Tourism 2.0.

The social Web as a platform to develop a knowledge-based ecosystem

1
 Tourism 2.0.

The social Web as a platform to develop a knowledge-based ecosystem

Authors

Edu. William.

Destinum.com

Gran Canaria Airport. Stand 23.

35230 Las Palmas (Canary Islands). SPAIN

e-mail: [email protected]

E. Pérez Martell.

Physics Department

University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

35001 Las Palmas (Canary Islands). SPAIN

e-mail: [email protected]

2
Abstract

The maturity of Internet and its use as a platform has led to the appearance of the so-called Web 2.0,

where the software industry sees how its chain of value develops through networks thanks to the collective

intelligence of their members. This phenomenon enables business sectors to move to the Knowledge

Economy.

The objective of this work is to propose and develop model 2.0 in the tourism sector in order to establish a

knowledge-based ecosystem: the tourism 2.0 model.

To that end, the work analyses the DESTINUM system as an example of strategic design for the

development of the networks that comprise the ecosystem.

Keywords

Web 2.0, internet, long tail, social networks, tourism 2.0, tourist ecosystem

3
1. From Web 2.0 to model 2.0 to adapt sectors to the Knowledge Society

1.1. Introduction to Web 2.0

After the dot.com bubble burst in 2001, it would have been impossible to imagine the continuous

development of a great number of new applications that has since taken place. Almost all of them,

together with those that survived the crisis, have a series of characteristics in common. Dale Dougherty

(O’Reilly, 2005), Web pioneer and Vice-President of O’Reilly Media, reached that conclusion in a joint

session with Craig Cline of MediaLive International for the preparation of conferences. Tim O’Reilly and

John Battelle named it Web 2.0 at a conference in October 2004.

In that conference, they focused on comparisons rather than definitions and identified the business models

that were changing and moving from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. They presented their perception by means of

the following examples (Figure 1.1):

Figure 1.1: Examples of applications or characteristics that mark the step from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

Double click
Google AdSense

Ofoto
Flickr

Akamai
BitTorrent

Mp3.com
Napster

Britannica online
Wikipedia

Personal website
Blogging

Evite
Upcoming.org & EVDB

Domain name Search engine

speculation optimization

Page views
Cost per click

screen scraping
web services

publishing
participation

content management

wikis
systems

directories (taxonomy)
tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness
syndication

Source: O’Reilly (2005)

Although both authors commented on each case and made comparisons, they summarised the principles

that defined Web 2.0 as (O’Reilly, 2005):

4
 • The Web as platform

• Harnessing collective intelligence

• Data is the next Intel Inside

• End of the software release cycle

• Lightweight programming models

• Software above the level of a single device

• Rich user experience

Of those seven principles, those that possibly best define the concept of Web 2.0 are the first two, with the

others perhaps an indirect consequence of those.

Following that conference, an avalanche of definitions and concepts based on Web 2.0 (Hinchcliffe, 2006)

appeared on its own medium: Internet. Being a term born of and for the Web, the immaturity of the term

itself is indicated in its beginning, its adaptation and later consistency thanks to the feedback from

everyone. Thus, at the end of 2006, O’Reilly published another article that aimed to close a definition that

is possible the most accurate and which constitutes the reference for this work (O’Reilly, 2006):

“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as

platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those

rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This

is what I’ve elsewhere called “harnessing collective intelligence.”)”

That definition provides three key concepts underlying Web 2.0:

• It is a business revolution of an industry, namely the software industry, hence the prefix Web. The

step from 1.0 to 2.0 is a movement within that industry.

• The components of that industry (its chain of value) move to a common platform, namely,

Internet, where a system of networks can be developed in an optimum fashion.

• The effect of those networks makes possible the development of the industry based on collective

intelligence, where its members are responsible for its construction.

Hence, Web 2.0 is the model that has been followed by the software industry to adapt to the Knowledge

Economy. It is important to qualify the concept since, in the blogosphere, it is common to use the term

Web 2.0 in reference only to social tools (wikis, blogs, podcasts,…).

1.2. Model 2.0 to adapt different sectors to the Knowledge Economy

5
Since the appearance of Web 2.0, many 2.0 terms that are based on Web 2.0 have appeared with the aim

of defining different social and business sectors The principal and most rigorous of those include

Enterprise 2.0 (McAfee, 2006) and Travel 2.0 (Wolf, 2006).

If one analyses those terms, the underlying idea is to apply social tools to those sectors rather than to

focus on change and revolution, as occurred with Web 2.0.

Although it cannot be said that this use is incorrect, it is not supported in this article, which focuses on

analysing model 2.0 as a true revolution and transformation of business sectors to the Knowledge

economy rather than the simple use of the social tools typical of Web 2.0. The objective is to analyse and

propose a model of adaptation to the Knowledge Economy. Therefore, following the step that has been

taken by the software sector and is called 2.0, it is understood that this is a good model to develop in other

sectors to achieve orientation to the Knowledge Economy.

