C2C co-creation of inclusive tourism experiences for customers with disability in a shared heritage context experience

Abstract

This study explores customer-to-customer (C2C) social co-creation practices in tourism when customers with and without disability share a heritage service environment. Despite a growing prevalence of heritage- and disability-related research in the tourism literature, few scholars have examined the phenomena from the emergent customer-dominant logic (CDL) perspective. This study makes empirical use of the perceptions of customers with disabilities (CwD) in a recent process of co-creation of CDL within the context of heritage sites through qualitative ethnographic techniques, interviews and observation methods. A sample of 125 individuals with and without disabilities participated in the fieldwork. The objective was to identify C2C social practices that occur among CwD and their related value, leading to either inclusion or exclusion. The results reveal the importance of focusing on C2C co-creation opportunities which create a value outcome. This paper provides heritage managers with clear guidance for creating inclusive and enabling servicescapes.

Full text

Please reference as:
Cerdan Chiscano, M., & Darcy, S. (2021). C2C co-creation of inclusive tourism experiences for customers
with disability in a shared heritage context experience. Current Issues in Tourism, 24 (21) PP 3072-3089
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1863923
C2C
co-creation
of
inclusive
tourism
experiences
for
customers
with
disability
in
a
shared
heritage
context experience
CURRENT
ISSUES
IN
TOURISM
M.
CERDAN
CHISCANO
AND
S.
DARCY
Monica
Cerdan
Chiscanoa,
Simon
Darcy
b
a
Economic
and
Business
Studies
I2TIC-IN3
Research
Group,
Open
University
of
Catalunya,
Barcelona,
Spain
b
UTS
Business
School
–
Management
Department,
University
of
Technology
Sydney,
Ultimo,
Australia
CONTACT
Monica
Cerdan
Chiscano
mcerdanc@uoc.edu
Copyright
Line:
©
2020
Informa
UK
Limited,
trading
as
Taylor
&
Francis
Group
ABSTRACT
This study explores customer-to-customer (C2C)
social
co-creation practices in tourism when customers with and without
disability share
a
heritage
service
environment. Despite
a
growing
prevalence
of
heritage- and
disability-related
research in the
tourism literature, few
scholars have
examined
the
phenomena
from the
emergent customer-dominant logic (CDL)
perspective.
This study makes empirical
use
of
the
perceptions of
customers with disabilities (CwD)
in a
recent process of
co-creation of
CDL
within the
context
of
heritage
sites through qualitative
ethnographic
techniques, interviews and
observation methods. A
sample
of
125 individuals with and
without
disabilities participated
in the
fieldwork. The
objective
was to
identify C2C social
practices
that
occur
among
CwD
and
their
related
value,
leading
to
either
inclusion
or
exclusion.
The
results
reveal
the
importance
of
focusing
on C2C co-creation opportunities which create
a
value
outcome. This paper provides heritage
managers with clear
guidance for creating inclusive and enabling servicescapes.
KEYWORDS
Customer dominant logic
disability
heritage tourism
ethnographic
visitor experience
social inclusion

1.
Introduction
Customer-to-customer (C2C)
social
practices have
been shown to
help
shape
positive
tourism
experiences (Pandey
&
Kumar,
2020). Importantly, successful
C2C interactions positively influence
the
tourist’s assessment
of
the
service
experience (Wu, 2007).
Where
the
experience
of
customers with disabilities (CwD)
has previously been studied
in isolation, this paper explicitly explores
the C2C interactions of
customers with and without disability within the service experience.
Tourism
consumption in heritage
contexts usually consists of
interacting
and
connecting
with others while
sharing
a
common
interest. Despite a growing
prevalence
of
accessible
tourism-related
research in the
heritage
context, few
scholars have
examined
customer relationships (notably, Lamers et al., 2017; Rihova et al., 2018) and
disability.
These
studies have
not
critically considered
the
value
generated
in customer encounters as a
crucial
component of
social
integration in communities to
achieve
genuine
social inclusion
in
servicescapes (Darcy, 2010). The servicescape context is the space –
physical
or digital
–
in which the
relationship
takes place, and
it
involves physical
and
environmental
dimensions such as design, lighting, smells, sound, layouts,
etc. (Walls
et
al., 2011). Customers with diverse
embodiment interact in different ways through the
built environment,
communication, and learning and understanding the environment.
People with disability have been studied as a
market segment in their own right, as a
series of market segments based on
disability type/support
needs, or as a
part
of
every market
segment
according
to
general
tourist
segmentation(Darcy, 2010;
Dwyer & Darcy, 2011). There is no doubt that, as consumers, CwD are a significant and economically attractive group
(Darcy
et
al.,
2020).
In the past two decades, marketing research centred on customers’ needs and
experiences (Ozturk
et
al., 2008)
and
social
practices (Holttinen, 2010;
Lamers
et
al., 2017)
has grown considerably.
The
value
outcome
of
social
practices is formed
in the
C2C co-creation process introduced
by
Heinonen et
al. (2013). Customer-dominant logic
(CDL)
assesses the
importance
of
the
value
outcome
within the
customer’s life
context, rather than the
value
formed
within the
context of
the
business-to-customer
relationship
from
the
company’s perspective (Heinonen &
Strandvik, 2015). Vargo
and
Lusch (2004)
defined
co-creating
tourists
as resource
integrators who
possess resources such as knowledge, skills and
competences (operant
resources), which they use
to
act on mostly physical
assets (operand resources)
to create an outcome.
The
lack of
existing
empirical
studies on C2C co-creation practices in marginalized
markets makes it
necessary to
underpin the
value
of
C2C co-creation practices in markets that
historically have
been oppressed, omitted, overlooked
or ‘othered’
(Wearing
&
Darcy, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to empirically explore CwD’s C2C co-creation social
practices when CwD
share a
heritage site visit with others (disabled or nondisabled)
and to
discuss the related value outcome of
C2C co-creation.
1.1.
Literature
review
1.2.
C2C
co-creation
practices
for
the
heritage
context
Social
practice
theories help
to
understand
human behaviour in the
activities in which they engage, for example, heritage
site
experiences. Social practices (Shove
et
al., 2012)
refer to how things are done, including heritage tourism visits. From the
perspective
of
disability, the
elements of
a
social
practices framework offer understanding
of
the
shaping
of
practices and
how
people with disability become excluded.
We
follow
an applied
approach to
the
analysis of
value
creation (Holttinen, 2010, p. 102; Rihova
et
al., 2018),
analysing
elements
of
CwD’s social
practices as units in the
C2C co-creation framework. Kastenholz
et
al. (2015)
state
that
accessible
tourism
should
be developed in a way that engages CwD
in a
single shared environment with customers without disabilities. According to
Lamers et
al. (2017), the
analysis of
social
practices becomes relevant
when analysing
best
practices designed
for social
inclusion
(Verbeek, 2011).
A
number of
features of
heritage
tourism
relate
to
the
meanings, skills and
material
involved
in social
practices. Firstly, the
skills
involved in heritage tourism as social practice need to be acquired, especially in the case of customers with sensory,
communication or learning
difficulties, for whom
this can be
challenging. Secondly, the
material
integrated
into
social
practices
typically plays an important role (Lamers et al., 2017).
We
follow
Holttinen’s (2010)
approach to
CDL and
social
practices as generators of
value
co-creation. With this approach, the
units of analysis of C2C social practices and their elements can be considered as unique. Yet there is no consensus in the literature
about
which elements shape
these
social
practices (Rihova
et
al., 2018). For
example, Schau et
al. (2009)
conceptualizes practices
as linked by activities, performances and ‘talk’ activities.
Meanwhile, Korkman (2006) and Rihova et al. (2018) state
that social
practices are
carried
out in the
form
of
interlinked
actions in
physical
spaces, using
tools and
knowledge. Schatzki’s (2001)
social
practice
elements include
human activity organized
around
shared ways of understanding, while Schatzki (2001) and
Rihova
et
al. (2018)’s empirical
study make a
distinction between
relatively basic
customs, such as answering
questions, and
more
complex
integrative
practices, such as visiting
a
heritage
site.

