Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through Personalisation of Services Dimitrios Buhalis and Aditya Amaranggana Abstract Bringing smartness into tourism destinations requires dynamically interconnecting stakeholders through a technological platform on which information relating to tourism activities could be exchanged instantly. Instant information exchange has also created extremely large data sets known as Big Data that may be analysed computationally to reveal patterns and trends. Smart Tourism Destinations should make an optimal use of Big Data by offering right services that suit users’ preference at the right time. In relation thereto, this paper aims at contributing to the understanding on how Smart Tourism Destinations could potentially enhance tourism experience through offering products/services that are more personalised to meet each of visitor’s unique needs and preferences. Understanding the needs, wishes and desires of travellers becomes increasingly critical for the competitiveness of destinations. Therefore, the findings in the present research are insightful for number of tourism destinations. Keywords Smart tourism destinations • Personalisation • Tourism experience 1 Introduction It is said to be a challenging task to manage and market a destination due to variety of stakeholders involved in the process (Buhalis 2000). Destination should form strategy that covers the entire range of tourism activity, from visitation to environmental problem as well as seasonality problems and sensitivity to local culture (Evans et al. 1995). These factors are among many other aspects that need to be managed properly as tourism becoming an increasingly competitive marketplace which leave only the best-managed destinations to prosper (Buhalis 2000). Ritchie and Crouch (1993 as cited in Buhalis 2000) argued that competitiveness is a function of wide range of elements including numbers of factor in internal and external environment which need to be combined and synergise to determine the attractiveness of a destination. D. Buhalis • A. Amaranggana (*) School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK e-mail: i7273843@bournemouth.ac.uk © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 I. Tussyadiah, A. Inversini (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_28 377 378 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana Bringing smartness into tourism destinations requires dynamically interconnecting stakeholders through a technological platform on which information relating to tourism activities could be exchanged instantly. One of the challenges in tourism sector is the presence of many stakeholders, which have different interest between one another. In Smart Tourism Destination, tourism service providers could make use of centralised information platform in order to make better business decision. Instant information exchange has also created extremely large data sets known as Big Data that may be analysed to reveal patterns and trends. Smart Tourism Destinations should make an optimal use of Big Data by offering right services that suit users’ preference at the right time. With availability of massive tourists’ data, destinations are expected to offer personalised services to each different type of tourists in order to exceed their prior expectation and subsequently enhance their tourism experience. Presumably, such experience would enrich how tourists value their trip. The significance of this research reflects on industry as well as academic. Starting from the industry perspective, it is important to draw attention to the gaining ground of smartness development, especially within destinations. This growing trend is currently and will exponentially affect the sector in the near future. However, not many publications have covered this issue as most of the literatures are focusing on the development of Smart City. Tourism destinations, and all the related stakeholders, will increasingly have to face number of challenges in regard with the smartness development in order to maintain their competitiveness. By conducting this study, researchers would like to provide a little hint to the industry, on types of personalised application expected by tourists during their time in destination as well as prior to the trip and after the travel takes place. Moreover, this study also captures tourists’ perception and their perceived challenges upon Smart Tourism Destination as well as personalised service. 2 Theoretical Background 2.1 The Development of Smart Tourism Destinations Bringing smartness into tourism destinations meaning that destinations need to interconnect multiple stakeholders through a dynamic platform mediate by ICT in order to support prompt information exchange regarding tourism activities through machine-to-machine learning algorithm which could enhance their decision making process (Buhalis and Amaranggana 2014). Since one of the challenges in tourism sector is the presence of many stakeholders, which have different interest between one another, the smartness approach is then deemed necessary. Zhu et al. (2014) argued that the development of Smart Tourism Destinations benefits tourism industry by providing convenient access to information for both tourism organisations and tourists through integrated and centralised data platform. Smart Tourism Destinations also harnessing the true essence of technology by building framework to facilitate multiple visualisations in a common direction. Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 379 To establish true data openness in Smart Tourism Destinations, tourism authorities should ensure that any information generate from every development of new application should be made openly available subject to their commercial and legal agreement without unreasonable additional cost (Buhalis and Amaranggana 2014). Users could use this information to identify problems as well as customised potential solutions to overcome those problems. It is vital to bear in mind the fact that in regard with ICT system there is no size that could fits all. Local context would trigger different patterns of ICT usage. To this end, destinations should enact bottom-up approaches that are not just based on the deployment of complex technological platforms, but rather on tailoring them to the local needs (Neirotti et al. 2014). For instance, customers have been mentioned as an important knowledge source for innovation (Foss et al. 2011). Thus, smartness emerges when creative people dynamically sharing their knowledge to the system that is well supported by decent learning environment (Buhalis and Amaranggana 2014). Real-time feedback loop is essential in the hospitality sector to give appropriate follow-up while guests are still at the location in order to fix the problem immediately and ward off guests posting unsavoury review online. Centralised operation systems must not only monitor their people but also engage with their human capital. To this end, by using Living Lab methodology, Smart Tourism Destinations could gain insights about customers’ actual needs and preferences. Within this approach, active engagement between tourists and tourism service providers are being encouraged in order to continuously offer innovation on destinations’ products that best suit users’ preference (Schaffers et al. 2011). For Smart Tourism Destinations, the use of Mobile Living Lab is suggested to capture tourists’ needs and preferences in real settings. Benefit of applying this approach is the main characteristic of mobile devices that could go on 24/7, which opens up the possibility for users to test the product prototype in its authentic environment and time frame precisely when they use it and give valuable feedback on how it could fit into their valid usage context. Interactive manner among different stakeholders, namely government, companies and researchers is essential in conducting this method (Ståhlbröst et al. 2009). 2.2 Personalisation Ever since personalisation becomes a gaining ground, number of customer expectations across all industries has significantly increased (InterContinental Hotels Group 2014). Blom and Monk (2003 as cited in Popescu-Zeletin et al. 2003) have defined personalisation as a process that escalates the content of information to its relevance for individual. Essentially personalisation is the process of collecting and utilising personal information about the needs and preferences of customers to create offers and information, which perfectly fits the needs of the customers (Frank and Harnisch 2014 as cited in Yang et al. 2005). Within the service industry, personalisation refers to a state where consumers increasingly expect service that 380 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana moulds to them. As a consequence, tourism service providers are starting to adapt their approach to meet this expectation by collecting proper information in order to be able to provide right offer at exactly the right time. The challenge for tourism industry is to ensure employees are armed with related information they need for crucial moments. Using location-based and proximity-awareness system, destination could deliver real-time marketing message in a means that customers in a place where they are most likely interested in the offered deal. The biggest benefit from personalisation as experienced by travellers is an increased comfort level in both emotional and physical, such as getting things just the way they like and the feel of being looked after (InterContinental Hotels Group 2014). In general, different travellers have their own preferences and requirements, which range from the preferred hotel location to type of meals the want to have during their trip (Michopoulou and Buhalis 2013). Tourism industry should also note that different type of devices used by travellers also predispose their decision making process. Having multiple screens has fundamentally altered guests’ consumption experience by which tourism service providers could create additional simultaneous touch points to offer their products and services. A study conducted by InterContinental Hotels Group (2014) found out that travellers from emerging countries (e.g., China and Russia) put higher expectations for personalised services compare to travellers from developed markets (e.g., UK and US). In general, service personalisation in hospitality industry is trying to (1) encourage speedier check-in system and saving time on booking process; (2) deliver better content delivery; and (3) form better guest experience through in-room distinctive services (i.e., auto-brewed coffee pot and television set on a specific channel upon guests arrival) as well as giving the ability for guests to control their room (i.e., ability to lock the room and room temperature through guests’ smartphone) (InterContinental Hotels Group 2014). Furthermore, from the customer point of view, personalisation of information assist them in the decision making process by showing only relevant information since decision making can be ineffective due to a large volume of data that becomes obsolete very quickly. Information about the user can be obtained from a history of previous sessions (implicit method) or directly through survey (explicit method) which gathered from the user input to the system, where they might be