Innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism

Abstract

Drawing on primary data from a consumer survey (N = 2000), this study demonstrates a clear growth potential in rural tourism in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which is, however, hampered by innovation gaps. At the conceptual level, the study offers a model that identifies the following five innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism: (1) the portfolio gap, (2) the policy departmentalization gap, (3) the knowledge gap, (4) the change motivation gap and (5) the resource interpretation gap. At the empirical level, the study shows that rural tourism has its basis in a dichotomy between authenticity and modernization. New and prospective customer groups, particularly from Germany, demand more diversified and higher quality rural tourism products than current groups, for example, in relation to outdoor opportunities, leisure festivals and cultural activities. With rural assets, it is possible to expand the portfolio without compromising the rural image. Rural tourism enterprises and destinations remain slow movers in terms of innovation endeavours, and the study indicates that the discrepancies between 2 potential customers' service expectations and their spending patterns can partially explain this phenomenon. The merit of the innovation gap model is that this model identifies potential rebalancing actions at both enterprise and destination levels.

International lifestyle immigrants and their contributions to rural tourism innovation: Experiences from Sweden's far north

“…Tourism is often presented as one of the few economic alternatives for these communities, despite its potential to stimulate economic rejuvenation and regional development being questioned in academic circles (Hall, 2007;Müller & Jansson, 2007). Peripheral tourism industries tend to be constrained by issues around limited entrepreneurship, a lack of critical mass and diversity of businesses and products, low levels of knowledge and skills, and weak institutional structures that stifle innovation and new development outcomes (Hjalager et al, 2017;Carson & Carson, 2011;Hall, 2007).…”

“…Innovation in a peripheral tourism context continues to be a quite under-researched field, with many studies pointing towards the challenges and barriers for innovation rather than the facilitators (Hjalager, 2017;Carson & Carson, 2011). On the one hand, this reflects the general academic discourse about innovation capacity of peripheral areas, suggesting that these environments are fundamentally disadvantaged in their ability to develop a culture of innovation due to the small and sparse nature of settlements, a lack of critical mass of firms and organisations, and 'institutional thinness' limiting the formation of strong clusters and networks of interaction (Doloreux & Dionne, 2008;Virkkala, 2007).…”

Tourism Diversification and Its Implications for Smart Specialisation

“…The diversification potential is often restricted by the entrepreneurs' inability to capitalise on opportunities [101]. Tourism is often located in attractive regions with concentrations of lifestyle entrepreneurs, whose non-growth orientation and non-economic motivation constrain the development of tourism destinations [102,103].…”

Tourism Investment Gaps in Poland

“…Moreover, it responds to the current debate on overtourism, as it indicates investment gaps that can be used in tourism policy and tourism development planning. Finally, it opens a series of new avenues for potential research, for example, searching for a mechanism and conditions for structural changes in tourism, especially the role of diffusion of innovations, innovation gaps in rural tourism [53], cooperation networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems that are conducive to investment.…”