1. bookVolume 11 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2182-4924
First Published
30 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

The Effect of Value Co-Creation on Behavioural Intention and Satisfaction with Tourism Resources in Lagos State, Nigeria

Published Online: 29 Jun 2022
Volume & Issue: Volume 11 (2021) - Issue 2 (December 2021)
Page range: 149 - 158
Received: 04 Aug 2020
Accepted: 09 Mar 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2182-4924
First Published
30 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Introduction

Value co-creation as a concept states that “consumption is co-produced by a manufacturer and its consumers” (Wang, Hsich, & Yen 2011). It is related to the fact that the time and effort that are invested by tourists into their travel plans pose a value to them that differs from value gained from other goods and services (Prebensen, Vitterso, & Dahl, 2013). Value co-creation is evolving as the modern frontier and leading strategy in the marketing world and is gaining relevance as one of the most provocative, paradigm-shifting, and practical concepts available in the field (Fisher & Smith, 2011). Marketers and manufacturers are beginning to identify the merits and difficulties of involving consumers in their marketing process (Cova & Dalli, 2009), which is not surprising as consumer participation and co-creation processes can improve destination business performance and value derived by the consumers (Osei-Frimpong, Wilson & Owusu-Frimpong, 2015).

Generally, there is a belief system that the greater the amount of time and effort a tourist puts into an experience, the greater the positive experience value gained by the tourist (Prebensen, Vitterso & Dahl, 2013). The idea of co-creation is to set free and combine the creative active energies and efforts of diverse tourists, so that it consequently forms both their individual tourism experience and additionally the economics of the tourism destination that provided it (Gouillart, 2010).

Recently, the roles of consumers have been understood to shift from passive recipients of goods and services to active participants in tourism destination activities (Fournier & Avery, 2011). While the traditional firm-centric view is centralized on the total control of destinations, experience co-creation involves consumers as active participants as makers of their own experiences due to personalised and direct collaborations and involvement with the tourism destination (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b). Yang and Mattila (2016) opined that the terms of value and experience are related, which is due to the fact that consumers ascribe value to experiences and also that the main results are the experiences co-created by consumers and destinations so as to obtain value (Suntikul & Jachna, 2016).

Specifically, tourists become more active participants in deciding what to do during the travel, interacting with destination employees, influencing other tourists, and deciding how to satisfy their personality and the needs associated with it (Buonincontri, Morvillo, Okumus & Van Niekerk, 2017). Tourism destinations have now identified the tourists’ power and the relevance of co-opting a demand-centric strategy in which co-creation is the main factor, providing the capacity to create value and positively influence the competitive advantage of the destination in the market (Mathis, Kim, Uysal, Sirgy & Prebensen, 2016).

There has been growing attention on consumers playing the part of resource integrators in modern literatures (Navarro, Andreu & Cervera, 2014; Prebensen Kim & Uysal, 2016). According to these researchers, tourists participate in co-creating value with destination employees, other tourists, and the destination setting (Prebensen & Foss, 2011; Verhoef, Reinartz & Krafft, 2010). Tourists who actively partake in creating value in the consumption process are identified as more satisfied than passive tourists (Navarro, Llinares & Garzon, 2016). Active participation has been shown to include physical and psychological participation (Bertella, 2014). Physical participation involves movements of parts of the body (Campos, Mendes, Oom do Valle & Scott, 2016), while psychological participation involves a tourist's cognitive actions, such as learning, collecting, and sharing information, and knowledge retention (Yi & Gong, 2013). Both co-creation patterns are considered to result in feelings such as excitement, joy, and contentment (Holbrook, 2000).

Many researchers all over the world have described involvement as enduring because the level of importance a tourist ascribes to a leisure activity depends on personal values, which are less influenced by variations induced by situational stimuli (Kyle & Chick, 2004). Also, Hollebeek, Srivastava and Chen (2016) described value co-creation as the result of tourist involvement in destination activities, previous researches have revealed that value co-creation is a continuous process where destination service providers and tourists interact with each other and as a result, value is co-created (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Though the important role of tourists in value creation processes has been shown, there is need for more knowledge on how and where value is created in the tourism consumption processes (Rihova, Buhalis, Moital & Gouthro 2015). This study thus assesses how active participation as a value co-creation process influences tourists’ satisfaction.

