components for its production from nearbyAsian economies (OECD, 2009).

In line with what has been explained so far, innovation may also take placewithout R&D, especially in the case of services and tourism. Additionally, thehigh presence of those sectors in the Spanish economy makes patents andexports of ICT goods particularly inappropriate for measuring the overall outputof Spain’s innovation in comparison to China’s, whereby industries make ahigher contribution to national GDP. As the Spanish Innovation Strategy(Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, 2011) points out, the private servicessector records the largest percentage of innovative companies, followed byindustry, construction and agriculture. Another aspect of the innovation systemin Spain refers to the considerable difference in investment in R&Dacross Spanish regions, among which the two archipelagos (Canary Islandsand Balearic Islands) jointly receive approximately 40% of international visitorsto Spain, and are ranked in the last positions in terms of investment in R&Das a percentage of regional GDP. In the case of China, the OECD (2009)mentions the improvement in the quality and availability of indicators byregions and sectors, including services and tourism, as one of the challenges forChina.

The China National Tourism Administration was established as thegovernment’s tourism arm in 1982 and since then tourism research andinnovation has started to flourish (Scott and Ding, 2008). The Spanish tourisminnovation priorities and strategy are clearly formulated within the Horizon2020 Tourism Plan. This Plan also names SEGITTUR, a public organizationlinked to the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, as thevehicle to motivate innovation within the tourism industry, promote Spainabroad by using new technologies, develop tools for the tourism sector thatenable the integration of electronic commerce in Spanish companies, andfacilitate the commercialization of tourist companies that have on-line bookingsystems.


Tourism innovation research in China and Spain

Academic papers on innovation in the tourism sector were searched using theelectronic database Sciver Scopus, which is considered the world’s largestabstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and quality web sources,with almost 18,000 titles from 5,000 publishers worldwide. Three basic searchcriteria were defined: (i) the words used in the meta-search were ‘innovation’and ‘tourism’, and they were required to be in the title, abstract or keywords;(ii) the period of publication was 2000–2011, inclusive; and (iii) the area ofresearch selected was social science or human science. The initial search generated atotal of 221 articles in academic journals, from which 117 were finally chosenfor the analysis, having ruled out studies that were not related to the selectedtopic, and those presented in conferences.

An analysis of the number of publications per year in the period underreview (2000–2011) suggests the existence of a growth trend in thenumber of publications on tourism innovation, especially since the year 2006(see Figure 1). To be specific, the year that displayed the most publications was2010, with a total of 23 articles, followed by 2011, with 20, and 2009, with16. As a result, in the last three years 59 articles out of the 117 selected inthis study represented half the number of publications (50.4%). From 2006 to2008 the number of annual publications was almost the same, with 13, 12 and15 articles, respectively. During these three years, 40 academic studies werepublished on tourism innovation, which represented more than one third of thepublications (34.2%). The number of academic publications per year on tourisminnovation before 2006 was really low, the maximum being achieved in the year2005, with only five publications.

Figure 1. Number of academic publications on tourism innovation per year,2000–2011.


In an international context, Spanish tourist destinations were analysed in 16of the 117 studies that were selected in this research (13.7%), which positionsSpain as the destination with the highest presence in international academicliterature on tourism innovation. In fact, only three publications refer toChina, complemented by three studies on Hong Kong and six on Taiwan. Acomparative analysis of the innovation research on tourism innovation inChina (12 studies) and Spain (16 studies) will be presented in the nextsection.

Levels of analysis

According to Mattsson et al (2005), the existing literature on tourisminnovation can be grouped into three different levels of analysis: (i) the micro-level literature, which is concerned with how innovation activities are organizedand managed, and how innovative ideas are developed within the firm; (ii) themacro-level literature, which focuses on the effects of innovation on society andhow networks and national and regional innovation systems can contribute toinnovativeness; and (iii) the meso-level literature, which postulates that themain drive for innovation in tourism may come from learning and externalforces operating between the firm and the innovation systems.