It is necessary to separate the concept of 2.0 from that of Web 2.0 to be able to adapt it to any other

sector. To that end, this article proposes the following three characteristics that 2.0 models must possess:

• Delimitation of the sector to which it refers: the scope of the sector in relation to the chain of value

and its end objective.

• Move to a common platform where organisation into networks can develop. This platform is

Internet.

• Development according to the collective intelligence of the network members so that the objective

and the system improve before the participation of more individuals and agents.

Thus, the support on the social Web, insofar as 2.0 models los models use the Web as a platform and its

social tools for the construction of networks and the use of collective intelligence. However, one must not

confuse the mere use of social tools with the true objective, which is a strategic change in the sectors

adapted to the Knowledge Economy on the basis of the construction of networks and their development

according to collective intelligence. Model 2.0 is a social, and not just a technological, issue (Hinchcliffe,

2007).

1.3. The “long tail”

In a study of the comparisons between multimedia online sales and offline sales, Brynjolfsson, Hu and

Smith (2003) and Anderson (2004) reached the conclusion that the digitalisation of contents and products

and their sale via online media is going to have an effect on the economic model that goes beyond the

mere transfer of the distribution channel. This model is known as “the long tail” (Anderson, 2004).

In the offline world, the distribution of products follows Pareto’s Principle, which in turn is based on the

power law. Pareto’s Principle proposes that the distribution model generates a centrifuge effect which is

6
reinforced by the dynamics of the offer in the physical world: the shortage of space and the distribution

costs, two factors that lead to the tail being cut prematurely. However, the birth of the online channel,

which entails practically no distribution or marketing costs, permits the minority – products that, in many

cases, were discontinued or unsold – to access the same distribution channel, thus increasing the size of

the market.

Anderson’s work was based on a comparison between the principal items that are sold in offline stores

and generate the majority of their revenues and those that do so in the case of the online stores Amazon

(books), Rhapsody (music-to-go) and Netflix (DVD rentals). That author showed that articles that hardly

appeared in offline sales constituted more than half of the sales of online stores. In other words, the new

model gave entry to the minorities: “the long tail”.

He also described how, in the new model, the big Hits, for the mass public, will still exist alongside the

‘long tail’, for a niche segment. All of that is due to the market opening up, which has enabled Internet to

eliminate the physical barriers and the marketing costs.

That work (Anderson, 2004) contains no comments on how sales are distributed in the online world but

hinted that, although the power principle still applies, it will be less concentrated on a few products

(Brynjolfsson, Hu and Simester, 2007). This is due to the digital distribution model and the effects of the

social filters generating a centripetal effect (greater dispersion), which, without breaking the power law,

generates a significant volume in the tail.

In turn, he established the three rules for the new economy of entertainment products (Anderson, 2004):

• Make everything available: create abundance. Never mind that it does not correspond to the

traditional canons, all products must be put in the same channel and they will find a buyer. There is no

time to spend on grand market research programmes and marketing; in the new economy, it costs more

to evaluate it than to launch it.

• Lower the price by half, adapting to the costs of digital not traditional physical distribution.

Marketing and distribution costs must be avoided. This is one of the issues that will enable people to buy

more and the market to grow with the entry of the long tail. The long tail must have lower costs than the

big Hits, since it does not have the costs related to the offline world that raise the price of the product.

Consumers must be made to enter the long tail because of the low prices.

• Help find the products by developing recommendation systems that generate traffic in the long

tail. Customers may enter in search of the Hits, which will help revitalise the “long tail” thanks to

recommendations.

While those first two points are important, they are not sufficient. The third is the key to the development of

the model. Currently, the recommendation systems can be broken down into (William, 2007):

7
 • Those based on generic algorithms: search engine type.

• Those based on collective intelligence, where it is everyone’s opinions that generate the

knowledge for the recommendation.

o Those with one-size-fits-all solutions

o Those with personalised solutions.

• Those based on prescription, both human and intelligent agents:

o Those with solutions based on the interests of the prescriber.

o Those based on the interests of the consumer.

Although the objective of the model is to achieve the abundance that permits the development of niche

markets instead of the shortage of the offline distribution model that targets only a mass market,

mismanagement of that abundance and the ensuing recommendation systems can lead to two limitations

of the model:

• The paradox of choice (Schwartz, 2005): the more options there are available, the less enjoyable

the act of consumption is. This might even lead to a situation of paralysis due to there being so many

options available that saturation and withdrawal from consumption occurs (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000;

Schwartz, 2005). This means that achieving the abundance in the first two of Anderson’s (2004) rules is

not only insufficient; it may also be counterproductive to accomplishing the real objective. The correct

choice of recommendation systems that screen that abundance are going to be necessary for the “long

tail”.

• The return to shortage: the use of tools with generic solutions, whether based on algorithms,

collective intelligence or prescription, leads to shortage. Similarly, the development of lists and rankings

with one-size-fits-all solutions does no more than centrifugally force choice into the choice of a few,

leading once again to concentration of choice: the return to shortage (De Ugarte, 2007)

Therefore, the focus must be on recommendation systems that permit the development of the “long tail”

and avoid the limitations that abundance may entail. Thus, the optimum recommenders for the

development of the “long tail” are (William, 2007):

• Systems based on collective intelligence with personalised solutions.