Holttinen (2010)
also
identifies operand
and
operant resources, activities, use
of
resources, mental
state, and
meaning
influenced
by space and time.
With respect to the accessible tourism market, however, according to Hui et al. (2017), to some extent many mainstream
disability-specific practices are designed to
make CwD
invisible. Furthermore, according to
Lamers et al. (2017), socially
innovative tourism practices lead either to
more
equitable
outcomes (e.g. social
inclusion)
or to
unequal, unsustainable
outcomes
(e.g. social exclusion). Our aim is to underpin the contribution of novel practices, such as the challenging, inclusive heritage
routes
discussed in this article.
When someone enters a shared environment in which their needs are not taken into account, then a lack of
online
information
or
a
lack of
adapted
signage
may combine
with other elements of
the
environment, such as a
lack of
universal
design, to
create
the
potential for a negative, disempowering and disabling experience. As a matter of fact, disabling practices create ‘misfit’
experiences and
become
a
major barrier to
participation for CwD. Universal
design, on the
other hand, is the
‘process of
creating
products, services and
systems that
can be
used
by the
largest
possible
range
of
individuals with different
abilities’ (Story,
2001).
Such design facilitates a
more
inclusive, empowering
and
ordinary experience
which CwD
are
able
to
share
with nondisabled
customers.
The
environmental
design setting
is an important
element, capable
of
encouraging
or discouraging
C2C social
practices (Parker
& Ward, 2000). Universal
design must, therefore, be
implemented
before
the
experience
takes place
if
C2C positive
value
is to
be
ensured. Interestingly, Schau et al. (2009) found that people reinforce their engagement with the service
provider
through
positive
social
practices.
This is an important
finding,
since
the
elements of
social
practices can be
changed (Lamers
et
al., 2017).
It
is
especially important for CwD
who
are
looking
to
impart cultural
knowledge
about the
adaptions required
for their inclusive
participation. Here
we
draw
on Cobigo
et
al. (2012), who
defined
social
inclusion from
a
developmental
perspective, whereby
social
inclusion improves with increased
opportunities to
interact
with others and
participate
in activities. Our definition and
measure of social inclusion also include a sense of belonging and well-being. Social exclusion occurs as a result of a lack of
opportunities to
interact with others and participate in activities.
In our study, having
analysed
the
data
obtained, we
will
explore
the
social
practices that lead
to
social
exclusion in a
heritage
context; and, through the
lens of
social
practices theories, we
will
explore
how
tourism
managers can include
CwD
in a
tourism
context.
Against
this
background,
we
propose
the
following
two
research
questions:
1.3.
Value
outcome
of
social
practices
The
studies referenced
above
have
tried
to
determine
the
relationship
between social
practices and
related
value
outcomes.
Social
practices take
place
through the
active
customer’s interaction with others (Prebensen
&
Foss, 2011);
value
emerges as a
result (Rihova
et
al., 2013). The
conceptualization of
value
in customer-dominant
logic
is not
determined
by either the
product
purchased
or
the
brand
chosen
(Vargo
&
Lusch,
2004).
Rather,
Helkkula
et
al.
(2012)
found
that
value
emerges
as
a
result
of
consumers’ experience (value
in the
experience). Ketola (2014)
found that customers could add value to other customers’
experiences and become the most important source of
value creation.
When visitors approach each other in a shared setting, they are likely to interact and C2C social practices take place
(Reichenberger, 2017). Thus, shared
experiences
create
a
value
outcome
for each visitor (Grönroos, 2008).
When visitors
take
part
in an experience, they also create value (Humphreys & Grayson, 2008). Rihova et al. (2018) made
an
important
contribution
to
the
research by showing
that C2C social
practices were
co-created
in the
festival
context, and
this has the
potential
to
improve
the
tourist’s value outcome.
In the
extant literature, the
types of
value
outcomes derived
from
C2C social
practices have
been mostly classified
according
to
Holbrook’s (1999)
typologies of
value
in social
consumption contexts. Research indicates that
C2C interactions and
related
value
outcomes
can
affect
consumers
in
three
ways:
(1)
emotional
value
(emotions
and
feelings,
e.g.
Schau
et
al.,
2009),
(2)
social
network value (Begg, 2011; Kim & Jamal, 2007), and (3)
functional
value (Harris & Baron, 2004).
In the last two decades, the value
literature
has focused
on resource
integration (mostly
Baron &
Harris, 2008;
Payne
et
al.,
2008),
especially among authors studying how certain resources can lead tourists and
tourism
organizations to
create
positive
outcomes
(mostly
Mathis
et
al., 2016;
Prebensen et
al., 2013).
According
to
Rihova
et
al. (2018),
resources should
be
facilitated
by
service
providers during
an experience.
Cerdan Chiscano
and
Binkhorst (2019), in their
study of
heritage
sites experience
design who
R
1
.
W
h
i
c
h
identified
C
wD
’
s
C2C
co-creation social practices
e
m
e
r
g
e
when
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
w
it
h
and
w
it
hou
t
disabilities
share a heritage route experience?
R
2
.
W
h
i
c
h
are therefore the
m
o
r
e
inclusive C2C co-creation
p
r
ac
ti
ce
s
,
and
w
h
i
c
h
exclude CwD?