As shown in Table 2, most of the research on tourism innovation in Chinaand Spain has been applied at the level of the firm. In fact, 17 out of the 28studies are related to innovation activities within tourist firms (10 out of the16 studies on Spain and seven out of the 12 studies on China). However, onlyfour studies were focused on tourist firms in general, three of which concernedtourist firms in the Balearic Islands, while another focused on tourist firms inTaiwan. The vast majority of the publications referred to just one type of touristfirm, particularly hotels (three studies with empirical evidence from hotels inthe Balearic Islands, one piece of research on hotels on Gran Canaria, one studyon hotels in Madrid, and another on international hotels in Taiwan), followedby travel agencies (two studies on China: Hong Kong and Taiwan), andtransport firms (one study on land transport in Valencia, and another on localairliners in Hong Kong). The rest of the studies referred to a theme park inValencia, the production of travel guidebooks in Hong Kong, and local foodsouvenir production in Taiwan.

At the macro level of innovation tourism analysis, a total of 10 studies outof the 28 were identified in this research (see Table 2), three of them focusingon the national innovation system in China and Taiwan, one on the nationalinnovation system in Spain, two on the regional innovation system in Bilbaoand the Canary Islands (Spain), and two on the regional innovation systems inthe Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve and the Anji district of ZheijangProvince (China). Two studies reported information on tourism networks inSpain (the rural tourism network in the Valle del Jerte, Extremadura, andtourism networks in Malaga). In addition, at the meso level of analysis, Sundboet al (2006) have conducted the only study, which aimed to analyse and explainthe innovative behaviour of tourist firms by using different methods andperspectives. These authors formulated an innovation tourism model on threelevels (firm, network and system) and generated empirical evidence from Spain(the Balearic Islands) and Denmark.


Table 2. Levels of analysis in research on tourism innovation in China and Spain, 2000–2011.

Level of analysis Studies on Spain Studies on China

Tourist firms Jacob et al (2003); Wang and Liao (2008)Jacob et al (2010);Jiménez-Zarco et al (2011)

Hotels Garau-Vadell and Orfila-Sintes (2008); Hu et al (2009)González and León (2001);Ignacio et al (2011);Jacob and Groizard (2007);Orfila-Sintes et al (2005)

Travel agencies – Cheng and Cho (2011);Hung et al (2011)

Theme parks Modrego et al (2000) –

Transport at destination Gimeno and Vila (2006) –

Local airliners – Doong et al (2008)

Travel guidebooks – Wong and Liu (2011)

Food souvenir producers – Huang et al (2009)

Network level Romeiro and Costa (2010); –Sorensen (2007)

Regional level Díaz-Pérez et al (2005); Marsden et al (2011);Gospodini (2004) Sun and Carter (2009)

National level Juaneda and Soler (2002) Chang and Hsu (2010);Huang et al (2011);Scott and Ding (2008)

Firm, network and Sundbo et al (2006) –system levels

Research topics and major conclusions

An overview of the objectives and methodologies dealt with in the 28publications on tourism innovation in China and Spain selected in this studysuggests the existence of eight different research topics, some of which havebeen examined in the same research (see Table 3). There are five research topicsthat have been analysed in both China and Spain: the description of specifictourism innovations, a demand analysis for innovation, knowledge managementand transfer, firm innovation intensity and types of innovation as well asdeterminants of firm innovation activity. The academic literature on tourisminnovation in Spain has also examined the following issues: the impact ofinnovation activity, firm organization of innovation activity, and innovationsystems as well as network innovation and contributions to firm innovation.The major results and conclusions for each of these topics will be describedbelow.

Description of specific tourism innovationsModrego et al (2000) analysed the process of locating a theme park in Valencia


Table 3. Research topics in the academic literature on tourism innovation in China andSpain, 2000–2011.

Research topic Studies on Spain and China

Description of specific tourism innovations Gimeno and Vila (2006); Gospodini (2004);Huang et al (2009); Marsden et al (2011);Modrego et al (2000); Sun and Carter (2009)

Demand analysis for innovation Díaz-Pérez et al (2005); Doong et al (2008);Huarng et al (2011); Wang and Liao (2008)

Knowledge management and transfer Chang and Hsu (2010); Hu et al (2009);Jacob et al (2010); Scott and Ding (2008)

Firm innovation intensity and types of Cheng and Cho (2011); Garau-Vadell andinnovation Orfila-Sintes (2008); González and León (2001);

Hu et al (2009); Hung et al (2011);Jacob et al (2003); Jacob et al (2010);Jacob and Groizard (2007); Jiménez-Zarco et al(2011); Orfila-Sintes et al (2005); Sundbo et al(2006)