presented with simple questions such as their interest, demographic data and duration of the trip and uses this feedback to build a user profile and make recommendations accordingly (Losada et al. 2013 as cited in Mahmood and Salam 2012). Profiling customer with Big Data assistance is beneficial as it provides better services. However, it also possesses a significant thread to users’ privacy (Habegger et al. 2014). A study performed by Chatfield et al. (2005) had shown gaining concern over users’ privacy; users want control over who has access to their private data and feedback on the use of their data. Hence, tourism service providers must facilitate users with proper information so they could understand the importance of sharing information and enable them to weigh risks with potential benefits. Other challenge is the risk of ‘closing down’ discovery of new things due to the fact that it recommends things that they already know they like (InterContinental Hotels Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 381 Group 2014). Furthermore, overdoing personalised services or making errors in judgement on the targeting could cause guests to opt-out from the offer as this trustbased bond must not be abused and marketing must be consistent, gentle and wholly appropriate pull for the guests to avoid uncanny factors while bringing out enchanted promise of ICT and enhancing hospitality. 2.3 Tourism Experience Since tourism experiences are the core product in tourism industry with direct impact on tourist’s satisfaction and revisit intention, it is a critical issue for Destination Management Organisations (DMOs) to examine the main construct of tourism experience and how to enhance a positive tourism experience. In tourism, the value of the experience is not only created by the service providers and its customers but is embedded in a larger social and physical context of what is being experienced (Hoarau and Kline 2014). Experiences can also be formed within any part of a service process which are not controlled by the company (Juttner et al. 2013) considering the fact that experience develops throughout all contact points during the interactive process (Mascarenhas et al. 2006). Furthermore, travel could be seen as a sense-making process in which tourists are able to enhance their experience by exploring local culture embedded in the visited place (Jennings and Weiler 2004). The places visited and cultures experienced are connected to tourists through stakeholders, including tourists, service providers, governments as well as local communities. As such, stakeholders mediate tourists’ travel experience through taking part in the tourism context to reflect the experience as a whole (Wang et al. 2012). Hence, destinations marketers need to put focus on the entire tourism experience instead of examine only the core service suppliers (Zouni and Kouremenos 2008). The fact that tourism experiences are multidimensional in nature, various involvements along the trip (including before, during and after) could also affect overall tourism experiences (Stickdorn and Zehrer 2009). Pine and Gilmore (1999) indicates that experiences exist only in the mind of an individual who has been affianced in various level of engagement (i.e., emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual) which makes experience is inherently personal (Jennings et al. 2009). Moreover, Kim and Ritchie (2013) suggested that visitors are more likely to gain a memorable experience on the trip when they could immerse in activities within destination. The increasing proliferation of ICTs has allowed tourism companies to ameliorate their relationship with the customer by offering distinctive service mediate by ICTs (Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier 2007). As argued by McCarthy and Wright (2004), ICTs could function as mediator of experience as well as the core experience itself. Through their engagement with ICTs, tourists could gain richer experience within their actual physical setting (Neuhofer et al. 2013). 382 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana 3 Methodology In order to analyse tourism experience as perceived by tourists, individual in-depth interview followed by content analysis were chosen to allow researcher delve deeply into personal matter (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006). It is stated by Jordan and Gibson (2004) that researching humans’ experiences is achieved most conveniently by using interview considering the possibility to seek clarification and elaborations as special features from this method (Finn et al. 2000). Furthermore, semi-structured personal interview was chosen as a tool for this research because the purpose of the study is to analyse participant’s perceptions upon several matters and this method enabled researcher to gather descriptive data with an opportunity to respond to open-ended questions. For these interviews a standard set of open-ended questions were prepared in order to achieve uniformity in following the research intentions while the questions sometimes adapted and changed emphasis during the course of the interview as the investigators learn more about the subject (Patton and Cochran 2002). Using a set of semi-structured interview questions, 13 interviews with technology savvy tourists age 20–25 were conducted to capture the voice of the visitor about the types of experiences they are seeking, their opinion upon the development of Smart Tourism Destinations as well as personalised services and type of service they expected to get from such development. All were taped and transcribed word by word to serve as tangible sources for data analytics. Respondents were chosen to represent range of nationalities and different characteristic (i.e., age, gender, profession). 