Literature review

The potential for consumers to undertake a participative role was birthed in the 1970s by authors such as Lovelock and Young (1979) and improved upon throughout the 1980s and ‘90s in collaboration with the development of the services marketing field (Bettencourt, 1997; Bowen & Jones, 1986; Larsson & Bowen, 1989; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Consumer participation study is enormously represented by three streams (Dong, Evans & Zou, 2008). The first of these is an economic rationale for improving the extent of consumer participation which hinges on economic profits by adopting consumers as substitutes for labour (Larsson & Bowen, 1989; Lovelock & Young, 1979), an approach which was faulted by Bendapudi and Leone (2003), who identified the need to assess the effect of participation on consumer satisfaction.

The second stream explores the management of consumers, the utilization of similar techniques of employee management (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003), and the potential profits of this approach on the perception of service quality through improved socialization (Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall & Inks, 2001). Schneider and Bowen (1995) identified how firms that encourage consumer involvement consider the consumers ‘as part of the firm's human resources’.

The third stream focuses on motivation to co-create. A greater percentage of this stream focuses on self-service technologies (Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom & Brown, 2005; Reinders, Dabholkar & Frambach, 2008) and the relevance of consumers’ readiness variables and motivational traits that instigate trial. Essentially, studies on consumer participation reports that increase and improve consumers’ level of participation will make the consumers more interested and involved in the co-creation process, thereby improving their loyalty (Dong et al., 2008; Wilson Zeithaml, Bitner & Gremler, 2008).

Tourists can no longer be described as passive recipients of products or services but rather as proactive participants in the value co-creation process (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a). This assertion projects tourist involvement as a strategy in enhancing destination performance, superiority, profitability and competitiveness in the tourism market (Hollebeek, 2011b). This assertion also births co-creation experience, innovative opportunities, tourist satisfaction and recommendations, tourist loyalty (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013) and improved learning outcomes (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Tourist involvement in destination activities thus helps to predict their behaviours (Brodie & Hollebeek, 2011), and this has attracted the attention of many researchers and destination managers all over the world.

Materials and method

The study was carried out in Lekki Conservation Centre, which lies between latitude 6°27′N and longitude 3°23′E, and Omu resort, lying between latitude 6°49′N and longitude 3°75′E, Lagos state, Nigeria. A total number of 384 visitors were sampled for this study; these responses were obtained through the Krecjie and Morgan (1970) sampling method. The study made use of questionnaires that were distributed using the accidental sampling method. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section one captured the visitors’ sociodemographic characteristics; section two tackled visitors’ visitation characteristics; section three assessed visitors’ active participation in site activities; while section four assessed visitors’ behavioural intention due to active participation. This study made sure the questions were clear and understandable to tourists by using relevant literatures in previous value co-creation studies such as Mathis, Kim, Uysal, Sirgy and Prebensen (2016) and Peterson, Park and Seligman (2005) to construct variables in this study. Data was obtained across the sites from January to July, 2019.

The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS 21 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Descriptive statistics such as tables (frequencies and percentages), means, and standard deviation were used to present the results, while inferential statistics such as Spearman correlation were used to test for relationship between satisfaction derived from value co-creation and behavioural intention of the visitors towards the sites. Logistic regression was used to obtain sociodemographic and travel determinants of active participation and T-test and ANOVA were used to determine sociodemographic differences in satisfaction with co-creation and overall satisfaction with the sites.

Results

Findings, as shown in Table 1, revealed that the majority of the visitors were males (53.1%), were within age range of 26–35 years (36.7%), and were married (49.2%). Also, the highest percentage of the visitors had tertiary education (84.9%), were earning high income (above 400,000) (35.7%) and were working in the private sector (33.1%). A majority of the visitors were Nigerians (95.6%).

Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Gender
Male 204 53.1
Female 180 46.9
Age
<18 25 6.5
18–25 128 33.3
26–35 141 36.7
36–45 78 20.3
>45 12 3.1
Marital status
Single 188 49.0
Married 189 49.2
Divorced 6 1.6
Widowed 1 0.3
Educational Background
Primary Education 3 0.8
Secondary Education 55 14.3
Tertiary Education 326 84.9
Income (₦)
<100,000 90 23.4
100,000–199,000 61 15.9
200,000–299,000 65 16.9
300,000–399,000 31 8.1
>400,000 137 35.7
Occupation
Civil Servant 81 21.1
Self-employed 100 26.0
Student 75 19.5
Private Sector 127 33.1
Unemployed 1 0.3
Nationality
Nigerian 367 95.6
Foreigner 17 4.4

Source: Field survey, 2019

Table 2 shows that the highest percentage of the visitors (79.7%) were first-time visitors, the majority of the visitors made the trip with their family (38%), and they mostly visited for pleasure/holiday (90.1%). Also, 78.6% of the visitors organized the trip independently.