• Systems based on prescription following the interests of the consumer.

To develop a model of sustainable tourism, it is also necessary to give opportunities to the “long tail”. In

that respect, we can talk of a “long tail” in the tourism sector (Lew, 2006; William, 2007; Offutt, 2007; Davis

8
and May, 2007). Thus, each tourist will be able to access each service merely because it is what he/she

wishes and not because of outside issues that misrepresent the competitive capability of firms.

By adapting Anderson’s rules to the reality of tourism, this article proposes the need to pass two

milestones that permit the development of the “long tail” of tourism

• Abundance of tourism thanks to the full access by firms, especially SMEs, to the Internet and the

functional strategic online tools. Everything must be on Internet and accessible to be chosen by tourists

or intermediaries.

• The development of personalised recommendation systems that permit competition based on

product quality above market size or force. These could be (William, 2007):

o A system based on the collective intelligence in the network, which permits personalisation of

results.

o An intelligent prescriptive recommendation system based on users’ knowledge.

o A “human” prescriptive system based on users’ knowledge.

As will be seen later in the article, this prescriptive and revitalising function of the “long tail” will be what

provides added value to intermediation.

2. A knowledge-based ecosystem

2.1. Tourism 0.0 and Tourism 1.0

To better understand model 2.0 as an adaptor to the Knowledge Economy, it is interesting to discern the

previous situations of the industry and extrapolate them to analogue concepts like 0.0 and 1.0.

The model prior to Internet, typical of the industrial society is known as mass tourism (Poon, 1993, Fayos-

Solá, 1996; Buhalis, 2003, Sheldon, 2005). In the model proposed in this article, this condition is called 0.0

or disconnected tourism.

The development of the Information Society led to the development of a different, more flexible and

customer-focused model of tourism (Poon, 1993; 2003; Fayos-Solá, Werthner and Klein, 1999; Gretzel,

Yuan and Fesenmaier, 2000; Buhalis, 2003). This principal phase of tourism in the Information Society,

which is also related to the Internet age - Web 1.0.- can be called tourism 1.0. Thus, tourism 1.0 is framed

within the start and development of e-tourism, of which Buhalis (2003) conducted a detailed analysis of

how the tourism system restructures and functions with the advance of the Information Society.

In any case, the fact that society and the economy have advanced in tourism models does not mean that

all destinations and enterprises have done so. On the one hand, there are the destinations and tourism

models that appear with the Information Society, incorporate its characteristics and are precisely 1.0. On

9
the other hand, there are some destinations and firms that appeared with the traditional model and must

reconvert and reorient themselves; however, most of them currently remain in model 0.0.

Therefore, it can be said that two types of tourism coexist at present, namely, 0.0 and 1.0, with limitations

that prevent destinations and enterprises from progressing in their adaptation to the Knowledge Economy:

• The tourism model 1.0 guarantees neither access by SMEs nor equality of conditions to maintain

the same level of competitiveness. Significant market shortcomings that are typical of tourism 0.0, such

as firm size as a determinant of competitiveness, are maintained in model 1.0.

• The tourism 1.0 model solves neither the problems of access to and transparency of information

nor those of cooperation between businesses and destinations.

• The tourism 1.0 model does not incorporate knowledge transfer as a factor determining the

productivity of destinations and enterprises.

The response to those limitations will be the development of model 2.0 with the objective of all SMEs and

tourism destination being able to adapt to the current knowledge-based tourism.

2.2. Tourism 2.0

In relation to the above, this article proposes to define a tourism model based on the paradigm of 2.0 as

typical of the Knowledge Economy: in other words, tourism 2.0 as the tourism system that permits the

sector to adapt according to the knowledge of the agents involved in the system. Hence, following the

definition outlined by O’Reilly for Web 2.0, the following definition of Tourism 2.0 is proposed:

“Tourism 2.0 is the business revolution in the tourism and leisure industry caused by the move to the

tourist ecosystem as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.

Chief among those rules is this: Build business and destinations that harness network effects to get more

productive the more people and business participate in them. Thus, “harnessing collective intelligence.”

As previously mentioned, model 2.0 must display three characteristics, which, in the case of Tourism 2.0,

are as follows:

• It must refer to the tourism sector as a whole; therefore, all the elements of its chain of value must

be taken into consideration. The objective is the knowledge-driven improvement of the productivity of

businesses and destinations.

• Those elements must influence productivity either directly or indirectly; they must move to a

common platform (Web), where they can interrelate around a system of networks.

• Knowledge and its transfer must be the motor of the network, which self-organises and self-

develops on the basis of the contributions of its members.

10
The entire tourism sector comprises many elements that have some influence on this, which means that its

interrelations require even more effort, if that is possible. Although this work does not aim to analyse the

exact composition of tourism systems, we should mention the need to move from linear and determinant

analyses based on cause-effect to more qualitative, non-linear models based on networks. Both social and

natural systems are considered complex and real entities that are closely integrated and function together

as nonlinear, evolving socioecological systems (Farell and Twining-Ward, 2004)

In that respect, the behaviour of the tourism system is beginning to be explained on the basis of the

complexity theories (Faulkner and Russell, 1997; McKercher 1999; Faulkner and Vikulov, 2001; Scott and

Laws, 2005), in which the systems behave as dynamic, complex, interrelated, unpredictable and uncertain

entities. (Waldrop 1992; Gunderson, Holling and Light 1995;; Prigogine 1997; Levin 1998). One of the

most notable characteristics of these systems is their capacity for self-organisation (Kauffman 1995;

Odum, Odum and Brown 1998; Pavlovich, 2003).

Thus, we are dealing with an interrelated ecosystem comprising directly productive elements of the tourism

activity as well as external and indirect elements, such as natural, social, cultural, human and political, etc.

resources (McKercher, 1999)

The tourism system behaves like many local ecosystems that are interrelated and depend on and

influence one another (Farell and Runyan, 1991; Farell and Twining-Ward, 2004). This means that the

dynamics of the interrelations are not linear and a change in one destination can disrupt or influence

another; similar to what is known as the butterfly effect (Gleik, 1987).

The application of the notion of dynamic ecosystems to tourism is accompanied by the idea of typical

flexibility and an “adaptive management” at all times (Rollins, Trotter and Taylor, 1998; Gunderson and

Holling, 2002; Farell and Twining-Ward, 2004). This means that the model entails a change in business

management and in tourism planning. “Adaptive management” requires constant monitoring and social

learning (Walters 1986; Clark 2002) that leads to a progressive accumulation of knowledge that enables

businesses and stakeholders to adapt to the changing scenarios (Berkes and Folke, 1998). That social

learning involves knowledge transfer between all the stakeholders of the ecosystem (Parsons and Clark,

1995). Some authors have already begun to analyse this model of adaptive management for the

development of sustainability in tourism as typical of the complex and dynamic environment in which

tourism develops (Hein 1997; Laws, Faulkner and Moscardo 1998; Reed 1999; Russell and Faulkner

1999; Walker, Greiner, McDonald and Lyne 1999; Abel 2000; Jennings 2001; Wight 2002)

Thus, social learning and the transfer of knowledge become the necessary motor that drives the dynamics

of the ecosystem. With regard to the objective of businesses and destinations, the knowledge transferred

in the network must be the variable that promotes the structure affecting that productivity.

11
In relation to the proposed definition of Tourism 2.0, and taking the ecosystem to a common platform –the

social Web- by adapting the tourism system model of Buhalis (2003) and incorporating the chaotic model

of de McKercher (1999), a tourism model adapted to 2.0 has been designed. In that model, networks are

developed between people and enterprises and their collective intelligence and its transfer in the form of

knowledge influences the organisation, development and productivity of those networks. In other words, it

is tourism 2.0.

Figure 2.1. Tourism 2.0: The knowledge-based tourism ecosystem

Source: adapted from Buhalis (2003)

While Figure 2.1 is not intended to represent the entire ecosystem, it does convey a significant idea of its

composition and functioning. In turn, it is a local level static image of a single ecosystem but, as previously

mentioned, it must interrelate with others to create a global tourism system.

Two types of agent can be distinguished within the model: 2.0 agents and the traditional agents. The term

2.0 has not been used indifferently in the figure. For this model, the 2.0 tag describes those agents forming

an active part of the network by transferring knowledge, which, in turn influences the productivity of the

enterprises. It should be stressed that, although each agent can act internally according to model 2.0, this

work only addresses the relationship between the agents and the rest of the ecosystem.

In short, the components of the ecosystem are:

• Social networks of firms with electronic commerce.

These form the framework of the ecosystem. The DICIRMSs - Destination integrated computerized

information reservation management systems -, model designed by Buhalis (1993,1997) may be the

optimum starting point for the conceptualisation of networks of enterprises with electronic commerce

12
since they not only focus on the functional and operational accomplishment of the objectives of

destination management organisations (DMOs), but also constitute a strategic tool to improve the

competitiveness and sustainability of SMEs and tourism destinations (Buhalis, 1997, 2003; Braun,

2002).

They are Web based social networks that constantly self-develop and self-organise thanks to the

transfer of knowledge among the three actors that interact actively and dynamically:

o SMEs 2.0

o Residents 2.0

o Tourists 2.0

Although the tools of these networks may differ, and this article will later analyse a particular case, four

concepts that must be common to all for the development of the ecosystem are proposed:

o The knowledge of the actors in the network (nodes) must be rewarded according to its

influence on the productivity of the firms. Therefore, it is important that the network

permits electronic commerce insofar as the development of the network and its

knowledge is linked to productivity.

o The networks must be oriented to sustainability (Halme, 2001); therefore, the negative

externalities of the actors in the network must be internalised in order to offset the costs

within the same productive process.

o The knowledge generated must be available for constant monitoring by the rest of the

agents.

o It must permit interrelation and interoperability between the different networks in a

distributed fashion (Werthner and Ricci, 2004), whether those networks are local,

regional, or national destinations or destinations themed by market products.