4 Findings and Analysis Respondents were asked about several factors that positively affect their tourism experience on their last trip as well as expected experience for the upcoming trip to reflect what visitors are actually seek during their travel. Answers were varies from typical services given by Tourism Service Providers in destinations to specific context such as weather, access to proper broadband connection and authenticity of localness. As comparison, researcher also asked their negative experience during their last trip and things they would like to avoid on their forthcoming trip. In order to enhance tourism experience, destinations have to address factors that positively affect tourism experience while also help tourists to avoid negative tourism experience that likely to occur. During the interview, questions on typical use of ICT services during travel were also asked (i.e., Seeking for information, sharing, booking, etc.). Results were combined to see ICT potential in addressing factors that not yet covered by current ICT usage in order to enhance tourism experience. Responses were summarised as depicted in Table 1. To date, tourists mainly use their ICT devices to seek for information to help them form decisions in regard with their trip. However, there are few aspects that Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 383 Table 1 Current state of typical ICT usage during travel Factors affecting positive experience ICT usage to address positive experience Proper broadband connection Localness/authenticity from destination (culture, meals, lifestyle) People (local and fellow traveller) Weather Attraction (architecture, landscape) General services (accommodation, transport, gastronomy) Tourism activities (adventurous, relaxing) Not applicable Seeking for information, share experience Factors affecting negative experience Problem in navigation Security concern Less informed (on opening hours, prices) Waiting time (delay, long queue) Lost luggage Service below expectation (rude staff, dirty buses, unclean rooms) Bad broadband connection Weather Language barrier Seeking for information, communication Seeking for information Seeking for information, share experience Seeking for information, booking service, share experience Seeking for information, booking service, share experience ICT function to avoid negative experience Seeking for information, communication Not yet addressed Seeking for information Not yet addressed Not yet addressed Not yet addressed Not applicable Seeking for information Seeking for information, communication influence tourism experience that still has not been addressed properly by current state of ICT use amongst tourists. Smart Tourism Destinations through its service integration and capability to produce real-time information come as one possible solution in answering the gap between current state of ICT use and its possibility to enhance tourism experience. When asked on what to avoid in the development of Smart Tourism Destinations, 46% of respondent mentioned they have concern in regard with their data privacy, along with several other concerns namely rely too much to technology, less interaction with people, errors in given information, not experiencing destination as it is, difficulties for older people and losing job as tour guide. In 2013, UK’s Department of Business, Enterprise and Skills (BIS) has listed ‘Trust in data privacy and system integrity’ as a barrier to smart city projects (Dowden 2014). There is an opportunity cost to be considered between privacy and efficiency. Thus, clear communication with users on how destination would use and protect their data to benefits them is needed to build trust bond between tourists and destinations. In the next section, most of the respondent is positively welcoming personalisation of services. However, there were also few concerns regarding personalised services, which fall into several categories namely privacy concern, abusive marketing activity, limiting discovery and security concern. In the case of Smart Tourism Destinations where information can be exchange instantly, respondents have been asked about their willingness on their data being shared between 384 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana Tourism Service Providers. Unexpectedly, majority of the respondents had responded with negative reaction within this option as argued that they would lose control over consequences. This finding are in contrast with study performed by Engage Customer (2014) which argued that millennial, which described as the demographic cohort with birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, are happy to share their information. Furthermore, this outcome should be treated as potential obstacle in the development of Smart Tourism Destinations. In the last section, respondents were asked about type of personalised service they expect to be offered to them in Smart Tourism Destinations which covers various involvements along their trip (before, during, after) that arguably affect their overall tourism experience within five destination dimensions. Unfamiliar destinations and their transport systems can present a forbidding challenge even for more adventurous travellers. These factors combine and create a tension between the desire to explore and the frustrations of getting around. Moreover, respondents also demand the availability of recommender system in the form of trail package, which could assist them in narrowing down decision in regard with the use of transportation inward, within as well as