Visit characteristics

VARIABLES FREQUENCY(N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Frequency of Visit
First time 306 79.7
Two times 55 14.3
More than three times 23 6.0
Travel Group
Alone 32 8.3
With Spouse 62 16.1
With Family 146 38.0
With Friends 109 28.4
With tour group 35 9.1
Purpose of Travel
Pleasure/Holiday 346 90.1
Business 1 0.3
Convention/Meeting 1 0.3
Official 4 1.0
Educational trip 32 8.3
Trip arrangement
Independent 302 78.6
On a package 82 21.4

Source: Field survey, 2019

Table 3 reveals that the highest percentage of the visitors were active participants at site activities (80.5%). The visitors also claimed they enjoyed such activities (88.3%) while affirming active participation made the destination more interesting (97.7%). Also, the majority of the visitors were highly involved in the site activities (68.8%).

Active participation by respondents

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Did you actively participate in activities at this site?
Yes 309 80.5
No 75 19.5
Did you enjoy such activities?
Yes 339 88.3
No 45 11.7
Does active participation make the destination more interesting?
Yes 375 97.7
No 9 2.3
Level of active participation in destination activities
Not involved 19 4.9
Moderately involved 101 26.3
Highly involved 264 68.8

Source: Field survey, 2019

Behavioural intention of visitors

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%) MEAN ST. DEV.
I am satisfied having actively participated
Strongly Agree 237 61.7 4.48 0.768
Agree 105 27.3
Neutral 35 9.1
Disagree 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 3 0.8
I am willing to pay more to actively participate in activities at this site
Strongly Agree 221 57.6 4.29 1.017
Agree 96 25.0
Neutral 35 9.1
Disagree 23 6.0
Strongly Disagree 9 2.3
I will recommend this site and activities to others
Strongly Agree 263 68.5 4.62 0.644
Agree 101 26.3
Neutral 16 4.2
Disagree 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 2 0.5
I will revisit this site
Strongly Agree 270 70.3 4.62 0.679
Agree 91 23.7
Neutral 16 4.2
Disagree 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 2 0.5
Level of satisfaction with this site
Very satisfied 186 48.4 4.39 0.722
Moderately satisfied 178 46.4
Neutral 9 2.3
Slightly dissatisfied 7 1.8
Very dissatisfied 4 1.0

Source: Field survey, 2019

Furthermore, the visitors affirmed that they were satisfied with their active participation (mean=4.48); they also affirmed they are willing to pay more to be an active participant in site activities (mean=4.29) while claiming they would recommend the site and activities to others (mean=4.62) and revisit the site (mean=4.62). They also affirmed they were satisfied with the site activities as it gave room for their active participation (mean=4.39).

Table 5 reveals that there is a significant relationship between satisfaction with active participation and willingness to pay more to be involved in such activities (r=0.445, p<0.01), recommending the site to others (r=0.455, p<0.01), revisiting the site (r=0.453, p<0.01), and level of satisfaction with the site (r=0.269, p<0.01). All correlations show that as satisfaction with active participation is increasing, positive behavioural intention is increasing too.

Relationship between behavioural intention and satisfaction with active participation

Variables r value
I am willing to pay more to actively participate in activities at this site 0.445**
I will recommend this site and activities to my friends 0.455**
I will revisit this site 0.453**
Level of satisfaction with this site 0.269**

P<0.01, Source: Field survey, 2019

Table 6 presents the result of the model explaining active participation. The likelihood test reveals that the logistic regression model is significant with Chi-square statistics of 34.415. This indicates that the sociodemographic and travel characteristics of the respondents were significantly related to their active participation in tourism activities. Additionally, the model predictions are correct at 85.5%, which indicates that the explanatory variables can be used to determine the dependent variable, that is, active participation. Frequency of visit (p<0.05), purpose of travel (p<0.01) and trip arrangement (p<0.05) are statistically significant with active participation. The final model fit indicated that 13.7% of variation in active participation can be explained by the logistic model.