R
3
.
W
h
a
t
value
ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
are generated for
CwD
in such
C2C
co-creation social practices?
found that adapted materials, such as scripts and
easy-to-read
texts provided
to
CwD
before
the
visit
took place, can significantly
enhance
the
experience
of
CwD. Service
providers normally provide
customers with these
resources to
enhance
the
customer
experience, and identification of
the resources used in practice may lead to
higher value outcomes (Holttinen, 2010).
Likewise, Jaakkola
et al. (2015)
stated
that service
providers should
facilitate
the
optimal
use
of
available
resources to
enable
co-
creation experiences.
Importantly,
Grönroos (2008)
pointed
out
that
one
customer can effectively generate
value
for others by
extending
resources
in a
shared
service
environment (Goolaup
&
Mossberg, 2017), by adding
resources while
experiencing
a
service (Pandey
&
Kumar,
2020).
Grönroos (2008)
also
confirmed
that value
is created
only when a
customer feels better after
participating in a
service experience than they did before.
In a service environment, therefore, the nature of value is always to some degree collective, shared, and multi-personal
(Heinonen
et al., 2013). Furthermore, Pandey and Kumar’s (2020) exploratory study conceptualized C2C value co-creation as the value
collectively created
by customers willing
to
incorporate
their own resources (operant and
operand)
into
the
process in a
shared
service setting. Value only emerges when tourists actively interact with others and share meanings.
Service
providers
can make
use
of
their customers’ resources to
co-create
value
for them
in a
service
experience (Prahalad
&
Ramaswamy, 2004;
Sheth &
Sisodia, 2006). We
draw
on the
theories of
Ellway and
Dean (2016),
who
developed
a
framework to
explain the
link between social
practices and
related
value
outcome. They stated
that
customers engage
in specific
practices
through resources as well
as conscious experience
by being
aware
of
the
value
of
their experience
in specific
social
contexts. For
instance,
Rihova
et
al.’s (2018) empirical study found that customers may co-create in different ways while consciously
experiencing value outcome at a
festival
event.
Research indicates that C2C social practices have the potential to create a positive value outcome and shape the visitor
experience. Our objective, therefore, is to empirically explore and discuss co-creation social
practices by CwD
in a
shared
environment, as well as the value outcome created for CwD
as a result. This will allow for greater recognition of the social
practices generated
in that
context
between these
two
segments of
tourists, an area
in which research is limited, and
thus more
effectively guide heritage managers in the generation of
value for all.
We,
therefore,
propose
the
following
third
research
question
(Figure
1):
Figure
1.
Proposed hypothesis.
2.
Methodological
framework
The qualitative research design consisted of ethnographic techniques, interviews with semi-structured questionnaires, and
observation methods. These methods were
undertaken
to
gain insight into
C2C social
practices that promised
to
be
inclusive
and
hence contribute to
enhancing the visitor experience and related value outcome for CwD.
We
draw
on Rihova
et al. (2018)
and
recent service
marketing
theories which point to
the
importance
of
the
role
of
tourists in
actively co-creating value during the service experience, leading to more positive outcomes. With this in mind, we applied
qualitative
methods. Similar approaches in a
different context have
been applied
by Pandey and
Kumar
(2020)
and
Rihova
et al.
(2018).
The
Inclusive
Heritage
Sites Project took place
in the
city of
Barcelona
in 2018. It consisted
of
an analysis of
a
single
heritage
route
with 10 heritage
route
activities. The
design of
the
service
setting
conducive
for C2C interaction was drawn from
previous
studies. Before the stay, universal design was applied
to
the
10 routes to
ensure
the
appropriate
level
of
accessibility for CwD
and
create
an atmosphere
that
would
facilitate
interaction. As much as possible, we
sought
to
exclude
environments unsuitable, for
example, for wheelchair users, providing all
the participants with the same opportunity for social
interaction.
2.1.
Participant
selection
and
sampling

Given the
nature
of
the
research, heritage
sites and
participants were
selected
according
to
specific
criteria. Only heritage
routes
that offered plenty of opportunities for interactions –
as opposed to passive activities such as museum visits, musical
performances, or even indoor heritage
routes –
were
considered. Following
Rihova
et
al. (2018),
potential
heritage
routes were
identified in collaboration with Barcelona City Council by screening portals offering heritage routes (see: link hidden for
anonymity).
Participants were
selected
in two
different
phases: participants taking
part
in the
activity (any of
the
ten activities on a
single
heritage route), and participants interviewed using a
semi-structured questionnaire after the activity.
Phase
1: Participants taking
part in the
activity. To
ensure
participant profile
diversity, participants were
chosen one
organizations representative
of
different types of
disability: the
Institut Municipal
de
Persones amb
Discapacitat de
Barcelona
(IMPD). A
purpose-built
intensity sampling
methodology was used
in line
with previous studies (Patton,
2002; Rihova et al., 2018).
Phase
2:
Participants
taking
part
in post-activity interviews with a
semi-structured
questionnaire. Similarly to
Pandey
and
Kumar (2020), a
theoretical
sampling
approach was used. Thus, participants with disabilities who
showing
a
major interest in socializing during the activity by seeking interaction with others were selected for the post-
experience semi-structured interview.
Table
1
below
represents
the
demographic
breakdown
of
the
26
participants
with
disability
in
phase
2
of
the
study
(surveys).
Table 1.
General characteristics
of the sample (n = 26).
Variables
Categories
%
GenderAge
MaleFemale16–2526–4040–65Over
65
65%35%72%14%10%4%
Marital
status
SingleMarriedDivorced/separated
89%5%6%
Education
Elementary
studiesUniversityPostgraduate
96%4%0%

Monthly household
incomeType of
disability
Under 1000 euros1000–2999 eurosOver 3000 eurosPhysical
disabilityVisual
disabilityHearing disabilityIntellectual
disability
60%18%22%12%18%5%65%
Severity of
disability
Less than 33%34% to
65%Over
65%
12%60%28%
All
participants provided
a
signed
consent form
before
taking
part in the
study. The
Declaration of
Helsinki
was observed
in the
protocol.
2.2.
Research
methods
for
data
collection
The
following Figure
2
shows the
study phases, the
methodology applied
in each phase, the
concepts explored, and
the
authors
that have used this methodology.
Figure 2.
Design of the research project.
Data
were
collected
for
the
study
during
and
after
the
heritage
route
experience.
2.2.1.
Data
collection
during
the
stay
To delimit the scope of the data collection, Holttinen’s (2010) theory of practice elements was used. We aimed to explore
specific elements of
the
practices, the
use
of
operand
and
operant resources and
specific
actions. Researchers recorded
details of
the
physical
elements of
the
setting, the
materials and
resources involved, and
the
elements of
the
social
practices as explained
by the participants’ own stories (Souza
Bispo, 2016).
Similarly to
Rihova
et
al. (2018), participants’ C2C social practices and the emotions and feelings that emerged from the
experience
were
collected
throughout
by means of
observation techniques, 40
photographs, informal
conversations, handwritten
notes, and post-visit, semi-structured interviews. The key factor was to ensure visitors’ responses were an authentic
representation
of
their
heritage
experience (Ellway
&
Dean, 2016). Inclusive
research practices aligned
to
the
interviewees’ communication and
other access needs were incorporated to ensure the data collection was more effective than the text-based or talk-based
approaches frequently used with the nondisabled (Boxall
& Ralph, 2010; Gillovic et al., 2018).
2.2.2.
Data
collection
after
the
stay
–
post-experience
interviews
through
a
semi-structured
schedule
After the
stay, 26 participants from
a
total
of
125
participants with disability were
individually interviewed. The
post-experience
interviews were focused on participants’ interactions with disabled and nondisabled others; the skills, competences and
knowledge they used; and the ways in which these influenced their co-creation of
the value outcomes that emerged.
The
final
interview
guide
was developed
based
on previous heritage
experience
project data
and
consisted
of
three
sections:
exploratory interview
questions, participants’ impressions of
the
provision of
resources and
facilities, and
their perception of
their
interaction experience
with
other
participants and
the
staff, were
recorded. For the
visit, the
questioning
strategies were
designed
to
let
interviewers
play
an
active
role
and
explain
their
own
narratives.
Theoretical
saturation
began
to
be
reached
at
26