• Driving forces of the network : DMO 2.0, transport 2.0 and enterprise 2.0

These can adopt different forms in the relationships with the network but there will be a common

denominator; they must be driving forces of the network. In other words, they are nodes with high

connectivity and great capacity to provide knowledge for the development and propagation of the

networks.

• The recommenders and energisers of the “long tail”: travel agencies.

These form part of the productive structure but, as the figure shows, there is no reason to label them

2.0 since they are agents that may act on the fringes of the transfer of knowledge of the network.

However, and despite the fact that the ecosystem moves thanks to the network of firms with electronic

commerce, the intermediaries and travel agencies must play a key role in the development of the

13
 ecosystem in that they act as recommenders of the “long tail” and so can make businesses more

productive by bringing them closer to their niche markets. This is a line of research that should be

developed in the future.

• The local sectors

It is not enough that the productive part of the sector develops in a network, its is also essential for the

other sectors that affect the tourism industry to adapt to model 2.0 so that knowledge can flow

correctly and be used where it is needed for the adaptive management of the industry.

• Constant monitoring of knowledge : K in Figure 2.1.

This is an indispensable tool for the correct management of any complex system. Thus, since it is a

digitalised ecosystem, the level of knowledge must be very high and knowledge management must be

very efficient, with the use of suitable business tools such as Business Intelligence systems that are

open to all agents.

2.3. Comparison of models

Without wishing to be precise or exclusive, since that is not the aim of this work, we propose a generic

comparative table that displays the strategic differences between tourism 2.0 and the preceding models.

Figure 2.2. Strategic differences between tourism 0.0 - 1.0 and 2.0

0.0 1.0 2.0

Type of organisation Vertically Network Network
integrated
Type of Society Industrial IS KS
(Information (Knowledge Society
Society)
Type of offer Standardised Individualised Individualised
Inflexible Flexible Flexible
Mass Segmented Segmented
(strongest characteristics
thanks to the revitalisation
of the long tail due to the
penetration of electronic
tourism)
Penetration of Disconnected Moderately Highly connected
electronic tourism (Indifference) connected (thanks the Web platform)
(temporary)
Orientation to Low Medium/high High
customer (user-indifferent) (user-passive (user-active – bidirectional
– management – constant
unidirectional conversation)
management )
Orientation to Low Medium/High continuous and flexible
destination (limited to one- (static and integrations – firms and
off services) one-off residents active in the
integrations – formation of the network
firms and
residents as
passive
agents)

Source: The authors

14
 • Type of organisation/society/offer. These three concepts are totally related and correspond to

those already mentioned. Tourism 0.0 is the model from the Industrial Society, where the organisational

system of firms was hierarchical and vertical integration favoured scales of economy that led firms to

offer standardised products with no possibility of modification to vast numbers of people at the same

time (Poon, 1993, 2003). Tourism 1.0 is typical of the Information Society and, as such, maintains a type

of network organisation, bases its offer on more flexible and personalised products and seeks segments

and market niches.

• Connectivity (or presence on Internet). In tourism 0.0, the connectivity of firms was zero or, in

some cases, simply token. Tourism 1.0 achieved a higher presence of enterprises and destinations on

Internet, but that presence was not general in the case of SMEs mainly for issues of resources and

knowledge.

• Orientation to the customer. The level of customer orientation in tourism 0.0 is practically nil since

the function is limited to maintaining adequate infrastructures and receiving the customers coming from

the channel. Tourism 1.0 advanced considerably in that respect but its orientation remains semi-rigid

and limited to a unidirectional flow of conversation and mainly one-off contacts. Although the enterprise

attempts to adapt to the customer in this model, its function remains on the passive side.

• Orientation to the destination. Similarly, tourism 0.0 displays very low orientation to the destination

with firms remaining outside any form of collaboration. In tourism 1.0, the firms are more aware of the

importance of a united and cooperative destination although the inherent difficulties of establishing

collaboration mechanisms mean that any actions in that direction are temporary and isolated.

2.4. Analysis of a network system for the ecosystem: the DESTINUM system

This article analyses the DESTINUM system as a Web tool for the development of social networks among

firms with electronic commerce, which helps drive the construction of the ecosystem. The work aims to

analyse not the technological design, and much less the functioning and composition of its tool, but how

and in which way the use of some social tools influences the strategic development of the ecosystem. In

that respect, ten characteristics of the DESTINUM system are listed and interpreted with a strategic

meaning and proposed as an example (Figure 2.3) for the construction of tourism 2.0:

Figure 2.3. Ten strategic characteristics of the networks to develop tourism 2.0

Social characteristic Application in DESTINUM Strategic Value

Social network Direct sales by firms Measures the contribution of
knowledge to productivity
Social network Interrelations between Relates the parts of a
businesses, residents and sustainable market

15
 tourists
Web as a platform Web and system for SMEs Digitalises all the SMEs without
the need for investment
Web as a platform ASP Maintains constant innovation
without investment
Social network Cross-sales Mechanism for immediate
cooperation among SMEs that
provides added value to each
UGC (user-generated content) Viral, tags, reviews Transparency of information
UGC (user-generated content) CAC Model The content generated provides
added value to the system
Knowledge as a motor Social loyalty creation Rewards the provision of
knowledge
Sustainability as a user Social reward Internalises costs in a single
production process
Web as a platform RSS/XML/Mashups Constant innovation

Source: The authors

• They are networks that permit enterprises to sell directly. This characteristic is necessary to be

able to reward and measure each member’s contribution of knowledge to the productivity of the

enterprises.

• They are social networks with the traditional tools of such networks, such as sharing a network of

friends, multimedia, etc., but with three types of members and users that interact and interrelate

with one another: residents, tourists and enterprises, with the last of those being able to offer their

services or to act as simple knowledge transmission agents, like DMOs, for example.

• The enterprises that use the network to sell their services can use the same system for

themselves with their own Web. This digitalises them in their sales side while involving them in

model 2.0 at the same time.

• It is a Web system that functions like an ASP –application service provider-, in other words, the

software acts as a service and not as a product. This characteristic provides two strategic

advantages:

o It permits any SME or agent, such as DMOs, to access them without investment and

without focusing on innovation or constant updating.

o It provides simple interaction and cooperation between the networks that are created.

• All firms can in turn select others to complement them in the network, which permits SMEs to be

oriented to very specific activities and provide added value to their products or services by means

of cross-sales. This involves a very high level of cooperation that eliminates the costs of

maintaining and coordinating the relationship since the system already performs that function.

• The content of the network are user-generated, which permits much greater transparency of that

content. Those contents may differ in:

16
 o Invitations from members to others to form part of the network, which permits a viral

expansion of the network in terms of number of members due to their knowledge and

that of their social networks.

o Flexible and collaborative categorisation and ordering of content: the so-called

folksonomy (Smith, 2004). By means of tags, each user can categorise the services they

comment on. This categorisation gives feedback directly to the searcher, which permits

the network to be reordered according to the users.

o Assessments that permit a comparative summary of the product offered-product

consumed relationship. These assessments are made by users who have consumed

some service and are divided into different items. These items provide feedback directly

to the search engine, which makes it possible to make more specific searches based on

different assessments. This is the default search engine, which forces enterprises to be

oriented to customer satisfaction

o Opinions by the users who have consumed a service are added to the file on the

service, thus complementing information from the entrepreneur.

• The reviews –assessments, opinions and tags- provided by users about other users, especially

reviews by customers about firms or services, are governed by specific characteristics that,

without abandoning open philosophy, permit the reviews to really add value to the system and its

users. They are based on three parameters that can be called CAC:

o Customer: there must be some indication of whether the user who gives an opinion has

been a customer or not so that whoever reads it has that information since it is relevant.

o Abundance: the aim is not to form generic averages with the opinions but to personalise

the content as much as possible. Opinions are also governed by the “long tail” and

everyone must be accommodated since every user will feel more identified with a type of

user. Thus, by forming part of the network, users may not only know the profile of those

who give opinions but also personalise their “authorities” and tag them on the basis of

some concepts that may help other users.

o Conversation: comments cannot be unidirectional; the entrepreneurs themselves must

join in the conversation: only then can a series of opinions that provide value to other

users be developed.

• Knowledge is rewarded by means of a loyalty creation model. In line with traditional points-based

loyalty programmes, users are rewarded not only for their productivity but also for the knowledge

they contribute either in the form of reviews or by bringing new, productive members to the

17
 network. Customers are loyal not only by their repetition of consumption but also on the basis of

their social interaction.

• The internalisation of the costs that the activity itself entails to the detriment of sustainability

(tangibles and intangibles) can be undertaken in two manners, both of which involve a method of

offsetting:

o One is voluntary for the consumers and enables them to donate an amount during the

purchase process.

o The other is compulsory for the enterprises and is included in the cost of the system.

• It is developed in absolute interaction with the other Internet applications, permitting the entry and

exit of all data (RSS) and fragments of applications (Mashups). Moreover, the use of standard

XML permits the enterprises to offer their services simultaneously in travel agencies, which

eliminates the opportunity cost that has been normal in SMEs to date. This really converts the

ecosystem into a set of distributed networks and permits the innovative development of other

Web applications to feed the network directly, and vice versa.

3. Conclusions

Web 2.0 is the model that has been followed by the software industry to adapt to the Knowledge Economy

and is understood to be a good model to apply in other sectors, specifically tourism. Thus, this article

proposes a new model of knowledge-based ecosystem: tourism 2.0. In our approach is the business

revolution in the tourism and leisure industry caused by the move to the tourist ecosystem as platform, and

an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build

business and destinations that harness network effects to get more productive the more people and

business participate them. So, “harnessing collective intelligence.”

There are three basic characteristics of this model:

• It refers to the tourism sector as a whole and consequently must consider all the elements of its chain

of value, the objective being a knowledge-driven increase in the productivity of the enterprises and

destinations.

• Those elements, whether they affect productivity directly or indirectly, must move to a common

platform (Web), where they can interrelate around a system of networks.

• Knowledge and its transfer must be the motor of the network, which will self-organise and self-develop

on the basis of the contributions of its members.

To define the model and its convergence to 2.0, the tourism system proposed by Buhalis (2003) has been

adapted and the complexity theories used for the definition of the tourism sector (Faulkner & Russell 1997;

18
McKercher 1999; Faulkner & Vikulov, 2001; Scott & Laws, 2005) have been applied. Thus, the article

proposes an ecosystem of interlinked networks that self-organise and self-develop and where social

learning and knowledge transfer become the motor necessary to drive the dynamics of the sector.

Within the ecosystem, two types of agents are distinguished: the traditional and the 2.0 agents. For this

model, the 2.0 label describes those agents that form an active part of the network by transferring

knowledge that has an impact on the productivity of the enterprises.

The framework of the model consists of a system of social networks among firms that permit electronic

commerce. That system comprises SMEs 2.0, residents 2.0 and tourists 2.0.

Although those networks may possess different tools, there are four essential parameters that must be

considered if they are to enable the development of the ecosystem:

• The knowledge of the actors in the network (nodes) must be rewarded according to its influence

on the productivity of the firms. Therefore, it is important that the networks permit electronic

commerce insofar as the development of the network and its knowledge is linked to productivity.

• The networks must be oriented to sustainability (Halme, 2001); therefore, the negative

externalities of the actors in the network must be internalised in order to offset the costs within the

same productive process. ,

• The generated knowledge must be available for monitoring by the rest of the agents.

• It must permit interrelation and interoperability between the different networks in a distributed

fashion ((Werthner & Ricci, 2004), whether those networks are local, regional, or national

destinations or destinations themed by market products.

The final part of the work analyses a system, namely, DESTINUM, and ten of its social characteristics to

describe how they strategically influence the development of tourism 2.0.

19
References

Abel, T. (2000). The complex systems dynamics of a development frontier. The case of eco-tourism on the

Island of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. PhD dissertation in anthropology, University of Florida.

Available at: http://www.class.ufl.edu/users/abeltd/research.htm (accessed: 23/June/2007)

Anderson, C. (2004). The Long Tail. (online).Wired. (October 2004). Available at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041127085645/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html

(accessed: 24/June/2007)

Arthur, B.W. (1999). Complexity and the Economy. Science, 284, 107-109.

Beaver, A. (1992). Hotel CRS-an overview. Tourism Management, 13, 15-21.

Beaver, A. (1995). Lack of CRS accessibility may be strangling small hoteliers, the lifeblood of European

Tourism. Tourism Economics, 1, 376-382.

Berkes, F., & C. Folke, eds. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and

social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Braun, P. (2002). Networking tourism SMEs: e-commerce and e-marketing issues in regional Australia.

Information Techonology & Tourism, 5, 13-23.

Brynjolfsson, Hu and Simester, (2007). Goodbye Pareto principle, hello long tail: the effect of search costs

on the concentration of product sales. (February 2007). Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=953587 (accessed: 01/September/2007)

Brynjolfsson, Hu and Smith (2003). Consumer surplus in the digital economy: estimating the value of

increased product variety at online booksellers. Management Science, 49, 1580-1596.

Buhalis, D. (1993). Regional integrated computer information reservation management systems as a

strategic tool for the small and medium tourism enterprises. Tourism Management, 14, 366-378.

Buhalis, D. (1997). Information technology as a strategic tool for economic, social, cultural and

environmental benefits enhancement of tourism at destination regions. Progress in tourism and

hospitality research, 3, 71-93.

Buhalis, D. (2003). E-Tourism. Information technology for strategic tourism management. Essex (UK):

Prentice Hall

Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Clark, W. (2002). Adaptive management, heal thyself. Environment 44(2): inside cover

Davis, T.H. & May, K. (2007). What is the long tail of travel? (online) Available at:

http://travolution.co.uk/Articles/2007/04/19/836/What+is+the+Long+Tail+of+Travel.html (accessed:

12/September/2007)

20
De Ugarte, D. (2007). El poder de las redes. (online) (August 2007). Available at:

http://www.deugarte.com/gomi/el_poder_de_las_redes.pdf (accessed: 28/august/2007)

Farrell, B., & D. Runyan (1991). Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 26-40.

Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 274-

295.

Faulkner, B., & Russell, R (1997). Chaos and complexity in tourism: in search of a new perspective. Pacific

Tourism Review, 1, 93-102.

Faulkner, B., & Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine, washed out one day, back on track the next: A post-mortem

of a tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22, 331-344.

Fayos-Solá, E. (1996). Tourism Policy: a midsummer night’s dream? Tourism Management, 17, 405-412.

Gleik, J. (1987). Chaos: making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.

Gretzel, U., Yuan, Y. & Fesenmaier, D.R. (2000). Preparing for the new economy: advertising strategies

and change in destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 146-156.

Gunderson, L., C. Holling, & S. Light, eds. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and

institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gunderson. L., C. Holling, eds. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural

systems. Washington DC: Island Press.

Halme, M. (2001). Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 10, 100-114.

Hinchcliffe, D. (2006). Review of the year’s best Web 2.0 explanations. (online). Available at:

http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com/review_of_the_years_best_web_20_explanations.htm

(accessed: 12/september/2007)

Hinchcliffe, D. (2007). The state of Enterprise 2.0. (online). Available at:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=143 (accessed: 01/November/2007)

Hein, W. (1997). Tourism and sustainable development: empirical analysis and concepts of sustainability.

A systems approach. In Hein, W. (ed.), Tourism and sustainable development, number 41 (pp. 359-

399). Hamburg: Schriften Des Deutchen Ubersee Instituts.

Iyengar, S.S. & Lepper, M.R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good

thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 349-366.

Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton: Wiley.

Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: the search for laws self-organization and complexity. New

York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21
Laws, E., B. Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (1998). Embracing and managing change in tourism. In E. Laws, B.

Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (eds.), Embracing and managing change in tourism: international cases

studies (pp. 1-10). New York: Routledge.

Levin, S. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1,431-436.

Lew, A.A. (2006). Long tail tourism: implications of the distributed business model for the tourism and
nd
travel industry. In Othman, N. (ed.), Conference Proceedings: the 2 tourism outlook conference-

tourism edge and beyond (pp. 26-38). Shah Alam, Malaysia: University Teknologi Mara.

McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review,

47, 21-28.

McKercher, B (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20, 425-434.

Odum, H., E. Odum, & M. Brown (1998). Environment and society in Florida. Boca Raton: Lewis

Publishers.

Offutt, B. (2007). PhoCusWright’s five predictions about the future of the long tail in travel (online).

Available at:

https://www.phocuswright.com/the_phocuswright_conference_2007_five_long_tail_predictions

(accessed: 12/September/2007)

O´Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? (online) (September 2005). Available at:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1 (accessed:

03/June/2007)

O´Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0 compact definition. Trying again. (online) (December 2006). Available at:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html (accessed: 03/june/2007)

Parsons, E., & W. Clark (1995). Sustainable development as social learning: theoretical perspectives and

practical challenges for design of research programs. In Gunderson, L., C. Holling, & S. Light. (eds.),

Barries and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. (pp. 428-460). New York: Columbia

University Press.

Pavlovich, K. (2003). The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: the Waitomo

Caves, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 24, 203-216.

Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: time, chaos and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free

Press.

Pollock, A. (1998). Creating intelligent destinations for wired customers. In Buhalis, D. et al. (eds),

Information and communication technologies in tourism, ENTER´98 Conference Proceedings,

Springer-Verlag, Vienna, pp. 235-247.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Oxford: CAB International.

22
Poon, A. (2003). A new tourism scenario-key future trends, the Berlin report. Bielefeld: Tourism

Intelligence International.

Redd, M. (1999). Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism settings.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 331-355.

Russell, R., & B. Faulkner (1999). Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism

Management, 20, 411-423.

Rollins, R., W. Trotter, & B. Taylor (1998). Adaptive management of recreation sites in the Wildland-Urban

Interface. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 23, 107-125.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: why more is less. New York: Ecco.

Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2005). Tourism crises and disasters: enhancing understanding of system effects.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19, 149-158

Sheldon, P. (1993). Destinations information systems. Annals of Tourism Rsearch, 20, 633-649.

Sheldon, P. (2005). Sostenibilidad y destinos de masas. Annals of Tourism Research en español, 7, 447-

450.

Sheldon, P., Knox, JM., & Lowry, K. (2005). Sustainability in a mature mass tourism destination: the case

of Hawaii. Tourism Review International, 9, 47-59.

Smith, G. (2004). Folksonomy: social classification. (online). Available at:

http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.html (accessed:

08/september/2007)

Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, London:

Simon and Schuster.

Walker, P., R. Greiner, D. McDonald, & V. Lyne (1999). The tourism futures simulator: a systems thinking

approach. Environmental Modeling and Sortware, 14, 59-67.

Werthner,. H. & Klein, S. (1999). Information Technology and Tourism: a challenging relationship.

Springer: New York.

Werthner, H. & Ricci, F. (2004). E-commerce and tourism. Communications of the ACM, 47, 101-105.

Walters, C. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. London: Macmillan.

Wight, P. (2002). Tourism strategies of sustainability and profit: is balance possible?. Ambassador Lane

Lecturer on Sustainability Tourism, School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii.

http://www.tim.hawaii.edu/step/step_lane.htm. (accessed: 17/april/2007)

William, E. (2007). The abundance in tourism. In Thraenhart, J. et al (eds.), Tips from the T-List. (pp. 74-

77). North Vancouver: Rezgo

Wolf, P. (2006). Travel 2.0 confronts the establishment. (online). Available at:

http://www.phocuswright.com/library/fyi/248 (accessed: 12/september/2007)

23