Determinants of Active Participation

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Gender .082 .290 .081 .776 1.086
Age .211 .222 .898 .343 1.234
Marital Status −.772 .399 3.732 .053 .462
Education −.614 .353 3.016 .082 .541
Nationality .962 .646 2.221 .136 2.617
Residence .163 .406 .160 .689 1.177
Religion .135 .298 .206 .650 1.145
Income −.024 .105 .054 .816 .976
Occupation .013 .123 .011 .915 1.013
Frequency of Visit .442 .222 3.986 .046 1.557*
Travel Group −.241 .144 2.815 .093 .786
Purpose of Travel −.643 .220 8.548 .003 .525**
Trip arrangement .850 .353 5.804 .016 2.340*
Constant −.659 1.450 .206 .650 .517
Correct prediction (%) 80.5%
Final Model Fit
−2 Log Likelihood 344.850
Nagelkerke R Square 0.137

P<0.05,

P<0.01

T-test and ANOVA were computed to determine if there were significant differences in satisfaction with co-creation and overall satisfaction based on the sociodemographic variables. As shown in Table 7, there was significant difference in satisfaction with co-creation based on nationality (p<0.05), age (P<0.05), and education (p<0.05). There was also significant difference in overall satisfaction based on gender (p<0.01), nationality (p<0.01), residence (p<0.01), age (p<0.01), and marital status (p<0.01).

Sociodemographic difference in co-creation satisfaction and overall satisfaction

Co-creation satisfaction Overall satisfaction
Sociodemographic variable t value t value
Gender −0.303 3.563**
Nationality 2.336* 3.234**
Residence 1.944 3.053**
F value F value
Age 2.427* 8.810**
Marital status 1.048 4.485**
Education 3.349* 1.656
Religion 2.488 1.628
Income 2.052 1.056
Occupation 1.583 2.203

P<0.05,

P<0.01

Discussion

Findings from this study reveal that more males visit tourist sites than females, and they are youthful, employed, and with tertiary education. This shows that they are energetic enough to actively participate in site activities and are sufficiently economically stable to patronize the sites, as also opined by Ogunbodede (2012). A higher percentage of the visitors were first-time visitors to these sites, which is in line with Ma et al. (2018), who reported a majority of the respondents of Dinghushan National Nature Reserve as first-time visitors. These visitors travel primarily for pleasure/holiday with their family members, friends and spouses, as supported by Lončarić et al. (2017) in his findings that visitors mostly travelled with a partner, friends or family members. This has a tendency to promote strong family bonds, thereby reducing the rate of divorce and family chaos, as visitors do not like to travel alone. A majority of the visitors also organized their travel independently, as supported by Lončarić et al. (2017) in his findings that more than half of the respondents were independent travellers.

Active participation, which requires more effort and energy from visitors than passive participation, was investigated and the visitors claimed they were active participants at site activities and they enjoyed the activities, as has been stated by Carù and Cova (2007) that consumers can be actively or passively involved. In passive participation, destinations have dominion over the site experience, while active participation allows consumers to immerse themselves in an experience, taking responsibility for each step in the process. Participants further affirmed they were highly involved in site activities and that these activities made the sites more interesting. This is consistent with Buonincontri et al. (2017), that visitors acquire a more active role in deciding what to do during the vacation, interacting with tourism service providers at the destination, influencing other visitors, and choosing how to satisfy all aspects of their personality and all of their needs. This indicates that destinations no longer need to struggle to determine visitors’ satisfaction, as co-creation will enable each visitor to determine their own satisfaction through active involvement in the site experience. Neuhofer et al. (2012) also stated that visitors’ interactions, their active participation in the experience, and their attitudes on sharing the experience with others are identified as the antecedents of experience co-creation.

Furthermore, the visitors affirmed that active participation enhanced their destination experience. This could be a result of visitors determining the effort they put into each activity, thereby providing them a sense of belonging, as supported by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004): that value is embodied in the individual experiences of consumers, defining experience co-creation as the joint creation of value by the destination and the consumers, enabling the consumers to co-construct service experiences to fit into their context. Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010) also stated that destinations should adjust their role, and their main activities should become the involvement of customers in a purposeful dialog. The visitors were willing to pay more to be active participants in site activities, as supported by Howell et al. (2012), who found that consumers are more willing to buy experiential purchases than material purchases. Neuhofer et al. (2012) also stated that gains in effectiveness of tourist destinations are related to profits, market share, a major willingness to pay, and increases in revenue generation. The visitors also claimed they would recommend the site and activities to people while affirming they would revisit the site. Willingness to pay more, recommend, and revisit are clear indications that they enjoyed the destination experience and were satisfied with the site activities, as supported by Buonincontri et al. (2017), who asserted that there is a higher tendency that satisfied and excited visitors will revisit a destination and spread positive comments, positively influencing the destination's image and competitiveness. Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) also individuated visitors’ satisfaction and expenditures, or the total money visitors spend for their tourism services, as a measure of destination success from a behavioural perspective.