Determinants of firm innovation activity Cheng and Cho (2011); Garau-Vadell andOrfila-Sintes (2008); González and León (2001);Hung et al (2011); Ignacio et al (2011); Jacob et al(2003); Jacob et al (2010); Jacob and Groizard(2007); Jiménez-Zarco et al (2011); Orfila-Sintes etal (2005); Sundbo et al (2006)

The impact of innovation activity Jacob et al (2003); Jacob et al (2010); Jacob andGroizard (2007); Jiménez-Zarco et al (2011);Orfila-Sintes et al (2005)

Firm organization of innovation activity Jacob et al (2003); Jacob et al (2010); Jacob andGroizard (2007); Orfila-Sintes et al (2005);Sundbo et al (2006)

Innovation systems and network innovation Juaneda and Soler (2002); Romeiro and Costa (2010);and contributions to firm innovation Sorensen (2007); Sundbo et al (2006)

as a case study of innovation in planning practice, due to the wide range oflocation criteria, private sector funding and public consultation. With regardto land transport, Gimeno and Vila (2006) concluded that different companiesin Valencia were not perceived by passengers as equally innovative because theydid not aim to differentiate themselves through innovation. In his study onBilbao, Gospodini (2004) found that in post-modern, multi-ethnic andmulticultural urban cities, innovative design of space can work efficiently asa place identity generator in the same ways in which built heritage has beenperforming. Sun and Carter (2009) described the modified governance to manageextreme visitation in the Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve, with aninnovative approach for tourism planning and environmental protection. To bespecific, they suggested the importance of an institutional culture shift thatincludes a constant evaluation of plans. Similarly, Marsden et al (2011) exploredecological modernization and urban-rural eco-development in the case of Anji


district, Zhejiang province. Another tourism innovation in China refers to thedevelopment of an innovative e-commerce model for local food souvenirproducers in Hualien (Huang et al, 2009), which should be adapted to visitors’purchasing behaviour.

Demand analysis for innovationDíaz-Pérez et al (2005) consider that the regional innovation system in theCanary Islands should include continuous market research to innovate on thetourist products that are most demanded by the segments and niches associatedwith the highest expenditure. An innovative forecasting model for tourismdemand in Taiwan was proposed by Huarng et al (2011), by considering thattourism demand tends to be imprecise and nonlinear, with drastic changes intime series. Doong et al (2008) found it necessary to adopt different andinnovative marketing strategies to attract first-time air travellers to HongKong. Most regions reported that interpersonal communication was the maincommunication channel but, in Australia, New Zealand, South Pacific andTaiwan, the most effective channel was mass media. More specifically, Wongand Liu (2011) analysed the perceived needs from travel guidebooks amongresidents in Hong Kong, concluding that reading travel guidebooks is the firstcomponent of travel and offers an insight into prospective experiences at thedestination, making it a major tool for marketing tourism innovation. Finally,Wang and Liao (2008) developed a model to explain behavioural intention touse mobile booking among users in Taiwan.

Knowledge management and transferScott and Ding (2008) examined and compared the characteristics of tourismresearch in China and Australia, and concluded that in the last few years, therehas been an improvement in the amount and breadth of tourism research inboth countries, and in the communication between government, academia andindustry. They also recommended additional research into the transfer ofacademic knowledge to the private sector, and on the different models ofknowledge transfer within and across countries. The results achieved by Changand Hsu (2010) are a valuable reference for innovation in tourism andhospitality in higher education in Taiwan. They specifically suggest the needfor designing a flexible and diversified multi-disciplinary education system, andreinforcing industry-university cooperation and technology transfer. At thefirm-level of analysis, Jacob et al (2010) concluded that technological environ-mental innovation among Balearic tourist firms is less important in maturedestinations. In addition, Hu et al (2009) found the existence of a significantdirect relationship between knowledge sharing and service innovationperformance within international hotels in Taiwan, with team culture moderatingthe relationship.

Firm innovation intensity and types of innovationEmpirical studies on Spain, most of them in the Balearic Islands, show thatinnovation is a common phenomenon among tourist firms (Jacob et al, 2003),particularly hotels, followed by restaurants and transport companies (Jacob andGroizard, 2007; Orfila-Sintes et al, 2005). Most of these studies suggest thatprocess, marketing and organization innovations are more common than


product innovation. In addition, non-technological innovations are verycommon, but technological innovations, especially those related to ICT, are stillmore frequent (for example, Jacob et al, 2003; Jacob and Groizard, 2007).Environmental innovations also play an important role in innovation activity(González and León, 2001; Jacob et al, 2010). Furthermore, Sundbo et al (2006)conclude that Spanish tourist firms are more innovative than those in Denmark.In the case of China, there is a lack of empirical evidence about innovationintensity and types of innovation among tourist firms. Recently, Cheng and Cho(2011) and Hung et al (2011) underlined the relevance and the increasedadoption of ICT and e-commerce in the travel agency industry in Hong Kongand Taiwan, respectively.