participants
and
we
continued
interviewing
to
ensure
saturation
(Mason,
2002).
2.3.
Data
analysis
We
began the
data
analysis by familiarizing
ourselves with the
notes, transcripts and
images taken by the
researchers once
the
field work was completed. Data from fieldwork was manually reviewed to gain a general understanding of the level of
performance
of
each of
the
heritage
routes. Following
Rihova
et
al. (2018), upon completion of
each heritage
route, interviews
and observations were
transcribed
and
ATLAS.ti
software
was used
to
explore
data, perform
coding (Saldaña, 2015), and
create
a
relational
map to
gain insights for further analysis after each activity.
Throughout the selective coding
process, the
notes, interviews and
coding
choices were
reviewed
several
times and
compared
to
literature
review
concepts (Cresswell, 2007). Links between specific
C2C social
practices, value
and
other
elements that
configure
them
were
identified
by the
researchers. We
drew
on Bazeley’s (2007)
five-step
qualitative
thematic
analysis, and
Rihova
et al.’s
(2018)
social
practices taxonomy was used as a
basis for the analytical
framework.
In the
first
stages, a
more
general
coding
process was used. Four main categories emerged
in co-creation (e.g. cultural
interest,
leisure interest, perceived group activities, adapted material for all), social atmosphere (e.g. friendship, group cohesion,
participation), and practices (e.g. sharing adapted materials, giving advice, providing support to
others).
Subsequently, in-depth coding
was performed
and
four levels of
sub-codes were
developed
as a
result. We
then drew
on the
literature
to
guide
our data
reduction. Data
was broken down into
inclusive
C2C co-creation social
practices, and
social
practices
that lead to social
exclusion.
Finally,
the
types of
value
outcome
emerging
from
interactional
C2C co-creation social
practices and
its elements were identified (Reichenberger, 2017).
3.
Findings
Researchers observed
the
social
interactions that took place
and
participants reported
their social
interactions throughout the
experience. We
have
based
our study largely on the
classification of
18
integrative
practices, primarily, insulating, territoriality,
advising,
conversing,
helping,
etc. (Rihova
et
al., 2018),
and
the
value
outcomes
identified
mainly
by
Harris
and
Baron (2004),
Heinonen et
al. (2018),
Schau et
al. (2009),
Uhrich and
Benkenstein (2011),
and
Holttinen (2010).
We
have
distinguished
between
more inclusive C2C social
practices and those which exclude people with accessibility needs.
Based
upon previous research and
qualitative
techniques, the
C2C social
practices related
to
value
outcome
are
(1)
inclusive
C2C
social
practices, and
(2)
C2C social
practices that lead
to
exclusion. The
following
section describes tentative
findings regarding
the co-creation social
practices by CwD
and related value outcome in a
shared heritage service environment:
3.1.
Inclusive
C2C
social
practices
and
related
value
outcome
3.1.1.
Initial
phase
of the
activity. Practices through
which
CwD
are
immersed in
the
inclusive
experience:
insulating, territorial
and
non-conforming
practices
and
related
value
outcome
The
practices identified
in this phase
are
important because
they helped
to
introduce
CwD
to
the
shared
experience
of
social
inclusion; they were found to
be essential
for social
inclusion to
occur in the subsequent phases of
the experience.
Prior to
beginning
the
activity, CwD
gradually approached
the
meeting
point. Observation identified
that the
participants –
with
or without
disability –
initially interacted
exclusively with their travel
companions and
staff
members. Individuals focused
on the
specific
resources needed
and
the
information provided, on what Tussyadiah
(2014)
calls ‘personal
and
non-personal
mediators,
mainly those
materials and
staff
support that may be
provided
to
them
by the
firm’. It was particularly important for CwD
to
ensure that resources that met their communication or access needs were
available. According
to
Tussyadiah
(2014), Lamers et
al.
(2017)
and Heinonen et al. (2013), resource provision is considered of
significant importance in social
practices.
In additional, our study found
that
resources are
extremely important
to
CwD
when they are
sharing
them
with other customers
(with or without
disability), since
an absence
of
these
resources may lead
to
moments of
inclusion or exclusion. For example,
people
with physical/mobility, hearing, vision, or cognitive/learning
disabilities will
have
specific
needs that they are
looking
to
be met through the service provider’s material, which we will
now discuss below.
Alternative
communication resources were
provided
beforehand. These
included
Braille, a
tactile
map
and
a
tactile
scale
model
(see Figures 3–6), which contributed
to
a
more
engaging
experience
for blind
or vision-impaired
participants. As Chathoth et
al.
(2013)
explain, this is significant since our greatest area
of
concern is how to
enhance the CwD
visitor experience.
Figure
3.
Examples of adapted material in Braille and tactile format. It shows a Braille map used by
people who are blind
or
vision impaired to orientate themselves spatially
to the heritage site
[Q3]
.

Figure
4.
Examples of adapted material in Braille and tactile format. It shows a Braille map used by
people who are blind
or
vision impaired to orientate themselves spatially
to the heritage site.
Figure 5.
Examples
of adapted material in Braille and tactile format. It shows
a Braille image used by
people who are
blind
and
people
with
learning
disabilities
to
improve
their
cultural
experience
and
understanding
of
the
heritage
site.

Figure 6.
Examples of adapted material in Braille and tactile format. It shows
a visual description of the heritage route
used to
introduce
people
with
intellectual
disability
to
the
heritage
activity
before
the
experience
takes
place.
This system is very useful to someone who has a visual, auditory or motor issue that makes it difficult for them to locate
themselves within environments or perceive
obstacles. Without
these
additional
resources they may be
forced
to
give
up
on the
activity, which will
negatively affect their experience
(Paolis
&
Guerini,
2015). Observations indicated
that, when approaching
the
meeting
point, CwD
seemed
more
open, but also
more
anxious to
see
how
the
activity would
address their specific
needs when
compared to the nondisabled. They approached staff members more frequently, to inform staff know of their special
circumstances and acquire the information and materials (Lamers et al., 2017)
to
be able to
follow the activity.
At
this initial
stage, encounters between consumers were
limited, and
participants often only addressed
the
company personnel
or their travel
companions. Before
the
activity begins, it is important that CwD
obtain the
resources necessary for their autonomy,