Conclusion

This study investigated sociodemographic characteristics, travel characteristics and the effect of co-creation activities on behavioural intention and satisfaction of visitors and concluded that there were more males and youthful visitors at the sites who were first-time visitors and who travelled primarily with their family. Also, visitors are beginning to enjoy active participation more than passive participation, as active participation has improved their destination experience. Furthermore, value co-creation has had an influence on their behavioural intention, as they were willing to pay more, recommend, revisit the site, and were generally satisfied with the site due to their involvement in co-creation activity. Co-creation activities are therefore encouraged in tourist sites so that consumers have a feeling of being part of the determinants of their own satisfaction as they get involved in the experience creation process.

Visit characteristics

VARIABLES FREQUENCY(N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Frequency of Visit
First time 306 79.7
Two times 55 14.3
More than three times 23 6.0
Travel Group
Alone 32 8.3
With Spouse 62 16.1
With Family 146 38.0
With Friends 109 28.4
With tour group 35 9.1
Purpose of Travel
Pleasure/Holiday 346 90.1
Business 1 0.3
Convention/Meeting 1 0.3
Official 4 1.0
Educational trip 32 8.3
Trip arrangement
Independent 302 78.6
On a package 82 21.4

Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Gender
Male 204 53.1
Female 180 46.9
Age
<18 25 6.5
18–25 128 33.3
26–35 141 36.7
36–45 78 20.3
>45 12 3.1
Marital status
Single 188 49.0
Married 189 49.2
Divorced 6 1.6
Widowed 1 0.3
Educational Background
Primary Education 3 0.8
Secondary Education 55 14.3
Tertiary Education 326 84.9
Income (₦)
<100,000 90 23.4
100,000–199,000 61 15.9
200,000–299,000 65 16.9
300,000–399,000 31 8.1
>400,000 137 35.7
Occupation
Civil Servant 81 21.1
Self-employed 100 26.0
Student 75 19.5
Private Sector 127 33.1
Unemployed 1 0.3
Nationality
Nigerian 367 95.6
Foreigner 17 4.4

Relationship between behavioural intention and satisfaction with active participation

Variables r value
I am willing to pay more to actively participate in activities at this site 0.445**
I will recommend this site and activities to my friends 0.455**
I will revisit this site 0.453**
Level of satisfaction with this site 0.269**

Behavioural intention of visitors

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%) MEAN ST. DEV.
I am satisfied having actively participated
Strongly Agree 237 61.7 4.48 0.768
Agree 105 27.3
Neutral 35 9.1
Disagree 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 3 0.8
I am willing to pay more to actively participate in activities at this site
Strongly Agree 221 57.6 4.29 1.017
Agree 96 25.0
Neutral 35 9.1
Disagree 23 6.0
Strongly Disagree 9 2.3
I will recommend this site and activities to others
Strongly Agree 263 68.5 4.62 0.644
Agree 101 26.3
Neutral 16 4.2
Disagree 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 2 0.5
I will revisit this site
Strongly Agree 270 70.3 4.62 0.679
Agree 91 23.7
Neutral 16 4.2
Disagree 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 2 0.5
Level of satisfaction with this site
Very satisfied 186 48.4 4.39 0.722
Moderately satisfied 178 46.4
Neutral 9 2.3
Slightly dissatisfied 7 1.8
Very dissatisfied 4 1.0

Determinants of Active Participation

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Gender .082 .290 .081 .776 1.086
Age .211 .222 .898 .343 1.234
Marital Status −.772 .399 3.732 .053 .462
Education −.614 .353 3.016 .082 .541
Nationality .962 .646 2.221 .136 2.617
Residence .163 .406 .160 .689 1.177
Religion .135 .298 .206 .650 1.145
Income −.024 .105 .054 .816 .976
Occupation .013 .123 .011 .915 1.013
Frequency of Visit .442 .222 3.986 .046 1.557*
Travel Group −.241 .144 2.815 .093 .786
Purpose of Travel −.643 .220 8.548 .003 .525**
Trip arrangement .850 .353 5.804 .016 2.340*
Constant −.659 1.450 .206 .650 .517
Correct prediction (%) 80.5%
Final Model Fit
−2 Log Likelihood 344.850
Nagelkerke R Square 0.137

