Tourism, like so many modern industries, is essentially an assembly process. In few situations does one organisation or company control all the components, or all the stages and decision-making processes in the creation and delivery of the tourism product.
That is why in most industrial sectors and particularly in the tourism industry, it has become commonplace for organisations to collaborate in order to achieve the goals they have established for themselves.
A key reason for the growing interest in collaboration in tourism is the belief that organizations and destination areas may be able to gain competitive advantage by bringing together and sharing their combined knowledge, expertise, capital and other resources (Kotler et al., 1999b).
Does networking within tourism destinations hinder innovation and freedom of choice?
First it is necessary to define the key words in the question above, the key words being, tourism destinations, innovation and freedom of choice. Before talking about tourism networking, I will show that tourism destinations do not hinder innovation and freedom of choice. Finally I will present my research on networking in tourism, based on the fact that it is essential for a tourism destination in particular for SME's. I will also discuss the idea that it hinders innovation and freedom of choice by comparing the potential problems and benefits of networking.
[...] The need to develop consensus and the need to disclose new ideas in advance, might discourage entrepreneurial development and by the way innovation. The vested interests and established practices of the multiple stakeholders involved in collaborative working may block innovation. C. Potential benefits against innovation and freedom of choice of tourism networking In my introduction, the quotation of Kotler perfectly reflects the benefits which actors can gain, thanks to the network. These benefits are large. The best way to prove that networking within tourism destinations allow for innovations and freedom of choice is by showing the reverse of the disadvantages quoted beforehand. [...]
[...] Tourism destinations do not hinder innovation and freedom of choice Before targeting my research on networking within tourism destinations and discussing the fact that it hinders innovation and freedom of choice, it seems important to show as a prerequisite that tourism destinations don't hinder innovation and freedom of choice. In order to prove this affirmation, I will rest on the definition of Copper et al (1993) who defined a destination as 4”A's”. To complete this definition, I will add the community. [...]
[...] Let us take the example of Queenstown where the prices tend to increase during the periods of strong tourist frequentations, in this case the sadder are the local people because they are constrained to pay more for daily product. However their freedom of choice is never hinder. To conclude on this part it seems obvious that tourism destinations do not hinder innovation and freedom of choice. Moreover, Butler R.W. (1980) confirmed this conclusion in a chapter of this book Canadian Geographer. By using a basics curve to illustrate their waxing and waning popularity, he presents the concept of a recognizable cycle in the evolution of tourist areas. [...]
[...] To conclude of this definition of tourism destination, recall, like Cooper et al (1998) that visitors have to consider a destination to be attractive and worth the investment of money and time. Innovation in Tourism There are some people who regard tourism as an industry that has a lot of innovations and initiatives. There is another group that believes that tourism is not very innovative. There is a third group that believes tourism adopts the same technological and organisational innovations that are produced in the service sector and the industry sector, classifying the tourism industry as not innovative at all. [...]
[...] Even if certain actors apply themselves less in the decision-making process in no way will this lack of application obstruct the innovation and the freedom of choice of others. Sometimes when one of the actors has less power, we could believe that he will be excluded from the process of collaborative. But in no situation does the actor not have his freedom of decision and his capacity to innovate. Partnerships can promote learning about the work and skills of the other partners it also develops the group interaction and the idea that your partner can become a good solution for your current problem. [...]
using our reader.