materials that will
put them
at ease
and
give
them
the
confidence
to
be
able
to
freely enjoy the
experience. Once
company staff
had delivered these materials for personal autonomy, the appearance of insulating and territorial practices were observed,
predominantly among CwD.
These
isolation practices, without
becoming
the
‘social
bubbles’ mentioned
by Rihova
et
al. (2018), were
directly related
to
a
need
to
familiarize
themselves with the
materials. The
parents, relatives or friends of
this last group
were
also
observed
to
give
the
CwD
constant
support
to
ensure
they understood
the
activity. Similarly, participants with hearing
disabilities closely followed
the sign language interpreter for details and explanations.
3.1.2.
Development phase
of the
activity: communication, collaborating, helping
and
sharing
experiences and
related value outcome
Once the route started, participants started walking in the direction of the marked maps and following the tour guide as a
reference
element. By the
third
stop, the
CwD
were
generally observed
to
be
more
at ease. Appearing
satisfied
with the
activity,
they began to
smile
at
and
act
courteously with other participants, often initiating
conversation. A
few
group
members shared
opinions and
perceptions of
the
environment, discussing
what they were
finding
along
the
way. The
gradient of
the
path, the
gentle
pace
and
a
natural
environment pleasing
to
the
senses led
to
the
first comments among
the
members of
each group. As
noted
by
Rihova
et
al. (2018), we
also
found
that the
physical
environment is of
great importance
for the
generation of
value
from social
practices. Collaboration appeared in the sharing of
materials or helping another participant to
resolve an issue.
The
CwD
were
open to
collaborating
to
find
solutions for enhancing
their cultural
experience. Nevertheless, the
participants with
hearing
disabilities appeared
to
have
limited
interaction with the
other participants, most of
whom
did
not know
sign language.
They did not even smile at
or
express interest
in the
other group
members. This could
be
because
the
accessibility resources were
not
shared
with other
participants,
with or
without
disability.
This expands on Wu’s (2007)
idea
that
customer
compatibility
is
correlated
to
the
homogeneity of
the
members of
the
customer group. Our observations indicated
a
trigger component for
inclusion: shared resources provided by either the company or other customers seems to
be a
trigger in challenging markets.
In the case of deaf people who rely on sign language, this would
be
similar to
groups who
do
not share
a
common language
in a
nondisabled tour group
in
which,
say,
half
the
group
spoke
Spanish and
the
other half
spoke
Mandarin. This key finding
supports
theories
developed
by
Mathis
et
al. (2016)
and
Prebensen
et
al. (2013), who
stated
that
certain resources can lead
tourists to
create positive outcomes.
In the
case
of
the
hearing
participants, C2C social
practices with other participants –
with or without
disability –
and
related
outcomes will
only take
place
if
others share
their knowledge
of
sign language
to
be
able
to
communicate
and
share
resources.
This finding concurs with Pandey and Kumar (2020), who stated that value emerges for customers willing to integrate their
operant
and
operand
resources into
the
process in a
shared
service
setting. Value
only emerges when tourists actively interact
with others and shared meanings are created that provide the basis for further familiarizing interactions.
After the
initial
immersion in the
activity, the
dynamics of
the
group
during
the
outdoor route
activities offered
by the
staff
to
provide
participants with an active
role
play an important
role. Providers can design service
experiences that
facilitate
customer
interaction (Heinonen
et
al., 2018),
triggering
activities,
for
example (Kozinets
et
al., 2010;
Munzel
&
Kunz, 2014).
The
personal
mediator (tour guide)
plays an important
role
in creating
group
cohesion, since
they help
break the
ice
between participants by
proposing
activities aimed
at
group
socialization, necessary for participation by the
group
with disabilities. Observations showed
that a
group dynamic seeking to
create a
participatory environment was present from the third point of
interest onwards.
A
friendly atmosphere
has been demonstrated
to
enhance
the
customer experience
through ‘banter’ between those
with and
without
disability (Prebensen &
Foss, 2011). One
of
the
activities during
the
heritage
experience
was about
‘finding
a
proposed
element of
the
environment’: a
folio
with illustrations of
different tree
leaves adapted
to
different formats (Braille, tactile, images)
was handed out to participants to get them to look for specific leaves around the park. This activity was consistent with the
storytelling
of
the
route
in the
visited
park. During
the
proposed
activity, C2C co-creation social
practices were
immediately
identified
between the
groups, in which both sharing
of
information and
advising
took place, as well
as acknowledging, smiling
or looking at each other with greater intensity. Helping and relating to
each other appeared right away.
Helping
practices were
also
identified
when participants shared
resources and
a
common goal
proposed
by the
mediator. It was
observed, for example, that people
without disabilities were
attentive
and
helped
people
with visual
disabilities to
complete
the
group activity. Likewise, the family members of people with intellectual
disabilities were open to helping other adults with
intellectual disabilities, and it was observed that they began to share the experience. As a result, an environment of greater
cohesion was created
among
the
members of
the
sub-groups. As the
group
continued
walking
to
the
next point of
interest, the
family members and
friends of
CwD
and
those
without disabilities began to
share
their perceptions of
the
cultural
experience,
commenting on positive aspects, the suitability of
the environment and even past experiences.
The
application
of
universal
design,
the
suitability
and
quality
of
the
materials
for
personal
autonomy,
the
natural
and
sensory

elements of the physical environment together with the group dynamics delivered meaningful customer encounters.
Consequently, C2C co-creation social
practices and
related
outcomes were
identified. Conforming
was a
practice
of
co-creation
evident from the beginning of
the activity as participants paid attention and followed staff
instructions.
3.1.3.
Final
phase
of the
activity: trusting, embracing, fun-making
and
rekindling
practices and
related
value
outcome
At the
end
of
the
activity, we
observed
the
materialization of
the
value
outcome
of
C2C social
practices generated
during
the
activity with fun-making
and
rekindling
practices. In the
final
phase, if
C2C social
practices occurred, in line
with the
findings of
Grove
et
al. (1998), participants showed
joy and
comfort
with the
experience, verbally expressing
their
satisfaction and
stressing
their encounters with the
other customers as a
key factor. Grönroos
(2008)
stated
that value
is created
only when a
participant
feels better
after
taking
part
in the
experience
than before
the
process.
This coincides with findings from
Pagán (2015),
who
observed that CwD
may prioritize tourism experiences more (McCabe & Johnson, 2013).
3.2.
C2C
social
practices
and
exclusion
3.2.1.
Initial
phase
of the
activity. Non-identified C2C social
practices that lead to
exclusion
of CwD
although
the
potential risk of stigma
While inclusive social practices were
identified
throughout the
route, a
few
C2C social
practices were
also
observed
to
lead
to
the
exclusion of
CwD, involving
whole
group
disability exclusion and
exclusion based
on specific
disability type. Specifically, at
the
beginning of the activity there
was
a
higher risk of
exclusion due
to
stigma. As the
participants arrived
and
saw
each other for the
first time, a
few
nondisabled
customers unintentionally showed
surprise
at sharing
the
service
environment with CwD, probably
because
inclusive
routes are
still
unusual. Non-confirming
practices may emerge
when a
participant without disabilities shows
signs of stigmatizing behaviour by asking
about
technical
quality standards, suggesting
that the
activity has been ‘dumbed
down’
due to the participation of CwD.
However,
non-conforming
practices
and
the
resulting
stigma
did
not
occur
in
the
present
study,
since
the
participants
with
disabilities were not aware of the existence of such practices, nor was there
any
interaction
at
this
stage
between participants with
and without disabilities. In this specific context, therefore, stigma
was
not
created
as a
result of
C2C social
practices. This supports
Ellway
and
Dean’s (2016)
explanation of
the
link between social
practice
and
related
value
outcome, that is, as seen in stigma,
that customers engage
in a
specific
practice
through conscious experience
by being
aware
of
the
value
of
their experience
in a
specific social context.
As noted
in 4.1.1, at the
beginning
of
the
activities, CwD
tended
to
stay in their groups while
they familiarized
themselves and
their other group
members, particularly if
they were
provided
with alternative
communication resources (e.g. Braille). This was
particularly true
where
a
generalized
lack of
inclusive
tourism
opportunities meant that the
idea
they would
be
in an integrated
group may not have occurred to them.
3.2.2.
Initiating
practices without properly
adapted
resources and
materials: insulating, territorial
and
non-
conforming practices
One
factor that led
to
the
exclusion of
CwD
throughout the
activity was when participants found
the
resources provided
by the
company lacking. This contributed
to
them
dismissing
the
likelihood
of
inclusive
social
practices taking
place. It is important to
ensure
that customers have
the
resources necessary for inclusive
moments to
occur when sharing
the
service
environment
with
other customers, be
they with or without
disability. This is mainly because
CwD
need
those
resources for autonomy, to
meet
their
access and
communication needs. For instance, participants with visual
impairments need
adapted
material
in tactile
and
Braille
formats to
meet their communication needs and enable them to
follow the route.
Without proper resources, CwD
will
find
it hard
to
take
part in the
activity and
will
take
second
place
in social
interactions with
others and
in
the
value
generated, leading
to
their exclusion. For example, on one
of
the
routes, the
tour guide
neglected
to
take
into
account
the
difficult
access
to
a
playground;
those
with
physical
disabilities,
including
wheelchair
users,
were
unable
to
access it. This reduced
the
enjoyment for people
with wheelchairs, who
found
themselves separated
from
the
rest
of
the
group
due to a lack of foresight.
In such cases, people
with physical
disabilities lost
interest
in the
social
value
of
encounters with other customers as they were
unable to have a ‘shared’ experience with a common reference. Even when the members of the group without physical
disabilities
relayed
information
back
to
the
wheelchair
users,
it
was
not
the
same
as
the
wheelchair
users
having
been
present
in
the
area
with
the other group members.
3.2.3.
Finishing practices without properly
adapted resources and materials leading to insulating, territorial
and
non-conforming practices

At the
end
of
the
experience, some
participants with disabilities were
showing
little
interest and
experiencing
helplessness while
situating themselves far from
the
rest of
the
group
and
complaining
about the
fact that they were
not being
given gifts (Dong
&
Siu, 2013), in contrast to the customers without disabilities, whose visit was intensified and the
experience
made
more
tangible
by
purchasing souvenirs, gifts and photos.
3.3.
Summary
of
C2C
social
practices
for
inclusion
and
exclusion
In summary of sections 4.1 and 4.2, Table 2 provides quotations for each phase of the activity, as CwD who took part in a heritage
site visit reflect on their emotions, reactions and experiences.
Table 2.
Quotes
from
each touchpoint.
Phase
of
the
activity
Inclusive
C2C
social
practices
C2C social
practices that lead
to
exclusion
Practices
Quotes
Value
outcome
Practices
Value
outcome
Quotes
Initial phase
of the
activity.
Practices of
immersion of
CwD in the
inclusive
experience:
insulating,
territorial and
non-conforming
practices
At the beginning
of the activity, a
staff member
approached us
and provided
clear
guidance about
what was going to
happen.
Supportive
material for
autonomy was
given to us so we
could
conveniently
follow the activity.
That was of great
help to us […]
Having a few
moments to
familiarize
ourselves with the
activity in a
corner
of the place was
very helpful
to
us.
(Participant with
visual impairment,
male, 56).
Beginning to feel
more
at easeBeginning to feel
more confident
Not
identified
Not
identified
Not
identified

Development
phase of the
activity.
Communication,
collaborating,
helping and
sharing
experiences
initiating
practices
During the route,
we met a retired
couple who were
very kind to us.
They explained
that this was their
second heritage
route experience.
We were with our
12-year-old child.
It was our first
outdoor
experience, and
we found it very
comforting to
get
to know other
people when
sharing a leisure
activity.
(Participant with
an autistic child,
female, 42).Since I
don’t know
people
with disabilities,
initially I found it
strange sharing
this activity with
them. Surprisingly,
it ended up being
an excellent
experience. I met
Paula’s family –
she has a severe
intellectual
disability, and
now
I feel more aware
about the
experiences of
people with
disabilities.
(Participant
without disability,
female, 32).At one
point, we were
asked by some
passers-by about
the activity, and
we told them
about it …
(Participant
without disability,
male, 56).
Feeling at easeFriendly
atmosphereTogetherness,
group cohesion
Initiating
practices
without
properly
adapted
resources
and
materials:
insulating,
territorial
and non-
conforming
practices
Reduced
enjoyment,
loss of
interest,
anxiety
Due to the
fact that the
group was
made up of
many
participants,
site staff
didn’t
realize I
couldn’t
follow the
path with a
manual
wheelchair,
so I found
going up
Tibidabo
Avenue
extremely
tiring […]
(Participant
with
physical
disability,
male, 62).

Final phase
of
the
activity
Trusting,
embracing, fun-
making and
rekindling
practices
We felt very
enthusiastic about
learning so much
about the
modernista
features of
our city
together with the
rest of the group.
(Participant with
hearing disability,
female, 57).We
chatted for a
while
with the other
participants about
how nice the
experience was …
We asked
the
staff
about further
activities.
(Participant with
visual impairment,
male, 56).
Joy and
comfort
Finishing
practices
without
properly
adapted
resources
and
materials
leading to
insulating,
territorial
and non-
conforming
practices
Discomfort,
helplessness
At the end
of the visit,
the
participants
were given
a souvenir
but,
because I
have visual
impairment,
I was told
that for the
time being
there were
none
available in
tactile
format. I
felt that I
had been
treated
differently
from others
because of
my physical
condition
[…]
(Participant
with visual
disability,
59).
C2C
co-creation
social
practices
in
heritage
routes
for
all,
inspired
by
the
study
by
Rihova
et
al.
(2018),
p.
18
co-creation
social
practices.
4.
Conclusions
4.1.
Theoretical
implications
Recent CDL has rarely been applied to tourism and disability research. This paper brings a
new framework to
CwD’s social
practices by conceptualizing
these
as C2C value
cocreation in the
context of
CwD
sharing
a
heritage
experience
with customers
without disabilities.
Our research contributes to
the
literature
on value
creation by focusing
on gaining
insight into
how
CwD
co-create
value
in an
environment shared with others –
with
or
without
disabilities –
and, importantly, how
the
service
provider can significantly enable
and
support CwD’s inclusive
heritage
experiences. Specifically, our findings extend
the
knowledge
of
the
value
creation literature
focused
on resource
integration shared
experiences and
the
identification of
certain resources that
can lead
tourists and
tourism
organizations to
create positive outcomes (primarily, Mathis et al., 2016; Prebensen et al., 2013).
As shown in section 4.2, certain C2C tourism
practices can lead
to
societally undesirable
outcomes and
the
exclusion of
CwD.
However, C2C theory can help
to
identify more
inclusive
and
hence
more
desirable
social
practices, which can be
facilitated
by
heritage
management. Likewise, in section 4.1, we
discussed
the
types of
C2C co-creation practices that
lead
to
positive
value
outcome for CwD
in a
number of
ways. This may be of
importance for achieving the social
inclusion of
CwD
in a
tourism context.
Furthermore, we
have
augmented
knowledge
of
how
social
practices can become
more
valuable
by introducing
positive
change,
confirming
the
theories of
Echeverri
and
Skålén (2011)
and
Korkman (2006),
and
following
Williams
et
al. (2017)
in aiming
to
understand
how
C2C social
practices are
formed
and
how
they can lead
to
CwD
being
excluded
or included. In particular, we
have
noted
how
the
resources
required
by
CwD
vary
according
to
their
disability
type
and
support
needs,
supporting
previous

research but in a
different context (Darcy, 2010).
4.2.
Managerial
implications
Our findings have
several
implications for heritage
and
cultural
site
managers willing
to
attract CwD. We
show
how
heritage
sites
and
other
travel-related
services can facilitate
positive
interactions among
customers (Torres,
2016).
Service
providers
can take
part throughout the
process
by
focusing
on C2C co-creation social
practices that promise
to
create
positive
value
outcomes, thus
gaining practical insight into the resources required. They can also assist in designing
group
dynamics and
activities
that
reinforce
C2C inclusive social
practices. Understanding how social
practices can result in the inclusion or exclusion of
CwD
is vital
to
increasing the value of the experience.
Our findings confirm that of
Rihova
et al. (2018), who, within the
context of
festivals, determined
that companies need
to
provide
resources to
generate
C2C value
outcomes. For example, participants with visual
impairment were
able
to
situate
themselves in
the
activity and
its content by reading
the
Braille
route
guide
and
using
the
tactile
map. As others have
shown in an attraction
contest, small-scale
tactile
models further
help
to
orient
customers who
are
blind
or
vision impaired (Argyropoulos &
Kanari,
2015).
Value
is formed
within the
experience
when the
customer uses the
company’s resources
(Heinonen
et
al., 2013). We
found
that
the key is proper allocation by the company of resources to be shared with others as a support tool for participants with
communication and learning difficulties. Of
course, the
whole
experience
would
be
assisted
by the
application of
universal
design
during
the
architectural
and
construction process; and, where
this is impossible, by service
blueprints to
improve
the
accessibility
experience for people with disability, as demonstrated in other sectors (Dickson et al., 2016).
When this happens, there
will
be
an increase
in long-awaited
opportunities for positive
interaction through social
practices
between customers with and
without
disabilities. This is a
trigger, what
we
call
‘moments of
inclusion’. Specifically, the
results
indicate that (1) universal accessibility is necessary for heritage site organizations; (2) CwD perceive value in their cultural
experience when they are able to share resources with other customers, with or without disabilities; and (3) the importance of C2C
social
practices in a
shared
service
environment
are
shown to
be
helpful
in shaping
a
positive
tourism
experience (Pandey
&
Kumar, 2020).
Finally, our findings also
confirm
an important contribution made
by Grönroos (2008), who notes that one customer can
effectively generate value for those
who
extend
resources in a
shared
service
environment (Goolaup
&
Mossberg, 2017).
In other
words, service providers can make use of
their customer’s resources to
co-create value for them in a
service experience.
5.
Limitations
and
future
directions
Inevitably, there
are
certain limitations to
this study, as data
was collected
from
one
location and
limited
to
before
and
during
the
stay.
Future
studies
should
conduct
research
at
any
stage
of
the
service
journey
to
gain
further
insights
to
enhance
the
cultural
experience of CwD. As in previous studies (Pandey & Kumar, 2020) the
small
number of
interviews conducted
in relation to
only a
few heritage routes is a
major limitation of the study; nor has C2C co-creation leading to value in an online context been
considered.
FUNDING
This work was supported
by ‘Obra
Social' La
Caixa
and
Barcelona
City Council.
Acknowledgements
This
research
study
received
funding
from
‘Obra
Social’
La
Caixa
and
Barcelona
City
Council.
Disclosure
statement
No
potential
conflict
of
interest
was
reported
by
the
author(s
)
.
ORCID
Simon
Darcy
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5394-2566
References
Argyropoulos, V. S., &
Kanari, C.
(2015). Re-imagining the
museum through “touch”: Reflections of
individuals with visual
disability on their experience of
museum-visiting in Greece. Alter, 9(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.12.005
Baron, S., &
Harris, K.
(2008). Consumers as resource
integrators. Journal
of Marketing Management, 24(1/2), 113–113.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X273948

Bazeley,
P.
(2007).
Qualitative
data
analysis
with
NVivo.
SAGE
Publication.
Begg,
R.
(2011).
Culturing
commitment:
Serious
leisure
and
the
folk
festival
experience.
In
C.
Gibson,
&
J.
Connell
(Eds.),
Festival
places:
Revitalising
rural
Australia
(pp.
248–264).
Channel
View
Publications.
Boxall, K., &
Ralph, S.
(2010). Research ethics committees and the benefits of
involving people with profound and multiple
learning disabilities in research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
3156.2010.00645.x
Cerdan Chiscano, M., &
Binkhorst, E.
(2019). Heritage sites experience
design with special
needs customers. International
Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(11), 4211–4226. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0241
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., &
Chan, E. S. W.
(2013). Coproduction versus co-creation: A
process-
based continuum in the hotel
service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(1), 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.009
Cobigo, V., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Lysaght, R., &
Martin, L.
(2012). Shifting
our conceptualization of
social
inclusion. Stigma
Research and Action, 2(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.5463/sra.v1i3.45
Cresswell,
J.
W.
(2007).
Qualitative
inquiry
&
research
day:
Choosing
among
five
approaches.
Sage.
Darcy, S.
(2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tourism
Management, 31(6), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010
Darcy,
S.,
McKercher,
B.,
&
Schweinsberg,
S.
(2020).
From
tourism
and
disability
to
accessible
tourism:
A
perspective
article.
Tourism
Review,
75(1),
140–144.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2019-0323
Dickson, T. J., Darcy, S., Johns, R., &
Pentifallo, C.
(2016). Inclusive
by design: Transformative services and
sport-event
accessibility. The Service Industries Journal, 36(11-12), 532–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2016.1255728
Dong, P., &
Siu, N. Y. M.
(2013). Servicescape
elements, customer predispositions and
service
experience: The
case
of
theme park
visitors. Tourism Management, 36, 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.004
Dwyer, L., &
Darcy, S.
(2011). Economic
contribution of tourists
with disabilities: An Australian approach and methodology. In
D.
Buhalis, &
S. Darcy
(Eds.), Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues (pp. 213–239). Channel
View Publications.
Echeverri,
P.,
&
Skålén,
P.
(2011).
Co-creation
and
co-destruction:
A
practice-theory
based
study
of
interactive
value
formation.
Marketing
Theory,
11(3),
351–373.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408181
Ellway, B. P. W., &
Dean, A. M.
(2016). The
reciprocal
intertwining of
practice and
experience
in value
creation. Marketing Theory,
16(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593116636088
Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A., Cockburn-Wootten, C., &
Darcy, S.
(2018). Having
a
voice
in inclusive
tourism
research. Annals
of
Tourism Research, 71, 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.12.011
Goolaup,
S.,
&
Mossberg,
L.
(2017).
Exploring
the
concept
of
extraordinary
related
to
food
tourists’
nature-based
experience.
Scandinavian
Journal
of
Hospitality
and
Tourism,
17(1),
27–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1218150
Grönroos, C.
(2008). Service
logic revisited: Who
creates value?
And
who
co-creates?
European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340810886585
Grove, S., Fisk, R., &
Dorsch, M.
(1998). Assessing
the
theatrical
components of
the
service
encounter: A
cluster analysis
examination. The Service Industries Journal, 18(3), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069800000035
Harris, K., &
Baron, S.
(2004). Consumer-to-consumer conversations in service
settings. Journal
of Service Research, 6(3), 287–303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503260132
Heinonen,
K.,
Jaakkola,
E.,
&
Neganova,
I.
(2018).
Drivers,
types
and
value
outcomes
of
customer-to-customer
interaction:
An
integrative
review
and
research
agenda.
Journal
of
Service
Theory
and
Practice,
28(6),
710–732.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-01-
2017-0010
Heinonen, K., &
Strandvik, T.
(2015). Customer-dominant logic: Foundations and
implications. Journal
of Services
Marketing,
29(6/7), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0096
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., &
Voima, P.
(2013). Customer dominant value
formation in service. European Business
Review, 25(2), 104–
123. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311302639
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., &
Pihlström, M.
(2012). Characterizing
value
as an experience: Implications for service
researchers and
managers. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511426897
Holbrook, M. B.
(1999). Introduction to
consumer value. In
M. B. Holbrook
(Ed.), Customer value. A framework for analysis
and
research (pp. 1–28). Routledge.