Active participation by respondents

VARIABLES FREQUENCY (N=384) PERCENTAGE (%)
Did you actively participate in activities at this site?
Yes 309 80.5
No 75 19.5
Did you enjoy such activities?
Yes 339 88.3
No 45 11.7
Does active participation make the destination more interesting?
Yes 375 97.7
No 9 2.3
Level of active participation in destination activities
Not involved 19 4.9
Moderately involved 101 26.3
Highly involved 264 68.8

Sociodemographic difference in co-creation satisfaction and overall satisfaction

Co-creation satisfaction Overall satisfaction
Sociodemographic variable t value t value
Gender −0.303 3.563**
Nationality 2.336* 3.234**
Residence 1.944 3.053**
F value F value
Age 2.427* 8.810**
Marital status 1.048 4.485**
Education 3.349* 1.656
Religion 2.488 1.628
Income 2.052 1.056
Occupation 1.583 2.203

Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of consumer involvement in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28. BendapudiN. LeoneR. P. 2003 Psychological implications of consumer involvement in co-production Journal of Marketing 67 1 14 28 10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592 Search in Google Scholar

Bertella, G. (2014). The co-creation of animal-based tourism experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(1), 115–25. BertellaG. 2014 The co-creation of animal-based tourism experience Tourism Recreation Research 39 1 115 25 10.1080/02508281.2014.11081330 Search in Google Scholar

Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383–406. BettencourtL. A. 1997 Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery Journal of Retailing 73 3 383 406 10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90024-5 Search in Google Scholar

Bowen, D. E., & Jones, G. (1986). Transaction cost analysis of service organization customer exchange. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 428–41 BowenD. E. JonesG. 1986 Transaction cost analysis of service organization customer exchange Academy of Management Review 11 2 428 41 10.2307/258470 Search in Google Scholar

Brodie, R. J., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Advancing and consolidating knowledge about customer engagement. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 283–84. BrodieR. J. HollebeekL. D. 2011 Advancing and consolidating knowledge about customer engagement Journal of Service Research 14 3 283 84 10.1177/1094670511415523 Search in Google Scholar

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–14. BrodieR. J. IlicA. JuricB. HollebeekL. 2013 Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis Journal of Business Research 66 1 105 14 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029 Search in Google Scholar

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, 264–77. BuonincontriP. MorvilloA. OkumusF. Van NiekerkM. 2017 Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations: Empirical findings from Naples Tourism Management 62 264 77 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.014 Search in Google Scholar

Campos, A. C., Mendes, J., Oom do Valle, P., & Scott, N. (2016). Co-creation experiences: Attention and memorability. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. CamposA. C. MendesJ. Oom do ValleP. ScottN. 2016 Co-creation experiences: Attention and memorability Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10.1080/10548408.2015.1118424 Search in Google Scholar

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2007). Consuming Experience. New York, NY: Routledge. CarùA. CovaB. 2007 Consuming Experience New York, NY Routledge Search in Google Scholar

Claycomb, C., Lengnick-Hall, C., & Inks, L. (2001). The customer as a productive resource: a pilot study and strategic implications. Journal of Business Strategies, 18(1), 47–69. ClaycombC. Lengnick-HallC. InksL. 2001 The customer as a productive resource: a pilot study and strategic implications Journal of Business Strategies 18 1 47 69 10.54155/jbs.18.1.47-70 Search in Google Scholar

Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory? Marketing Theory, 9(3), 315–39. CovaB. DalliD. 2009 Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory? Marketing Theory 9 3 315 39 10.1177/1470593109338144 Search in Google Scholar

Dong, B., Evans, K., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–37. DongB. EvansK. ZouS. 2008 The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 1 123 37 10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8 Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011). Co-creation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 325–50. FisherD. SmithS. 2011 Co-creation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control Marketing Theory 11 3 325 50 10.1177/1470593111408179 Search in Google Scholar

Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54, 193–207. FournierS. AveryJ. 2011 The uninvited brand Business Horizons 54 193 207 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.001 Search in Google Scholar

Gouillart, F. (2010). What the Heck is Co-creation? Retrieved November 28, 2012 from http://francisgouillart.com/wordpress/?p=720 GouillartF. 2010 What the Heck is Co-creation? Retrieved November 28, 2012 from http://francisgouillart.com/wordpress/?p=720 Search in Google Scholar

Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Customer co-creation of travel services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the cocreation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483–92. GrissemannU. S. Stokburger-SauerN. E. 2012 Customer co-creation of travel services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the cocreation performance Tourism Management 33 6 1483 92 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.002 Search in Google Scholar

Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–50. GrönroosC. VoimaP. 2013 Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 2 133 50 10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3 Search in Google Scholar

Holbrook, M. B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experience and entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178–92. HolbrookM. B. 2000 The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experience and entertainment Journal of Macromarketing 20 2 178 92 10.1177/0276146700202008 Search in Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. D. (2011b). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–73. HollebeekL. D. 2011b Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes Journal of Strategic Marketing 19 7 555 73 10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493 Search in Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2016). SD logic–informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–25. HollebeekL. D. SrivastavaR. K. ChenT. 2016 SD logic–informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1 25 Search in Google Scholar

Howell, R. T., Pchelina, P., & Iyer, R. (2012). The preference for experiences over possessions: Measurement and construct validation of the Experiential Buying Tendency Scale. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(1), 57–71. HowellR. T. PchelinaP. IyerR. 2012 The preference for experiences over possessions: Measurement and construct validation of the Experiential Buying Tendency Scale The Journal of Positive Psychology 7 1 57 71 10.1080/17439760.2011.626791 Search in Google Scholar

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607–10. KrejcieR. V. MorganD. W. 1970 Determining sample size for research activities Educational and psychological measurement 30 3 607 10 10.1177/001316447003000308 Search in Google Scholar

Kyle, G. & Chick, G. (2004) Enduring leisure involvement: The importance of relationships. Leisure Studies, 23(3), 243–66. KyleG. ChickG. 2004 Enduring leisure involvement: The importance of relationships Leisure Studies 23 3 243 66 10.1080/0261436042000251996 Search in Google Scholar

Larsson, R., & Bowen, D. E. (1989). Organization and customer: Managing design and coordination of services. The Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 213–33. LarssonR. BowenD. E. 1989 Organization and customer: Managing design and coordination of services The Academy of Management Review 14 2 213 33 10.5465/amr.1989.4282099 Search in Google Scholar

Lončarić, D., Prodan, M. P., & Dlačić, J. (2017). Co-creating tourist experiences to enhance customer loyalty and travel satisfaction. In International Scientific Conference ToSEE-Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe 2017: Tourism and Creative Industries: Trends and Challenges. LončarićD. ProdanM. P. DlačićJ. 2017 Co-creating tourist experiences to enhance customer loyalty and travel satisfaction In International Scientific Conference ToSEE-Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe 2017: Tourism and Creative Industries: Trends and Challenges Search in Google Scholar

Lovelock, C., & Young, R. (1979). Look to customers to increase productivity. Harvard Business Review, 57(3), 168–78. LovelockC. YoungR. 1979 Look to customers to increase productivity Harvard Business Review 57 3 168 78 Search in Google Scholar

Ma, A., Chow, A., Cheung, L., Lee, K., & Liu, S. (2018). Impacts of tourists’ sociodemographic characteristics on the travel motivation and satisfaction: The case of protected areas in South China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3388. MaA. ChowA. CheungL. LeeK. LiuS. 2018 Impacts of tourists’ sociodemographic characteristics on the travel motivation and satisfaction: The case of protected areas in South China Sustainability 10 10 3388 10.3390/su10103388 Search in Google Scholar

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. MathisE. F. KimH. L. UysalM. SirgyJ. M. PrebensenN. 2016 The effect of co-creation on outcome variable Annals of Tourism Research 57 62 75 10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.023 Search in Google Scholar

Meuter, M., Bitner, M., Ostrom, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61–83. MeuterM. BitnerM. OstromA. BrownS. 2005 Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies Journal of Marketing 69 2 61 83 10.1509/jmkg.69.2.61.60759 Search in Google Scholar

Navarro, S., Andreu, L., & Cervera, A. (2014). Value co-creation among hotels and disabled customers: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 813–18. NavarroS. AndreuL. CerveraA. 2014 Value co-creation among hotels and disabled customers: An exploratory study Journal of Business Research 67 5 813 18 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.050 Search in Google Scholar

Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–39. NavarroS. LlinaresC. GarzonD. 2016 Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction using QCA Journal of Business Research 69 4 1336 39 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.103 Search in Google Scholar

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1, 36–46. NeuhoferB. BuhalisD. LadkinA. 2012 Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 36 46 10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.08.001 Search in Google Scholar

