Disruptive innovation and the diffusion of innovations
Tourism accommodation choice
Although only a very limited number of segmentation studies have focused on tourism accommodation choice, myriad researchers have investigated the topic of tourism accommodation choice more broadly. Most of this research has focused on hotel choice, whereas a smaller body of research has focused on the choice to use non-hotel forms of accommodation.
Hotel choice
There exists a fairly substantial literature exploring the reasons why tourists choose one hotel over another. This literature has frequently involved respondents rating the importance of different individual hotel attributes (e.g., Chan & Wong, 2006; Lockyer, 2002, 2005a, 2005b; McCleary, Choi, & Weaver, 1998; McCleary, Weaver, & Hutchinson, 1993; Sohrabi, Vanani, Tahmasebipur, & Fazli, 2012; Tsai, Yeung, & Yim, 2011), and it sometimes focuses on particular types of tourists, such as business travellers (e.g., Buttle & Bok, 1996; Cobanoglu, Corbaci, Moreo, Ekinci, 2003; Fawzy, 2010; Lockyer, 2002; McCleary et al., 1998). A review of the hotel choice literature, and of prior reviews on this topic (Chu & Choi, 2000; Dolnicar & Otter, 2003), reveals a variety of primary attributes that are consistently identified – cleanliness, location, reputation, price, value, service quality (e.g., staff friendliness and helpfulness), room comfort, and security. This literature also has identified various secondary attributes that are noteworthy but tend to be perceived as less important, such as restaurant quality, fitness amenities (e.g., swimming pool or gym), parking facilities, a loyalty program, and the check-in and check-out procedures (Ananth, DeMicco, Moreo, & Howey, 1992; Atkinson, 1988; Buttle & Bok, 1996; Callan & Bowman, 2000; Chan & Wong, 2006; Chow, Garretson, & Kurtz, 1995; Chu & Choi, 2000; Cobanoglu et al., 2003; Conner, 2000; Li, Law, Vu, Rong, & Zhao, 2015; 34 Lockyer, 2002, 2005a, 2005b; McCleary et al., 1998; Sohrabia et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2011; Yavas & Babakus, 2003). Finally, this literature has highlighted the importance of some modern attributes, such as internet access and online reservations (Beldona & Cobanoglu, 2007), but these attributes have not yet been widely studied.
Although most hotel choice research has tended to focus on the same general collection of hotel attributes, some researchers have considered less traditional selection factors; for example, Han, Hsu, and Sheu (2010) found that social norms influence intentions to stay at environmentally friendly hotels, and Kim and Perdue (2013) found affective attributes like excitement can influence hotel choice. The hotel selection literature also suggests that trip characteristics influence what tourists look for in their accommodation (Lockyer, 2005a; Lockyer & Roberts, 2009). Likewise, hotel preferences have been shown to be impacted by traveller characteristics, including age (Ananth et al., 1992), nationality (McCleary et al., 1998), gender (Cobanoglu et al., 2003), and trip purpose (Chu & Choi, 2000). Most of the literature on hotel choice has not been rooted in theory, but exceptions include Buttle and Bok’s (1996) use of the theory of reasoned action and Han et al.’s (2010) use of the theory of planned behaviour.
|
|
|
Choice to use non-hotel accommodations
Complementing the hotel choice literature, there is a more limited literature on the choice to use non-hotel forms of accommodation, such as B&Bs, homestays, and CouchSurfing. Whereas the hotel choice literature has focused on the choice between different hotel properties, the non-hotel choice literature has focused on the choice to use these alternative forms of accommodation more generally. This literature has tended to highlight the unique nature of the experience tourists have in such accommodations, rather than the more practical attributes that dominate the hotel choice 35 literature. For example, McIntosh and Siggs (2005) studied alternative accommodation users in New Zealand and found guests enjoyed the unique character and homely feel of the accommodations, the personalized service and personal interaction with the hosts, and the opportunity to receive useful local knowledge from the hosts. Likewise, Stringer (1981) researched Australian guests of British B&Bs and found the guests were drawn by both the experience and the economical price. As the author explained:
They had been motivated to use bed-and-breakfast facilities by their relatively low cost ... But they also saw the bed-and-breakfast institution as a medium for meeting people and enjoying a personalized and friendly atmosphere. In part this eased the possible stress and loneliness of travel: but it also added authenticity to their experiences, taking them into the “back regions” which tourists are usually denied. (Stringer, 1981, p. 363)
|
|
|
Similar findings, highlighting the importance of interpersonal and authentic experiences, in addition to saving money, have been found in research on homestays, home swaps and CouchSurfing (Andriotis & Agiomirgianakis, 2014; Bialski, 2011; Chen, 2011; Germann Molz, 2013; Jamal, Othman & Muhammad, 2011; Lamb, 2011; Liu, 2012; Steylaerts & O’Dubhghaill, 2011; Wang, 2007). These are topics that will be explored later in greater depth.
Disruptive innovation and the diffusion of innovations
The limited literature on Airbnb choice, combined with the literature on hotel and non-hotel accommodation choice, highlight a variety of motivations that may draw users to Airbnb. However, such literature has largely been atheoretical, partly owing to the absence of any theory directly explaining tourism accommodation choice. To add a conceptual foundation to the present study, different concepts related to innovation were used.
Innovation has been defined in myriad ways (Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook, 2009), but all definitions involve a fundamental reference to newness (Johannessen, Olsen, & Lumpkin, 36 2001). Joseph Schumpeter, an influential Austrian-born economist who published several seminal works in the early twentieth century and is widely recognized as the originator of the economic study of innovation, viewed innovation as the novel combination of existing resources, leading to the introduction of new products, production methods, supply sources, markets, and industry structures (Fagerberg, 2005; Schumpeter, 1934/2007). Schumpeter’s notion of innovation clearly influenced the commonly used definition provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its Oslo Manual for collecting innovation data: “An innovation is the implementation 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” (OECD, 2005, p. 46). Taking a strictly user perspective, influential works by Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck (1973) and Rogers (2003) conceptualized innovation very similarly, as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12).
|
|
|
The innovation literature is immensely broad, but two innovation concepts are particularly germane to the present study – disruptive innovation and the diffusion of 37 innovations. Disruptive innovation describes the emergence of products that underperform in comparison with incumbent products’ prevailing attributes, and the diffusion of innovations broadly examines the spread of innovations as they are increasingly adopted by members of a society. Together, these concepts were used both to provide guidance on variables to consider for this study, and to better understand these different variables.
Дата добавления: 2018-06-01; просмотров: 335; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!