Holttinen, H.
(2010). Social
practices as units of
value creation: Theoretical
underpinnings and
implications. International
Journal
of
Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691011026621
Hui, A., Schatzki, T., &
Shove, E.
(2017). Qualities of
connective tissue in hospital
life: How complexes of
practices change. In The
Nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners (pp. 24–37). Routledge.
Humphreys, A., &
Grayson, K.
(2008). The Intersecting roles of
consumer and producer: A
critical
perspective on co-production,
co-creation and prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 808–1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00112.x
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., &
Aarikka-Stenroos, L.
(2015). Service
experience co-creation: Conceptualization, implications, and
future research directions. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2014-0323
Kastenholz,
E.,
Eusébio,
C.,
&
Figueiredo,
E.
(2015).
Contributions
of
tourism
to
social
inclusion
of
persons
with
disability.
Disability
and
Society,
30(8),
1259–1281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1075868
Ketola, K.
(2014). Value co-creation in consumer-to-consumer context: Case Restaurant
Day. Aalto
University School
of
Business.
http://epub.lib.aalto.fi/en/ethesis/pdf/14517/hse_ethesis_14517.pdf
Kim, H., &
Jamal, T.
(2007). Touristic quest for existential
authenticity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(1), 181–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.009
Korkman, O.
(2006). Customer value formation in practice: A practice–theoretical approach (Doctoral
dissertation). Hanken Swedish
School of Economics, Finland.
Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., &
Wilner, J. S.
(2010). Networked
narratives: Understanding
word-of-mouth
marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.74.2.71
Lamers, M., van der Duimb, R., &
Spaargarena, G.
(2017). The
relevance
of
practice theories for tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 62, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.12.002
Mason,
J.
(2002).
Qualitative
researching
(2nd
ed.).
Sage
Publications.
Mathis, E. F., Kim, H. L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., &
Prebensen, N. K.
(2016). The effect of
co-creation experience on outcome
variable. Annals of Tourism Research of Tourism, 57, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.023
McCabe, S., &
Johnson, S.
(2013). The
happiness factor in tourism: Subjective
well-being
and
social
tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 41, 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.001
Munzel,
A.,
&
Kunz,
W.
H.
(2014).
Creators,
multipliers,
and
lurkers:
Who
contributes
and
who
benefits
at
online
review
sites.
Journal
of
Service
Management,
25(1),
49–74.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2013-0115
Ozturk, Y., Yayli, A., &
Yesiltas, M.
(2008). Is the
Turkish tourism industry ready for a
disabled
customer’s market?
The
views of
hotel
and travel
agency managers. Tourism Management, 29(2), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.011
Pagán, R.
(2015). The contribution of
holiday trips to
life satisfaction: The case of
people with disabilities. Current Issues in
Tourism, 18(6), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.860086
Pandey, S., &
Kumar, D.
(2020). Customer-to-customer value
co-creation in different service
settings. Qualitative Market
Research,
23(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-09-2018-0106
Paolis, R., &
Guerini, S.
(2015). Wayfinding design and accessibility: Experimental
research of
new ways to
approach the
landscape and cultural
heritage for wider range of
users. Journal of Engineering Technology, 3(2), 72–79
Parker, C., &
Ward, P.
(2000). An analysis of
role
adoptions and
scripts during
customer-to-customer encounters. European Journal
of Marketing, 34(3/4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311894
Patton,
M.
Q.
(2002).
Qualitative
research
and
evaluation
methods
(3rd
ed.).
Sage
Publications.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., &
Frow, P.
(2008). Managing
the
co-creation of
value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Prahalad, C. K., &
Ramaswamy, V.
(2004). Co-creation experiences: The
next practice in value
creation. Journal
of Interactive
Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Prebensen, N. K., &
Foss, L.
(2011). Coping and
co-creating
in tourist experiences. International
Journal
of Tourism Research, 13(1),
54–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.799
Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., &
Dahl, T. I.
(2013). Value
co-creation significance
of
tourist resources. Annals of Tourism
Research,
42, 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.012
Reichenberger,
I.
(2017).
C2c
value
co-creation
through
social
interactions
in
tourism.
International
Journal
of
Tourism
Research,

19(6),
629–638.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2135
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Gouthro, M. B., &
Moital, M.
(2018). Customer-to-customer co-creation practices in tourism: Lessons from
customer-dominant logic. Tourism Management, 67, 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.010
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., &
Gouthro, M. B.
(2013). Social
layers of
customer-to
customer value
co-creation. Journal
of
Service Management, 25(5), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2013-0092
Saldaña,
J.
(2015).
The
coding
maula
for
qualitative
researchers.
SAGE
Publications
Ltd.
Schatzki, T. R.
(2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In
T. R. Schatzki
(Ed.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23).
Routledge.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., &
Arnould, E. J.
(2009). How
brand
community practices create value. Journal
of Marketing, 73(5),
30–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Sheth,
J.
N.,
&
Sisodia,
R.
S.
(Eds.).
(2006).
Does
marketing
need
reform? Fresh perspectives
on the
future.
M.
E.
Sharpe,
Inc.
Shove,
E.,
Pantzar,
M.,
&
Watson,
M.
(2012).
The
dynamics
of social
practice:
Everyday
life
and
how
it
changes.
Sage.
Souza
Bispo,
M.
(2016).
Tourism
as
practice.
Annals
of
Tourism
Research,
61,
170–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.009
Story,
M.
F.
(2001).
Principles
of
universal
design.
In
W.
F.
E.
Preiser,
&
E.
Ostroff
(Eds.),
Universal
design
handbook.
McGraw-Hill.
Torres, E. N.
(2016). Guest interactions and
the
formation of
memorable
experiences: An ethnography. International Journal
of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2132–2155. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2015-0065
Tussyadiah, I. P.
(2014). Toward a
theoretical
foundation for experience design in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5),
543–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513172
Uhrich, S., &
Benkenstein, M.
(2011). Physical
and
social
atmospheric effects in hedonic service
consumption: Customers’ roles at
sporting events. The Service Industries Journal, 32(11), 1741–1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.556190
Vargo, S., &
Lusch, R.
(2004). Evolving
to
a
new
dominant logic for marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
https://doi.or