Ogunbodede, E. F. (2012). Patronage pattern of tourists to Idanre Hills and its implications for tourism development in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Research and Development, 6(3), 908–15. OgunbodedeE. F. 2012 Patronage pattern of tourists to Idanre Hills and its implications for tourism development in Nigeria Journal of Environmental Research and Development 6 3 908 15 Search in Google Scholar

Osei-Frimpong, K., Wilson, A., & Owusu-Frimpong, N. (2015). Service experiences and dyadic value co-creation in healthcare service delivery: a CIT approach. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(4), 443–62. Osei-FrimpongK. WilsonA. Owusu-FrimpongN. 2015 Service experiences and dyadic value co-creation in healthcare service delivery: a CIT approach Journal of Service Theory and Practice 25 4 443 62 10.1108/JSTP-03-2014-0062 Search in Google Scholar

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41. PetersonC. ParkN. SeligmanM. E. P. 2005 Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life Journal of Happiness Studies 6 25 41 10.1007/978-94-007-5702-8_9 Search in Google Scholar

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. PrahaladC. K. RamaswamyV. 2004 Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 3 5 14 10.1002/dir.20015 Search in Google Scholar

Prebensen, N. K., & Foss, L. (2011). Coping & co-creating in tourist experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 54–67. PrebensenN. K. FossL. 2011 Coping & co-creating in tourist experiences International Journal of Tourism Research 13 54 67 10.1002/jtr.799 Search in Google Scholar

Prebensen, N. K., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. S. (2016). Co-creation as moderator between the experience value and satisfaction relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 5(7), 934–45. PrebensenN. K. KimH. UysalM. S. 2016 Co-creation as moderator between the experience value and satisfaction relationship Journal of Travel Research 5 7 934 45 10.1177/0047287515583359 Search in Google Scholar

Prebensen, N., Vitterso, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist resources. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 240–61. PrebensenN. VittersoJ. DahlT. I. 2013 Value co-creation significance of tourist resources Annals of Tourism Research 42 240 61 10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.012 Search in Google Scholar

Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 100–110. RamaswamyV. GouillartF. 2010 Building the co-creative enterprise Harvard Business Review 88 10 100 110 Search in Google Scholar

Reinders, M., Dabholkar, P., & Frambach, R. (2008). Consequences of forcing consumers to use technology-based self-service. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 107–23. ReindersM. DabholkarP. FrambachR. 2008 Consequences of forcing consumers to use technology-based self-service Journal of Service Research 11 2 107 23 10.1177/1094670508324297 Search in Google Scholar

Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Gouthro, M. B. (2015). Conceptualising customer-to- customer value co-creation in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(4), 356–63. RihovaI. BuhalisD. MoitalM. GouthroM. B. 2015 Conceptualising customer-to- customer value co-creation in tourism International Journal of Tourism Research 17 4 356 63 10.1002/jtr.1993 Search in Google Scholar

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. SchaufeliW. B. SalanovaM. González-RomáV. BakkerA. B. 2002 The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach Journal of Happiness Studies 3 1 71 92 10.1023/A:1015630930326 Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the Service Game. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. SchneiderB. BowenD. E. 1995 Winning the Service Game Cambridge, MA Harvard Business Press Search in Google Scholar

Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016). The co-creation/place attachment nexus. Tourism Management, 52, 276–86. SuntikulW. JachnaT. 2016 The co-creation/place attachment nexus Tourism Management 52 276 86 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.026 Search in Google Scholar

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. VargoS. L. LuschR. F. 2004a Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing Journal of Marketing 68 1 1 17 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Search in Google Scholar

Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–52. VerhoefP. C. ReinartzW. J. KrafftM. 2010 Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management Journal of Service Research 13 3 247 52 10.1177/1094670510375461 Search in Google Scholar

Wang, W., Hsieh, P., & Yen, H. R. (2011). Engaging Customers in Value Co-creation: The Emergence of Customer Readiness. 135–139. WangW. HsiehP. YenH. R. 2011 Engaging Customers in Value Co-creation: The Emergence of Customer Readiness 135 139 10.1109/IJCSS.2011.34 Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M., & Gremler, D. (2008). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. WilsonA. ZeithamlV. BitnerM. GremlerD. 2008 Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm Maidenhead McGraw-Hill Search in Google Scholar

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), 1848–67. YangW. MattilaA. S. 2016 Why do we buy luxury experiences? Measuring value perceptions of luxury hospitality services International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28 9 1848 67 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2014-0579 Search in Google Scholar

Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279–84. YiY. GongT. 2013 Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation Journal of Business Research 66 1279 84 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo