Tourism Review

Toward extending creative tourism: participatory experience tourism

Anne de Bruin Daniela Angelina Jelinčić
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anne de Bruin Daniela Angelina Jelinčić , (2016),"Toward extending creative tourism: participatory experience tourism",
Tourism Review, Vol. 71 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2015-0018
Downloaded on: 16 April 2016, At: 01:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 59 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Tourism service quality and destination loyalty - the mediating role of destination image from international tourists’
perspectives", Tourism Review, Vol. 71 Iss 1 pp. -
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

(2016),"Factors affecting entrepreneurial opportunities recognition in tourism small and medium sized enterprises", Tourism
Review, Vol. 71 Iss 1 pp. -
(2016),"Travel companions and activity preferences of nature-based tourists", Tourism Review, Vol. 71 Iss 1 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:126209 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Toward extending creative tourism: participatory experience tourism

Introduction
The introduction of the creative tourism concept, in theory and practice, is a manifestation of
a general ‘creative turn’ in society, and marks a breakthrough in tourism studies highlighting
a shift from mass cultural tourism (Jelinčić, 2009; Richards, 2011; Richards and Wilson,
2006). Heightened momentum of a new economy largely driven by knowledge and creativity
is the overarching economic context of the development of the creative turn. Notwithstanding
critique e.g., Peck (2005), Florida’s ‘creative class’ approach (2002) is frequently the basis for
creativity being cited as a principal driving force in the growth and development of cities,
regions and nations. Nevertheless, the value of the creative economy is not unquestioned and
this is so especially in relation to its part in a broad new economy narrative and a neo-liberal
sell-out e.g., Garnham (2005). Despite skepticism and suggestions that we might be entering a
period ‘after’ the creative industries (Banks and O’Connor 2009), fallout from the 2008-2009
Global Financial Crisis has sharpened the focus on opportunities afforded by the creative
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

economy. Popularity of national, regional and local initiatives to capitalise on creativity

remains strong (de Bruin and Noyes, 2015; UN 2010). Tourism is often an integral part of
these initiatives although the growth of creative tourism per se has been viewed as a response
to the creative turn in everyday lives (e.g. Jelinčić, 2009). However, as Richards (2011, p.
1227) highlights, the creative turn can be seen not merely as a general trend ‘but also as a
broader instrumentalization of culture and creativity’, affecting tourism.
Running parallel to consolidation of the creative turn is development of a general ‘social
turn’. Gee (1999, p. 61) views the social turn, evident in a wide range of disciplines, as a
movement “away from a focus on individual behavior … and individual minds … toward a
focus on social and cultural interaction”. He claims a prominent aspect of the social turn is its
significance to ‘new capitalism’. In contrast to ‘old capitalism’ where organization of work
was individualized and firms competed on cost, new capitalism is characterized by a network
society and a hypercompetitive global market, where knowledge workers provide a
competitive edge, products and services cater to niche markets and consumer identities and
values both shape and are shaped by the design and marketing process (Castells, 2000; Gee
1999; Reich, 1992). The new capitalism, new economy, foundation of the social turn,
however, is also shared with the creative turn, pointing to the entwined nature of both.
More recently, with greater awareness of the world’s serious and complex societal problems,
such as climate change and poverty, the social turn has taken a new direction. Especially in
the developed world, there is movement away from a sole focus on individual gain to greater
awareness of societal problems as a shared responsibility of actors across all sectors. This
shift is both signalled and supported by literature e.g. ‘compassionate economics’ (Norman,
2008), ‘shared value’ (Porter and Kramer, 2011) and ‘conscious capitalism’ (Mackey et al.,
2013). This new direction of the social turn aligns with the discourse on transmodernity (e.g.
Ateljević 2013), and hence may be conceived as an integral part of the movement from
postmodernism to transmodernism, arguably reflected in burgeoning of socially conscious
tourism forms e.g., volunteer tourism and ecotourism.
While the creative and social turns are intrinsic to significant recent developments in tourism,
there has been little theory development to coalesce the implications of both. Mitigating this
 literature gap, this paper contextualises, examines and reframes specific features of
contemporary tourism that may be viewed as outcrops of the creative and social turns.
Hypothesising creative tourism falls short, a new concept - ‘participatory experience tourism’
(PET) is developed and defined so as to offer an all-embracing concept, to accommodate this
evolving tourism terrain.
PET is also extended to include notions of value addition, thus heightening appreciation of a
key link in the experience value addition chain. Hitherto in tourism, value has been primarily
examined from the supply side and/or emphasized customer value perceptions (e.g. Gallarza et
al., 2013). Value addition considerations have focused on new ways to satisfy consumer needs.
Hence, value addition is a strategy that ‘involves a linear combination of products and services to
create richer product bundles’ for tourists (Werthner and Ricci, 2004, p. 102). This paper
contributes with novel perspectives on value addition by tourists.

Toward a new conceptualisation

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

Creative Tourism
Creative tourism was initially defined narrowly, as tourism offering visitors opportunity to
develop creative potential through active participation in courses and learning experiences,
characteristic of the destination where they are undertaken (Richards and Raymond 2000).
Nowadays, the scope of creative tourism has widened considerably. A myriad of creative
activities ranging from the more active to passive, and multiple creative foci e.g., creative
spectacles epitomised by events, and creative spaces encompassing creative or cultural
clusters, are among a host of creativity categories. While categories differ semantically, they
all embody elements of creative tourism. Definitional precision of creative tourism therefore,
may require different categorisations or terminology.
A further consideration is the increasing conflation of creativity and culture. Frequently the
terms are used interchangeably in various contexts, e.g. entrepreneurship, or referred to jointly
as ‘cultural and creative industries’ (CCIs), with inferred or subtle distinctions between them
(de Bruin and Noyes 2015). Especially to those less aware of subtleties in differences between
the CCIs, creative tourism may merely indicate tourism associated with these industries. Yet
in both theory and practice, there is now fluidity and complexity in what comprises creative
tourism. This is neatly captured in Richards’ insight that “perhaps creative tourism is not a
coherent ‘niche’ at all, but rather a series of creative practices linking production,
consumption and place” (2011, p. 1245). This lack of coherence adds credence to our call for
a new construct.

That said, Richards’ figurative representation of the “modes of creative tourism” neatly
captures the continuum of creative tourism by relating it to the magnitude of tourist
involvement (2011, p. 1239). Hence, increasing levels of involvement enables distinguishing
between ‘creativity as activity’ versus ‘creativity as background’. The former has greater
intensity of involvement relative to the latter. In working towards developing the new concept
aimed for in this paper, we align with creativity as an activity to provide a solid building
platform.
 Situating the social turn in tourism
We pragmatically define the social turn as change resulting from increasing awareness,
especially in high-income economies and among high disposable income individuals, of
social and environmental challenges and needs and corresponding action sensitive to these
needs. At the macro-level, this increased social consciousness, intensifies focus on finding
solutions to mitigate societal problems and at the micro-level, stimulates demand for products
and services catering to the change. Consumption underpinned by healthy and sustainable
lifestyle preferences and ethical consumer markets, evidence the social turn playing out at the
micro-level e.g., Freestone and McGoldrick (2008). At an overarching level, the social turn
may be conceived as intrinsic to the movement from postmodernism to transmodernism,
which is characterised by changed values (Ateljević 2013; Ray and Anderson, 2000),
Socially conscious (includes environmentally conscious), tourism strands follow the social
turn blueprint. For instance, Goodwin and Francis (2003) show ‘responsible tourism’ is
emerging as a significant market trend in the UK. Emergent ‘hopeful tourism’ (Pritchard et
al., 2011) perspectives and paradigms, such as ‘social tourism’ are all manifestations of the
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

general social turn. Social tourism, by its very name, makes explicit a sense of social purpose.
It is “tourism with an added moral value” that encourages visitors to destinations in need of
regeneration and/or offers holidays to disadvantaged people (Minnaert et al., 2011, p. 414).
Other less terminologically explicit socially conscious tourism types are also underpinned by
the social turn e.g. volunteer tourism/‘voluntourism’ and ecotourism. Ecotourism, particularly
when framed as environmentally aware tourism (Buckley1994), is undeniably closely linked
to the social turn.
Neither voluntourism nor ecotourism are new but it is mainly since the 1990s that they have
seen explosive growth in research and practice (Wearing and McGehee, 2013; Weaver, and
Lawton, 2007; Vrasti, 2013). For instance, aid and developmental work organisations, like
British Volunteer Service Overseas, were around in the late 1950s, however, in the 1990s,
overseas charity work was “packaged as an all-inclusive commodity and sold off to conscious
consumers (mostly young adults aged 18-25) through travel agencies, for-profit organizations
and educational institutions” (Vrasti, 2013, p. 1). Since then, growth of the appetite for
combining added moral value activities with travel has continued unabated. Businesses
catering to it are mushrooming e.g., International Volunteer HQ, founded by Radcliffe, New
Zealand’s 2014 ‘Entrepreneur of the Year’ (https://www.volunteerhq.org/).
Recently, ‘impact tourism’ has emerged as yet another label. It involves tourism products,
offering the possibility of achieving positive social impact through participation in activities
in different areas of social life e.g. welfare, culture, environment protection (Turizem z
učinkom, 2014). However, since undeniably all types of tourism have ‘impact’, this broad
terminology is less useful.
Voluntourism, ecotourism, social tourism, and other similar socially conscious tourism types
may generally be envisaged as ‘moralization of tourism’ (Butcher, 2003). Nevertheless, not
all tourists, broadly embraced within ‘moralization’, pro-social tourism, are primarily
motivated by altruism and desire to make a difference; e.g., Sin (2009, p. 489) highlights
‘wanting to travel’ took precedence over ‘wanting to contribute’ and was a means “to gain
cultural capital through the collection of knowledge and experience”. Motivations aside,
 burgeoning tourism forms that are a reflection and outcome of the social turn, have become a
notable feature of contemporary tourism.

Experience in Tourism
An embedded thread in tourism’s dynamic terrain is ‘experience’. Almost two decades ago,
Pine and Gilmore (1998) elaborated on their idea of the ‘experience economy’. The notion of
consumers, including tourists, in search of emotionally satisfying, memorable personal
experiences is now firmly entrenched in approaches to marketing products and services.
Creation of unique, extraordinary and affective personal experiences by businesses
themselves and also in conjunction with the consumer (co-creation) enhances competitive
advantage in an intensely competitive global economy (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).
A dialogue on experience co-creation has also been ignited in tourism studies (e.g. Binkhorst
and den Dekker, 2009). Binkhorst (2007, p. 125) refers to ‘second generation’ experiences,
based on co-creation, catering to growing numbers of tourists who desire input into designing
their own unique experience. She sees co-creation of experience as distinguishing creative
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

tourism from mass cultural tourism. Thus “creativity in itself cannot be considered an
appropriate alternative to the serial reproduction of culture unless it refers to a participative
role of the individual and other stakeholders in the tourism network, in the co-creation of the
tourism experience before, during and after travel” (Binkhorst, 2007, p. 131). However, such
a prescriptive notion of co-creation as a criterion for creative tourism is limiting. It suggests
need for a new concept that captures the participatory and creative elements of creative
tourism, and simultaneously extends it without imposing restrictive boundaries.
Notions, elements and types of experience are now intrinsic to the evolving contemporary
tourism discourse. Therefore this endemic ‘experience’ strand is retained in the descriptor of
the new concept, ‘participatory experience tourism’ (PET), developed in the next section.
Nevertheless, we clarify at this point that the degree and intensity of the co-creation necessary
for PET is not specified along Binkhorst (2007) lines. Rather, with PET, active participation
of the tourist involves engagement in the co-creation of their individual experience, together
with other stakeholders in the tourism network. We envisage this as an organic process of co-
creation of a new own lived experience.

A new concept: participatory experience tourism

Rather than attempting to re-specify creative tourism and reconcile this re-conceptualisation
with rapidly growing new and evolving variants of tourism with the common characteristics
of active participation, learning enhancement and knowledge acquisition; a new concept that
can embrace all relevant tourist activities under one umbrella is proposed. Therefore,
‘participatory experience tourism' (PET) is put forward as a general concept, and
straightforwardly defined as: Tourism involving a process of adding value to an experience
through active participation by the tourist.
In extant tourism literature, the notion of participation signifies public participation in tourism
planning and development (e.g. Tosun 2000; Haywood, 1988). Host community participation
in the decision making process of tourism development, including determining the sharing of
benefits, type and scale of tourism development in their localities, is at the core of
 participatory tourism. Haywood (1988) goes so far as to urge acceptance of ‘tourism as a
community industry’. Without pretence about ideological underpinnings, Tosun (2000, p.
615), however, points out, “the concept of community participation has been a component of
the political dynamics of the post-industrial era”, and since the 1970s, “has become an
umbrella term for a supposedly new genre of development intervention. Not surprisingly, to
propose a development strategy that is not participatory is now almost reactionary”.
In contrast, PET takes a different, as well as non-ideological driven, participatory approach.
Activities associated with PET often belong to the local community culture and can have
economic and social impact for tourism stakeholders; neither are these, nor community level
decision-making processes, necessary requirements of PET. Since PET is broad-spectrum, in
particular contexts it can encompass any, or all of these conditions. Furthermore, previous
participatory inclusions in tourism literature are essentially production side perspectives. PET
shifts emphasis to the consumption side and introduces agency by the tourist. Thus active
tourist participation in the experience and attendant value addition, effectuates experience co-
creation. In this way there is a notional readjustment of the community participation power
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

dynamic, with tourists exerting a degree of agency in moulding their own individual
experience.
PET embraces more creative, or less creative experiences, involving active tourist
participation. Accordingly, participation can comprise the exercise of creativity or the supply
of labour. For instance, tourists to Nelson, New Zealand, can participate in a workshop to
learn traditional Maori bone carving designs and produce their unique bone-carved jewellery
(Creative Tourism n.d.). It involves creative expression by tourists, utilising some artistic
talent and skill, allowing unambiguous categorisation of such activities as creative. Non-
artistic inspired activities, if they involve creative problem solving by the tourist, even say
treasure hunt programmes, may also be categorised as creative activity. Hence, also taking
into consideration the serious lack of consensus on what constitutes creativity (e.g. Kaufman,
and Sternberg 2006), and “potential dangers of creative hype” (Richards 2011 p.1225), for
this paper, we frame creative activity as drawing on original ideas and/or artistic inspiration of
the tourist. More repetitive tourist participatory activities, such as olive picking, do not fit this
frame. While such activities offer tourists a deeper understanding of a local community
lifestyle as well as new knowledge and education, neither do they draw on artistic bent of the
tourist nor do they involve creative problem solving which taps into fresh ideas.
A central feature of PET is the tourist’s learning experience. It is worthwhile pointing out this
aligns with the origin of ‘experience’, which according to the Oxford English Dictionary is
Latin experientia, from experiri, ‘try’. For the tourist, value addition through participation,
involves the acquisition of knowledge or skills. Usually there is a learning-by-doing
experience. Thus PET embraces a range of experiential learning activities, which, can be, but
are not necessarily, creative within the definitional scope of this paper. For instance, in
contrast to acquisition of creative skills by tourists participating in bone-carving workshops in
New Zealand, tourists that participate in olive picking programmes acquire industry related
skills.
Different forms of tourism can result in experiential learning; yet involve a distinct process of
value addition (VA) through active tourist participation. Hence with PET, the direct VA by
tourists through their active participation can accrue mainly to the tourist as is usually the case
 with an individually focused creative activity, or be shared by both the tourist and other
stakeholders in the tourism network e.g. experience supplier firm, host community or
destination. We term the latter case a ‘shared value experience’. Incidentally too, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘participatory’ originates from Latin ‘participat - ‘shared in’.
Emphasising it is not an exhaustive list, we distinguish, and illustrate in Figure 1, four types
of VA, associated with two broad categories of active participatory experience – creative
experience and shared value experience. The creative and social turns are conceived as the
underpinning driving forces and experiential learning the overarching feature of PET. Active
participation by the tourist results in VA but the process of VA further enhances the
experience itself. Figure 1 shows double-head arrows to convey this dual process.
Figure 1. Value Addition Process of Participatory Experience Tourism’
Insert about here
Active participation in a creative experience with ‘creativity as activity’ (Richards, 2011),
results in what we classify as ‘creative activity value addition’. Today, popularity of creative
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

activity based experiences has led to specialist interest groups such the Creative Tourism
Network, a global network to promote creative tourism worldwide. Their annual awards
showcase excellence, rewarding companies, projects and destinations “characterized by the
active participation of visitors in artistic and creative activities”. For example, the ‘Best
Creative Travel Agency 2014’ award went to Wild at Art, Scotland, which offers a variety of
art and craft tutoring programmes ranging from painting to stone carving, in various Scottish
settings. Tutors provide expert guidance, so participants in “unique creative art vacations” can
develop skills in their chosen arts and craft activity (http://www.wildatartscotland.com).
These experiential learning programmes, epitomise the PET case where participative creative
activity enhances the creative experience. Direct VA of these activities e.g. the piece of art
created together with the learning from such programmes, normally accrues primarily to the
tourist and in terms of Figure 1, would feature as derived from and reinforcing the creative
experience.
By contrast, when VA derived from the tourist’s active participation is shared with other
stakeholders beyond the tourists themselves, two broad types of VA activity may be
identified. When active participative activity involves a pro-social tourism form such as
volunteer tourism, and tourists are assumed to be more socially conscious, then resultant VA
is labelled ‘socially conscious VA’; whereas ‘standard VA’ does not arise from morality or
social need and problem oriented activity.
Standard VA activity tourist programmes, involving labour supply, are common and
frequently linked to agricultural lifestyles (e.g. grape picking) or food preparation (e.g.
culinary classes). They are often loosely classified as creative tourism e.g. Danubium tours,
promotes sightseeing walks, grape picking, kayaking etc. as ‘kreativni turizam’ - creative
tourism (Danubium tours n.d.). Such programmes provide a new participative experience, but
rarely include a creative process that accords with how we define it. This is not to say this
diminishes their value to tourists who are offered different and extraordinary experiences, or
to the tourism industry, which gains programme diversity and also obtains a significant share
of the direct VA by the tourist e.g. their labour productivity such as grapes picked. However,
 rather than bundling these activities under the creative experience umbrella, we classify
standard VA activities as a separate group, making a clear distinction.
An example of the shared value experience terrain of PET, with a distinct contour of standard
VA is the Croatian olive picking tourist programme in Vela Luka, Korčula. Tourists pay to
engage in traditional work in olive groves. The all-inclusive package, organised by the travel
agency Burin from October to January, contributes to extending the tourist season. This type
of standard VA activity underlines the high value of experience that pays off well for hosts
and guests. Hosts who normally focus on the high season now benefit from work done by
tourists, share their direct VA without paying for it and get paid to provide the work. For
tourists, provided off-season, price is reasonable and this sort of standard VA experience
offers a different holiday, a learning experience and ultimately, opportunity to build bonds
with local people, tradition and nature.
There is rapid growth and variety in tourist programmes offering visitors a possibility to
achieve a positive social impact through participation in activities in different areas of social
life, be they cultural, environmental, welfare or health related. These programmes fit the
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

category of socially conscious VA of a shared value experience. Illustrative are innovative

Slovenian programmes created by Sklad05, a Foundation for Social Investment, and Brez
dobička d.o.o., a non-profit group in the areas of social investment, innovation, and
entrepreneurship, human rights protection and other initiatives that enhance quality of life
(http://www.sklad05.si/stran/17/it).
Offered by the Liberty International Adriatic destination management company, the
programmes include ‘typical’ tourism activities such as sightseeing, gastronomy, adventure
activities; but their core value is they are all ‘conscious’ activities that care about nature
protection, provide opportunity to create deeper bonds with the surrounding world and aim to
preserve the natural, cultural and social environment of people and places (Šporar, personal
communication). Participation in socially responsible activities such as ‘Be the bee’ and
‘Keep the dolphins in the Slovenian sea’ makes these tours special. The former includes a
visit to the apiculture centre and Slovenian apiary, learning about beehives, helping the
beekeeper and production of beeswax candles. With the latter, tourists learn scientific study
methods from researchers and are shown how a better future for dolphins is ensured with
raised awareness of marine litter and dolphin ecology. Tourism earnings partly go to
conservation programmes to keep dolphins in the Slovenian sea. From these examples, it may
be inferred that socially conscious VA activity is usually focused on some core values: social
responsibility, authenticity, environmental consciousness, sustainability, active holidays and
learning experiences. Tourist programmes catering to these values target consumers who care
about nature protection and healthy products.

To highlight the possibility of overlapping categories, we use the case of what we term ‘social
innovation VA activity’. Social innovation and closely aligned social entrepreneurship are
emerging fields of scholarly study marked by absence of definitional consensus (e.g. de Bruin
et al., 2014). However, a problem-solution perspective is a viable definitional stance as
evidenced by the commonly cited definition of social innovation as “a novel solution to a
social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and
for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private
individuals” (Phils et al., 2008, p. 36). It captures the essence of why we classify ‘social
innovation VA activity’ as intertwining with creative VA and socially conscious VA, and
 straddling both creative and shared value experiences. Creativity is involved in devising
innovative solutions to social problems, and this is socially conscious activity of societal
benefit.

Courses focusing on finding novel solutions to wider social and environmental problems i.e.
social innovation, coupled with associated travel, are increasingly popular in academic
programmes. Such educational travel aims at creating socially conscious global citizens and
results in both creative and socially conscious VA. An example is the Affordable Design and
Entrepreneurship (ADE) inter-university course of Babson College and Olin College, in
Massachusetts, USA. ADE students travel to a developing country or disadvantaged region to
collaboratively design, make and develop business plans for innovative products. ADE
innovations include a village-scale cassava processor in Ghana and a gear mechanism for
rickshaw pullers in India. Promotional material for the course encapsulates what essentially is
experiential education and socially conscious tourism: “If you have dreams of travelling and
changing the world, ADE is the class for you!” (Olin College, n.d.). ADE aptly illustrates the
coupling of the creativity and the social turn, with students acquiring and applying problem
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

solving creative skills to address the needs of disadvantaged people. ADE gives a sense of
how some contour lines of PET’s terrain intersect and can even seamlessly merge.

To close this section, we reiterate, while four VA types are identified, there is scope for other,
especially overlapping types, to be encompassed within PET.

Conclusion
Increasingly, contemporary tourists demand a holistic experience with active participation and
experiential learning that caters to their creativity and/or social consciousness. Although
creative tourism is frequently employed to convey active tourist participation, given the
complex and conflated nature of the creativity-tourism nexus, retaining its value, warrants a
robust re-specification of the concept. Such a re-specification would be overly complicated. A
new concept, which can simultaneously account for the dual creative and social turn forces
currently impacting on tourism, is preferable. Therefore, PET is put forward as a viable
construct that lends itself more effectively than creative tourism to capture the intermingling
influences of the social and creative turns. PET can at once fit pro-social as well as creative
tourist activity. The overarching PET construct appropriately conveys the growing tourism
phenomena where the tourist experience is integrated with the acquisition of skills and
knowledge through active participation and where this participation involves organic co-
creation of a lived experience and value addition, which can directly benefit other
stakeholders rather than solely the individual. Albeit not exhaustively, this is demonstrated by
examples of forms of VA activity associated with PET.
The multifaceted PET concept has ample scope for future research to tap into its potential for
application, elaboration and extension. It seems intuitively likely that the concept will quickly
gain traction with the tourism community. Time and further discussion will resolve this
likelihood.

References
 Ateljević I. (2013), “Transmodernity: Integrating perspectives on societal evolution”,
Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 38-48.
Banks, M. and O’Connor, J. (2009), “After the creative industries”, International Journal of
Cultural Policy, Vol.15 No. 4, pp. 365-373,
Binkhorst, E. (2007), “Creativity in tourism experiences: The case of Sitges”, in Richards, G.
and Wilson, J. (Eds), Tourism, Creativity and Development, Routledge, London, pp. 125-144.
Binkhorst, E., and den Dekker, T. (2009), “Agenda for co-creation tourism experience
research”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18 No. 2-3, pp. 311-327.
Buckley, R. (1994), “A framework for ecotourism”, Annals of tourism research, Vol. 21, pp.
661-665.
Butcher, J. (2003), The Moralization of Tourism: Sun, Sand and Saving the World?
Routledge, London.
Castells, M. (2000), “Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society”, The British
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 5-24.

Creative Tourism (no date), available at: http://www.creativetourism.co.nz, (accessed 10
March 2015).
Danubium tours (no date), available at: http://www.mint.hr/UserDocsImages/crotour10-
danubium-tours.pdf (accessed 8 May 2015).
de Bruin, A. and Noyes, E. (2015), “Capitalising on creativity: Insights on creative
entrepreneurship”, in Welter, F. and Baker, T. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to
Entrepreneurship, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 281-295.
de Bruin, A., Shaw, E. and Chalmers, D. (2014), “Social entrepreneurship: Looking back,
moving ahead”, in Chell, E. and Karatas-Özkan, M. (Eds), Handbook of Research in
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 392-416.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work, leisure,
community and everyday life. Basic books.
Freestone, O.M. and McGoldrick, P.J. (2008), “Motivations of the ethical consumer”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No.4, pp. 445-467.
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., and Moreno, F.A. (2013), “The quality-value-satisfaction-loyalty
chain: relationships and impacts”, Tourism Review, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Garnham, N. (2005), “From cultural to creative industries: An analysis of the implications of
the creative industries approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom”,
International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 11, pp.15-29.
Gee, J.P. (1999), The future of the social turn: Social minds and the new capitalism. Research
on Language & Social Interaction, Vol. 32 No. 1-2, pp. 61-68.
Goodwin, H., and Francis, J. (2003), “Ethical and responsible tourism: Consumer trends in
the UK”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 271-284.
 Haywood, K.M. (1988), “Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.105–118.
Jelinčić, D.A. (2009), “Splintering of tourism market: New appearing forms of cultural
tourism as a consequence of changes in everyday lives”, Collegium antropologicum, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp.259-266.
Kaufman, J.C., and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds) (2006), The international handbook of creativity.
Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, J., Sisodia, R. and George, B. (2013), Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic
Spirit of Business, Harvard Business Press, Watertown, MA.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., and Miller, G. (2011), “What is social tourism”? Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 403-415.
Norman, J. (2008), Compassionate Economics. The Social Foundations of Economic
Prosperity: A Personal View, Policy Exchange and the University of Buckingham Press,
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

London.
Olin College (no date), “Affordable Design & Entrepreneurship (ADE)”, available at:
http://meet.olin.edu/olin-isms/affordable-design-entrepreneurship-ade (accessed 19 February
2015).
Peck, J. (2005), “Struggling with the creative class”, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, Vol. No. 4, pp. 740-770.
Phils, J.A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D.T. (2008), “Rediscovering social innovation”,
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 34-43.
Pine, B.J.II. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 96-105.
Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 89 No. 1-2, pp. 62-77.
Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-Creation experiences: The next practice in
value creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Ateljević, I. (2011), “Hopeful tourism: A new transformative
perspective”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 941-963.
Ray, P.H. and Anderson, S.R. (2000), The cultural creatives: How 50 million people are
changing the world. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Reich, R.B. (1992), The Work of Nations, Vintage, New York.
Richards, G. (2011), “Creativity and tourism: The state of the art”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1225-1253.
Richards, G. and Raymond, C. (2000), “Creative tourism”, ATLAS News, Vol. 23, pp. 16-20.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2006), “Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution
to the serial reproduction of culture”? Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1408-1413.
 Shaw, E. and de Bruin, A. (2013), “Reconsidering capitalism - the promise of social
innovation and social entrepreneurship”? International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31 No.
7, pp. 737-746.
Sin, H.L. (2009), “Volunteer tourism—‘Involve me and I will learn’”? Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 480–501
Tosun, C. (2000), “Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in
developing countries”, Tourism Management Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 613-633.
Turizem z učinkom (2014), “Impact turism”. Sklad 05, available at:
http://www.sklad05.si/stran/17/it (accessed 20 January 2015).
United Nations (2010) Creative Economy Report 2010, UNDP, UNCTAD. New York.

Vrasti, W. (2013), Volunteer tourism in the global south: Giving back in neoliberal times,
Routledge, New York.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

Wearing, S. and McGehee, N. (2013), “Volunteer tourism: A review”. Tourism Management,

Vol. 38, pp. 120-130.
Werthner, H. and Ricci, F. (2004), “E-commerce and tourism”. Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 47 No. 12, pp. 101-105.
Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (2007), Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism
research. Tourism Management, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 1168-1179.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 01:59 16 April 2016 (PT)

Figure 1. Value Addition Process of Participatory Experience Tourism