outward. In addition to the recommender system, tourists also attracted to discount and offer, which consider those two among other factors in shaping their final decision. As a form of personalised approach, number of tourists also expects the system to send reminder through their device regarded the service they have booked. Meanwhile, within accommodation setting, tourists put expectation in receiving personalised service in the form of updated information regarded location, reviews, room type, price as well as information on surrounding events prior to their arrival. Again, content plays an important role in serving this kind of information to potential guests, as they are not expecting to end up with information overload. Tourists are also seeking for personalised welcome message even before their trip equipped with several list on what to do and what to see while in destination. Furthermore, option to secure their preferred room by enabling tourists do perform online booking and check-in are also need to be properly addressed since it will save tourists time while in destination (Table 2). Smartness approach within gastronomy setting would allow restaurants, pubs as well as cafes in destination to communicate with users’ devices through sensors and LBS. The use of dynamic technological platform would allow them to instantly exchange real-time information on users’ location and profiling so service providers could offer real-time information upon variety of meals, food ingredients, nutritional data, restaurant general information as well as latest promotions. LBS could alert users on promotional offers in restaurants that are close to them at any given time. Estimated wait times in restaurants are accurately quoted, to the minute, so guests can get a drink in the bar while waiting for their table. This allows tourists to get much more from their travel and helps realise the potential of the destination. In addition, almost every respondent finds that it is necessary for service providers to be aware on customers’ special dietary condition in regard with their medical condition as well as religion restriction in order to personalise their service to them. By having access to personal data, service providers would have proper Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 385 Table 2 Tourists expectation on personalised services Dimensions Transportation Accommodation Gastronomical Attraction Ancillaries Phases Before 1. Planning: navigation and information (duration, types of transportation, schedule and fare) 2. Recommender system: trail package and offerings 3. Time savings: booking, check-in 1. Planning: navigation and information (location, reviews, room type, price and surrounding events) 2. Time savings: booking and check-in 3. Personalised welcome message Information (special dietary, variety of meals, navigation, food ingredients and restaurant information) 1. Recommender system 2. Information provider During After 1. Real-time schedule 2. Personalised greetings 3. Personalised meals 4. Suggest alternative 5. Universal card 1. Feedback loop 2. Promotional update 3. Luggage finder 1. Personalised welcome message 2. Awareness on customer preference 3. Personalised customer service 4. Room control over customer services 1. Integration service 2. Real-time information: customer awareness and social context 1. Co-creation through digital maps 2. Real-time information 3. Information on surrounding events 1. Feedback 2. Promotional offers 3. Maintaining engagement 4. Post customer service 1. Promotion 2. Prolong engagement 1. Sharing platform 2. Prolong experience 3. News update 4. Recommender system 1. Navigation 2. General information 3. Instantly exchanging information amount of information so they could avoid making their customer feeling uncomfortable by explaining their personal condition while ordering meals. Most of the respondents also find that the presence of recommender system on available attraction is deemed important prior to their trip especially for business traveller who only has limited time in destination. Personalisation applies not only at the planning stage but also when people reach their destination. During their actual trip in destinations, respondents expectation within transportation settings are ranging from basic personalised greeting by name to more personalised on-board meals that suits their preference, be it due to medical condition as well as personal predilection over meals. Furthermore, intelligent mobility harnesses new technologies to create seamless journeys, where transport is smart and connected, and delays and congestions are a thing of the past. Optimum use of data could tackle congestion and improve tourists’ experience by providing 386 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana real-time information about where they’re going, which particular direction to get on and also the ability to respond (i.e., by suggesting alternatives) to unpredictable events in real-time. Moreover, as tourists these days are probing more simplicity, they demand the use of universal card, which they can use in different countries for different purposes. This would require collaboration among authorities, but also industries, including companies that may usually be in competition. Meanwhile, within accommodation settings, guests could also obtain essential information including maps, city guides, and weather forecasts through their in-room TV, which also allow them to also share their experience with relatives using their social network. This automation also let guests to set the room to their liking (Philips 2014). As guests also expect the service providers to notice their personal preference, hotels need to dynamically keep tracks on guests’ predilection upon meals and any other condition. Guests can also request extended services of a bellboy, left luggage service or order a taxi to the airport (Cisco 2008). Furthermore, destinations could also achieve distinctive service by integrating social aspect within their service. The fact that tourists enjoy sharing their experience in social network through checking-in and posting imageries as well as communicating with their network and having desire to meet new people along their trip; should be picked up by destination through enabling them to see who is around them, who is share a common interest in their food or drink selection in order to open up possibility of engage with fellow tourists as well as local people. During the actual visit to tourist attractions, tourists are looking for a more real-time access to information in regard with their preferred attraction. A number of respondents agrees that it would be helpful if destinations could provide real-time information on how long they have to queue for an attraction, and give them alternative nearby attraction if they have to queue for long as well as the case of severe weather condition. Furthermore, none of the respondents have stated that they include ancillaries’ service during their planning stage as well as for their post-trip since they consider this as supporting service, but use ancillary services while they are actually in destination. Thus, they are expecting to receive real-time information in regards to navigating function, working hours, as well as access emergency call for hospital. In addition to the emergency service, respondents also expecting a seamless access of information between health care (hospitals) in handling their personal data upon emergency situation so they do not have to deal with forms and other bureaucracy procedures. Another ancillary service that perceived as important is the use of banking service in destinations. Respondents are expecting to receive a secure transaction process during their trip. Language barrier and different use of currency should not be a limitation in delivering a secured transaction within Smart Tourism Destinations (Farah 2012). After their journey, few respondents are willing to prolong their engagement with destination through subscribing to their news update and promotional offers as long as they find it relevant to their condition. Destinations could use point reward for guests to redeem later. To ease the practice, destinations should enable the integrated use of users’ device that would count the point upon payment being made. Destinations could also extend guests’ experience through sending them Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 387 relevant imageries, group pictures or typical playlist during the time that could relive their prior experience. Service providers could activate an all-seeing network of video cameras that are supposed to capture tourist moments. This is a modest and slightly frivolous example of executing internet-of-things in destinations. Meanwhile, a value-added service on a post-trip phase within the transportation setting (i.e., luggage finder facility at the airport) is also valued by tourists. Airline could put RFID tag on the luggage during check-in in order to make it easier to locate the luggage after the plane lands in destination. 5 Conclusion and Limitations Applying smartness concepts within destinations is deemed necessary to potentially enhance tourism experience through advance feedback loop, enhanced access to real-time information and advance customer service through Internet of Things to address factors that potentially shape negative experience (See Table 1) namely lost luggage, security concern, delay and long queue as well as services that are below expectation (i.e., rude staff, unclean rooms). This study also discovered number of personalised services expected by tourists to be offered within Smart Tourism Destinations in order to enhance their tourism experience which characterised as (1) Before Trip: To support planning phase by giving all the related real-time information based on user profiling in order to make a more informed decision; (2) During Trip: Enhanced access to real-time information to assist tourists in exploring the destination, direct personalised service as well as real-time feedback loop; and (3) After Trip: Prolonged engagement to relive experience as well as decent feedback system which allows tourist to review their holistic tourism experience. Finally, Smart Tourism Destinations are essential on offering personalised service to their tourists by considering several aspects namely access into realtime information to collect users’ data, instant feedback loop to help reveal users’ opinion upon offered service, dynamic platform which enabling different stakeholders exchanging data to promote service integration; and ability to precisely predict what visitor wants through historical data (pattern analysis) to formulate distinctive services and dynamic recommender system. Having revealed number of potential insights from the development of Smart Tourism Destinations, it is also noteworthy to mention that this study has limitations to notice as it was limited only by gathering response from 13 tourists within the same range of age (20–25). Thus, findings of the study were, therefore, indicative rather than conclusive, as it cannot capture perceptions from other type of visitors, namely technology illiterate and disabled person. As Smart Tourism Destinations have the potential to become enabling environment by empowering the disabled individual through a procedure that automatically adapts the devices to the personal needs of the user, it is then necessary to seek their opinion and expectation on such development. 388 D. Buhalis and A. Amaranggana References Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21 (1), 97–116. Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. Dublin: IFITT. Chatfield, C., et al. (2005). Personalisation in intelligent environments: Managing the information flow. Canberra: OZCHI. Cisco. (2008). Enabling smart room technology for the ultimate luxury hotel experience. Amsterdam: Cisco. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40, 314–321. Dowden, M. (2014). Smart cities: The end of privacy or the key to active citizenship? London: Global Banking & Finance Review. Engage Customer. (2014). Engage customer. [Online] Available at: http://www.engagecustomer. com/article.detail.php?a¼11072#.U7lcgPldVIw. Accessed July 6, 2014. Evans, M. R., Fox, J. B., & Johnson, R. B. (1995). Identifying competitive strategies for successful tourism destination development. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(1), 37–45. Farah, P. (2012). Future of retail banking. Amsterdam: Cisco. Finn, M., Elliot-White, M., & Walton, M. (2000). Tourism & leisure research methods; Data collection, analysis and interpretation. Harlow: Pearson. Foss, N., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking customer interaction and innovation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organization Science, 22, 980–999. Habegger, B., et al. (2014). Personalization vs. privacy in big data analysis. International Journal of Big Data, 1, 25–35. Hoarau, H., & Kline, C. (2014). Science and industry: Sharing knowledge for innovation. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 44–61. InterContinental Hotels Group. (2014). Creating ‘moments of trust’. s.l.: InterContinental Hotels Group. Jennings, G., & Weiler, B. (2004). Mediating meaning: Perspectives on brokering quality tourist experience. Melbourne: Monash University. Jennings, G., et al. (2009). Quality tourism experiences: Reviews, reflections, research agendas. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 294–310. Jordan, F., & Gibson, H. (2004). Let your data do the talking. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism. London: Routledge. Juttner, U., Schaffner, D., Windler, K., & Maklan, S. (2013). Customer service experiences: Developing and applying a sequential incident laddering technique. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5), 738–768. Kim, J.-H., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2013). Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale (MTES). Journal of Travel Research, 53, 323–335. Mahmood, F. M., & Salam, Z. A. B. A. (2012). A conceptual framework for personalized locationbased Services (LBS) tourism mobile application leveraging semantic web to enhance tourism experience (pp. 287–291). s.l.: IEEE. Mascarenhas, O. A., Kesavan, R., & Bernacchi, M. (2006). Lasting customer loyalty: A total customer experience approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 397–405. McCarthy, J. C., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Information provision for challenging markets: The case of the accessibility requiring market in the context of tourism. Information & Management, 50, 229–239. Neirotti, P., Marco, A. D., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 38, 25–36. Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2013). A typology of technology-enhanced tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research. doi:10.1002/jtr.1958. Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through. . . 389 Patton, M. Q., & Cochran, M. (2002). A guide to using qualitative research methodology. s.l.: Medecins Sans Frontieres. Philips. (2014). Smart hotel smart return. Eindhoven: Philips. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experiences economy: Work is theatre and every business is a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Popescu-Zeletin, R., et al. (2003). Service architectures for the wireless world. Computer Communications, 26, 19–25. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future Internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In Future Internet Assembly 2011: Achievements and Technological Promises. Heidelberg: Springer. Ståhlbröst, A., Sällström, A., & Holst, M. (2009). User evaluations in the wild – Experiences from mobile living labs. Mobile Living Labs. Stickdorn, M., & Zehrer, A. (2009). Service design in tourism: Customer experience driven destination management. In S. Clatworthy (ed.). First Nordic conference on service design and service innovation. DeThinkingService-ReThinking-Design. Oslo: Norway. Tussyadiah, I. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2007). Interpreting tourist experiences from first-person stories: A foundation for mobile guides. In Proceedings of the 15th European conference on information systems. St. Gallen, Switzerland. Wang, D., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2012). The role of smartphones in mediating the touristic experience. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 371–387. Yang, Y., Williams, M. H., MacKinnon, L. M., & Pooley, R. (2005). A service-oriented personalization mechanism in pervasive environments. s.l., IEEE. Zhu, W., Zhang, L., & Li, N. (2014). Challenges, function changing of government and enterprises in Chinese smart tourism. Dublin: IFITT. Zouni, G., & Kouremenos, A. (2008). Do tourism providers know their visitors? An investigation of tourism experience at a destination. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 282–297.