Determinants of firm innovation activityThere is widespread empirical evidence suggesting that the propensity ofSpanish tourist firms to innovation increases with firm size, linkage to acorporation, and age (Jacob et al, 2003; Garau-Vadell and Orfila-Sintes, 2008;Jacob and Groizard, 2007; Sundbo et al, 2006). Professionalism, managementattitudes towards innovation and new technologies, human resourcesqualifications and practices, marketing orientation, usage of ICT, linkage tonetworks and innovation systems, and critical external factors, have also beensuggested as determinants of innovation in Spanish tourist firms (Jacob andGroizard, 2007; Garau-Vadell and Orfila-Sintes, 2008; Ignacio et al, 2011;Jiménez-Zarco et al, 2011). For travel agencies in Hong Kong, the majordeterminants of ICT adoption are human resources attitudes towards ICT andpractices, including training and incentives (Cheng and Cho, 2011). In Taiwan,Hung et al (2011) found the following factors explaining travel agencies’adoption of e-commerce: compatibility of adopting innovative technology,centralization of the organization, organizational scale and correctness of websitetransmission.

The impact of innovation activityAlthough innovation is considered to be a critical factor for success andcompetitiveness in the tourism industry as a major source of cost savingand/or differentiation (Mayer, 2009), the empirical evidence on the positiveeffects of innovation on tourist firms is limited. In the case of Spanish touristfirms, Jacob et al (2003) identified the improvements in company image,customer satisfaction and profitability as having a major impact on innovation.Similarly, these firms mentioned the following objectives when planning tointroduce innovations (Jacob et al, 2003; Jacob et al, 2010): satisfying customerneeds, improving service quality, increasing and maintaining market share,improving the firm’s image, and being more competitive.

The empirical evidence on what kind of innovation provides what effect onimproving tourism competitiveness and sustainability is even more limited. Inthat regard, Jacob et al (2003) suggested that organizational and marketinginnovations seem to be important but it is necessary to gather additionalinformation regarding what the specific effects are on improving tourismperformance and competitiveness. In addition, Huang et al (2009) identifiedsome general positive effects of innovative e-commerce models sellingindigenous food products as tourist souvenirs, including major contributions to


the well-being of residents, an increase in the total number of sales and areduction in the operational costs. Regarding process innovations, Orfila-Sinteset al (2005) suggested that they could be a way to improve competitivenessand achieve competitive advantage of cost reduction and/or differentiation.Other empirical studies tend to conclude that the lodging industry employsprocess technology to improve employee productivity and enhance revenues, butthat limited strategic priority is given to improve guest services or minimizeenvironmental impact (Sundbo et al, 2006; Hjalager, 2010).

Firm organization of innovation activityOrfila-Sintes et al (2005) found that the hotel industry in the Balearic Islandsis a supplier-dominated sector that innovates by introducing R&D incorporatedtechnology rather than undertaking internal R&D activities. Furthermore, Jacobet al (2003) stated that major sources of information for tourist firm innovationin the Balearics are management, staff and clients. These results suggest thatinformation sources publicly available for patents are not appropriate fordescribing innovation activity in the tourism industry, and that there is a needfor additional theoretical frameworks and empirical research within tourist firmsin order to accurately measure and explain tourism innovation in Spain andChina.

Innovation systems and network innovation and contributions to firm innovationJuaneda and Soler (2002) analysed the Spanish strategy for the research,development and technological innovation of the tourism industry, andsuggested that there was a need to improve efforts in these activities. In general,strong and dense local and non-local networks seemed to contribute to firminnovativeness in the case of Spanish tourist firms (Sundbo et al, 2006). Theauthors also concluded that the formation of networks increases when theintensity of innovation grows, due to the firms’ need for external actors andknowledge of their innovation process. In their analysis of the rural tourismnetwork in the Valle del Jerte in Extremadura, Romeiro and Costa (2010) foundthat participative management, where resources (knowledge, information,capital) are shared, has facilitated innovation within the network and withinfirms. Moreover, the maintenance and improvement of this structure dependson the existence of a shared vision, the recognition of individual and collectivebenefits, and respect among firms. Nevertheless, Sorensen (2007) found thattourism networks in Malaga partly explained the innovative behaviour of touristfirms, in that local and non-local networks secured access to varied informationbenefits in order to sustain innovation, and concluded that the strength of therelations is the main factor determining the type of information distributed inthe network.

Conclusion

There are major differences between China and Spain based on the relativecontributions of tourism to their national economy and the stage of tourismdevelopment they have reached. Tourism is the main engine of the Spanisheconomy and at the same time has reached a stage of maturity, while tourismin China now shows high growth rates and represents an opportunity for


economic diversification. As a result, Spanish innovation needs are more focusedon improving tourist competitiveness and expanding the range of touristexperiences and segments. China, however, might be more interested ininnovation activities contributing to the development of the tourist offer throughinnovation, paying special attention to efficiency, service quality and sustainability.

The peculiarities of the Chinese and Spanish tourism models were alsoexamined in this study, and what is more they could be taken into considerationfor designing strategic alliances between the two countries. This could facilitateknowledge transfer and joint research as well as innovation in a number ofissues, including marketing and market research (for example, while Spain hasaccumulated knowledge of the European market that might be of interest toChina in terms of attracting European visitors, China is well positioned in theAsian and Pacific market). Other such issues are tourism and transport infra-structure, sustainable tourism and environmental management, quality service,tourism and hospitality management education, and design and promotion oftourist experiences related to sun and beach tourism, cultural tourism, ruraltourism and business tourism.

With regard to innovation, China has become one of the world’s largestinvestors in R&D and contributes significantly to the creation and trading ofinnovative products, processes and services, particularly assembling ICTequipment. The trend in Spain has been one of convergence with the EuropeanUnion countries, but it still has to face major innovation challenges, includingadditional public and private investments in R&D, and strengtheninguniversity-industry collaboration. The ability of Spain to adopt existingtechnologies, including ICT, to enhance productivity is greater than that of China.

Most of the data and information on innovation in China and Spain refersto R&D (expenditure on R&D, researchers, and patents), while most of theinnovation activities in tourism may take place without R&D (for example,Orfila-Sintes et al, 2005; Hjalager, 2010). As the Spanish Innovation Strategypoints out, the private services sector records the highest percentage ofinnovative companies. Although the two Spanish archipelagos, which jointlyreceive approximately 40% of international visitors to Spain, are among theregions with the lowest relative investment on R&D, research on tourisminnovation in Spain, most of which has been conducted in the Balearic Islands,concludes that innovation is a common phenomenon in tourist firms,particularly with regard to hotels, restaurants and transport companies.

This review of the academic research on tourism innovation in China andSpain since the year 2000 leads us to draw five additional conclusions. Firstly,process, marketing and organization innovations are more frequent than productinnovations. Secondly, the hotel industry in Spain innovates essentially byintroducing R&D incorporated technology rather than by undertaking internalR&D activities. Thirdly, while Spanish tourist destinations have been the mostwidely studied internationally, the empirical evidence about Chinese tourisminnovation characteristics is limited to: intensity and types of innovation,organization of innovation activity, the impact of innovation, and tourismnetworks. Fourthly, most of the innovation research has been undertaken at thelevel of the firm, particularly within hotels and travel agencies. Finally, thereare five research topics that are dominant in the literature on tourism innovationin China and Spain: description of specific tourism innovations, demand analysis


for innovation, knowledge management and transfer, firm innovation intensityand types of innovation.

Based on the above conclusions, a major recommendation for future researchis to increase and improve empirical research on tourism innovation in Chinaand Spain, including empirical studies comparing tourism innovativeness inboth countries, in general, and, by types of firms and tourist products. Forexample, hotels and sun and beach tourism have the highest presence in theliterature on tourism innovation in Spain. In line with Hjalager (2010), theimportance and growth of tourism in the world economy, together with thepeculiarities of tourism innovation, could also justify the design andadministration of an international survey to collect data from tourist firms.

A further recommendation is the development of a greater number oftheoretical frameworks that aim to describe innovation activities in the tourismindustry. In this way, possible determinants and consequences of innovation canbe identified by taking into consideration the distinctive characteristics oftourism in comparison with other economic industries, including theassociations between firm innovativeness, tourism networks and national,regional and destination innovation systems. To be specific, it would bedesirable to develop additional empirical research that aims to find what kindof innovation provides what effect on improving tourism competitiveness andsustainability. In that regard, widely accepted classifications of innovationscould be used to understand better tourism innovation in China and Spain.

For instance, Albernathy and Clark (1985) developed a categorization ofinnovation in four types by applying the concept of transilience (the capacity ofan innovation to influence the established systems of production and marketing):architectural innovation, which uses new concepts in technology to forge newmarket linkages; innovation in the market niche phase, which finds new marketopportunities through the use of existing technology, although the effect onproduction and technical systems is to conserve and strengthen establisheddesigns; regular innovation, which involves change that builds on establishedtechnical and production competence and is applied to existing markets andcustomers; and revolutionary innovation, which disrupts and renders establishedcompetence obsolete, yet is applied to existing markets and customers.

Another typology of innovation that could also be applied in the tourismindustry distinguishes between sustaining innovation and disruptive innovation(Christensen, 2003). While sustaining innovation improves the performancethat mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued, disruptiveinnovation brings to a market a very different value proposition from the onepreviously available and which has other features that a few fringe, and generallynew, customers value. According to that author, more technological advancesin a given industry are sustaining in character, but successful disruptivetechnologies, typically cheaper, simpler, smaller and more convenient to use,could create new competitors and leaders. By bringing together the categori-zation of sustaining innovation and disruptive innovation (Christensen, 2003),as well as the types of innovation based on scope (product, process, marketingand organizational/institutional innovation) (Hjalager, 2010; OECD, 2005),eight categories of tourism innovations are identified. Table 4 shows examplesof major innovations in each category, which could be further assessedempirically.


Table 4. Categories and examples of tourism innovations.

Sustaining innovation Disruptive innovation

Product – Innovation in single qualities of the – Low-cost carriers and hotels.tourist enterprise product and – Theme parks, hotels, restaurantsservice (hotel room, gastronomy, and cruises.catering, animation, etc). – Niche hotels specially valued by

– Customized comfort and service. niche markets (boutique hotels or– Environmental measures affecting unique small hotels, design hotels,

the product. green hotels, etc).– New facilities and equipment for – Fast-food restaurants.

leisure (spa, golf resort, gym, Internet – Tourist packages and all-inclusivecentre, etc). packages.

– Introduction of complementary – Online travel agencies and newleisure offer (sports, wellness treatments, intermediaries.cooking courses, art exhibitions in hotels, – Social tourism organizations.etc). – Introduction of new tourism-

– New facilities and equipment for business related businesses and types ofand meetings (computer in the room, travel and tourism offer (spacebusiness centre, etc). tourism, gay tourism, bird-

– Innovations in the interior design and watching tourism, etc).architecture.

Process – Innovations in food maintenance, – Use of ICT in operations (internalpreparation and service (sensor-controlled operations, relationship withcooking and flavouring methods, health suppliers and intermediaries, etc).and nutrition innovations, etc). – Automatic check-in and check-out.

– Innovations in reception, laundry, – Automation using robots.cleaning, gardening and maintenance. – Intelligent buildings (hotels,

– Raw material control systems with restaurants, museums, etc).infrared technology. – Introduction of touch-sensitive

– Innovations in safety and security machines, virtual reality andsystems. Internet terminals in discotheques,

– Technologies that ensure the mobility restaurants, hotels, ski resorts,of people, luggage, goods and museums and other touristinformation (iris-recognition, X-raying, attractions.etc). – Computerized reservation systems.

– Crowd control technologies in tourist – Radically new food preparationattractions. methods.

– Environmental process innovations(energy consumption, water reuse, etc).

– Standardization and consistency ofprocesses.


Table 4 continued.

Sustaining innovation Disruptive innovation

Marketing – Innovative sales promotions. – Customer loyalty programmes.– Joint marketing campaigns with – Customer relationship

intermediaries, competitors, suppliers management.and non-tourism industries. – Internet and mobile

– Cultivation of relationships with social communications.media and journalists reporting on – Websites and online information,major attractions of destinations and booking and/or sales.tourist enterprises. – User-generated content and usage

– Creation of a guest service management of social media to voice tourists’department. opinions.

– Introduction of an automated call centre. – Use of online travel agencies and– TPVs with touch-sensitive and portable intermediaries specializing in

screens. specific types of travel and– Use of additional distribution and tourism.

commercialization channels. – Brand repositioning andco-production of brandscombining the offer of touristenterprises and experiences (wine,gastronomy, wellness, etc).

– Entry into emerging markets anddestinations.

Organi- – Managerial innovations for employees: – Tourism clusters and networks.zational well-planned training and socialization, – Global distribution systems.and building team spirit, managing the hearts – Franchising, licensinginstitut- of employees and including the human arrangements and managementional touch in the product, promotion from contracts.

within, employee satisfaction. – Joint ventures and other strategic– Quality management and control. alliances with suppliers,– Environmental quality management. intermediaries and competitors.– Cost control. – Vertical integration.– Decentralization of operations. – Time-sharing.– Information systems for directors. – Revenue management.– Integrated management systems.

Source: Own elaboration following Christensen (2003); Gospodini (2004); Hjalager (2010); Jacob et al(2003); Jacob and Groizard (2007); Jiménez-Zarco et al (2011); Mayer (2009); OECD (2005); Orfila-Sintes et al (2005); and WTTC (2011).

References

Albernathy, W.J., and Clark, K.B. (1985), ‘Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction’,Research Policy, Vol 14, pp 3–22.

Chang, T.-Y., and Hsu, J.-M. (2010), ‘Development framework for tourism and hospitality in highervocational education in Taiwan’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol 9,No 1, pp 101–109.

Cheng, S., and Cho, V. (2011), ‘An integrated model of employees’ behavioral intention towardinnovative information and communication technologies in travel agencies’, Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Research, Vol 35, No 4, pp 488–510.

Christensen, C.M. (2003), The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harper Collins Press, London.


Díaz-Pérez, F.M., Bethencourt-Cejas, M., and Álvarez-González, J.A. (2005), ‘The segmentation ofCanary Island tourism markets by expenditure: implications for tourism policy’, TourismManagement, Vol 26, pp 961–964.

Doong, H.-S., Wang, H.-Ch., and Law, R. (2008), ‘An initial investigation of the effect ofadvertisement and word-of-mouth on first-time visitors to Hong Kong’, Journal of Air TransportManagement, Vol 14, pp 159–161.

Garau-Vadell, J.B., and Orfila-Sintes, F. (2008), ‘Internet innovation for external relations inthe Balearic hotel industry’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol 23, No 1, pp 70–80.

Gimeno, C., and Vila, N. (2006), ‘Competitive group analysis of public transport services’, Journalof Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol 21, No 1, pp 13–29.

González, M., and León, C.J. (2001), ‘The adoption of environmental innovations in the hotelindustry of Gran Canaria’, Tourism Economics, Vol 7, No 2, pp 177–190.

Gospodini, A. (2004), ‘Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: built heritage andinnovative design’, Journal of Urban Design, Vol 9, No 2, pp 225–248.

Hall, C.M., and Williams, A.M. (2008), Tourism and Innovation, Routledge, London.Hjalager, A.-M. (2010), ‘A review of innovation research in tourism’, Tourism Management, Vol 31,

pp 1–12.Hu, M.-L.M., Horng, J.-S., and Sun, Y.-H.Ch. (2009), ‘Hospitality teams: knowledge sharing and

service innovation performance’, Tourism Management, Vol 30, pp 41–50.Huang, T.-Ch., Lee, T.J., and Lee, K.-H. (2009), ‘Innovative e-commerce model for food tourism

products’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 11, pp. 595–600.Huarng, K.-H., Yu, T.H.-K., and Solé-Parellada, F. (2011), ‘An innovative regime switching model

to forecast Taiwan tourism demand’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol 31, No 10, pp 1603–1612.Hung, Y.-Ch., Yang, Y.-L., Yang, H.-E., and Chuang, Y.-H. (2011), ‘Factors affecting the adoption

of e-commerce for the tourism industry in Taiwan’, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 16,No 1, pp 105–119.

Ignacio, J., Fernández, P., Cala, A.S., and Domecq, C.F. (2011), ‘Critical external factors behindhotels’ investments and technology in emerging urban destinations’, Tourism Economics, Vol 17,No 2, 339–357.

Jacob, M., and Groizard, J.L. (2007), ‘Technology transfer and multinationals: the case of Balearichotel chains’ investments in two developing economies’, Tourism Management, Vol 28, pp 976–992.

Jacob, M., Florido, C., and Aguiló, E. (2010), ‘Environmental innovation as a competitiveness factorin the Balearic Islands’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16, No 3, pp 755–764.

Jacob, M., Tintoré, J., Aguiló, E., Bravo, A., and Mulet, J. (2003), ‘Innovation in the tourist sector:results from a pilot study in the Balearic Islands’, Tourism Economics, Vol 9, No 3, pp 279–295.

Jiménez-Zarco, A.I., Martínez-Ruiz, M.P., and Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2011), ‘Key service innovationdrivers in the tourism sector: empirical evidence and managerial implications’, Service Business,Vol 5, pp 339–360.

Juaneda, C., and Soler, M.A. (2002), ‘Action to promote research and development (R and D)activities in tourism within Spain and the EU’, Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism andHospitality Research, Vol 13, No 1, pp 86–92.

Marsden, T., Yu, L., and Flynn, A. (2011), ‘Exploring ecological modernization and urban-rural eco-developments in China: the case of Anji County’, Town Planning Review, Vol 82, No 2, pp 195–224.

Mattsson, J., Sundbo, J., and Fussing-Jensen, Ch. (2005), ‘Innovation systems in tourism: the rolesof attractors and scene-takers’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 12, No 3, pp 357–381.

Mayer, M. (2009), ‘Innovation as a success factor in tourism: empirical evidence from WesternAustrian cable-car companies’, Erdkunde, Vol 63, No 2, pp 123–139.

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (2011), Spanish Innovation Strategy, MCI, Madrid.Modrego, F., Domenech, V., Llorens, V., Torner, J.M., Martínez, S., Abellán, M., and Manuel, J.R.

(2000), ‘Locating a large theme park addressed to the tourist market: the case of Benidorm’,Planning Practice and Research, Vol 15, No 4, pp 385–395.

OECD (2011), OECD Factbook 2011: Science and Technology, OECD, Paris.OECD (2009), Measuring China’s Innovation System: National Specificities and International Comparisons,

OECD, Paris.OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, OECD, Paris.


Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespí-Cladera, R., and Martínez-Ros, E. (2005), ‘Innovation activity in the hotelindustry: evidence from Balearic Islands’, Tourism Management, Vol 26, pp 851–865.

Pinto, H., and Guerreiro, J. (2010), ‘Innovation regional planning and latent dimensions: the caseof the Algarve region’, Annals of Regional Science, Vol 44, pp 315–329.

Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London.Rogers, M. (2004), ‘Networks, firm size and innovation’, Small Business Economics, Vol 22, pp 141–

153.Romeiro, P., and Costa, C. (2010), ‘The potential of management networks in the innovation and

competitiveness of rural tourism: a case study on the Valle del Jerte (Spain)’, Current Issues inTourism, Vol 13, No 1, pp 75–91.

Ronningen, M. (2010), ‘Innovative processes in a nature-based tourism case: the role of a tour-operator as the driver of innovation’, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol 10, No 3,pp 190–206.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit,Interest and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Scott, N., and Ding, P. (2008), ‘Management of tourism research knowledge in Australia and China’,Current Issues in Tourism, Vol 11, No 6, pp 514–528.

Sorensen, F. (2007), ‘The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism’, Tourism Geographies,Vol 9, No 1, pp 22–48.

Sun, D., and Carter, R.W. (2009), ‘Extreme seasons and extreme visitation: the case of ChangbaiMountain Biosphere Reserve’, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 14, No 1, pp 1–16.

Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., and Sorensen, F. (2006), ‘The innovative behaviour of tourism firms– comparative studies of Denmark and Spain’, Research Policy, Vol 36, pp 88–106.

Wang, Y.-S., and Liao, Y.-W. (2008), ‘Understanding individual adoption of mobile booking service:an empirical investigation’, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Vol 11, No 5, pp 603–605.

Wong, Ch.K.S., and Liu, F.Ch.G. (2011), ‘A study of pre-trip use of travel guidebooks by leisuretravelers’, Tourism Management, Vol 32, pp 616–628.

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2011a), The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011: Beyondthe Downturn, WEF, Geneva.

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2011b), The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012, WEF, Geneva.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2012), UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, Vol 10, No 1, WTO,

Madrid.World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2011), Tourism Satellite Account Research, WTTC,

Geneva.

tourism and innovation in china and spain: a review of innovation research on tourism

Documents