Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Making sense of smart tourism destinations: A qualitative text analysis

from Sweden
Jennie Gelter a, *, Matthias Fuchs a, b, Maria Lexhagen a, b
a
Mid Sweden University, Department of Economics, Geography, Law and Tourism (EJT), Kunskapens Väg 4, 831 25, Östersund, Sweden
b
Mid Sweden University, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concept of smart tourism destinations has gained increased attention in research literature and among
Smart tourism destinations tourism stakeholders. However, the concept is still considered in need of more in-depth explanations for un­
GABEK® derstanding and making sense of the notion. The contribution of the concept of smart tourism destinations to
Qualitative text analysis
managerially relevant knowledge is particularly difficult to assess due to its complexity. Therefore, a qualitative
Sense-making
text analysis of stakeholder interviews is proposed and conducted using the GABEK® methodology to identify
recurring themes in the stakeholders’ understanding of smart tourism destinations. The GABEK® methodology
aims to represent the texts of open interviews as networks of interrelated keywords to make sense of a complex
phenomenon. This study explores how destination stakeholders from two different Swedish destinations make
sense of the concept of smart tourism destinations. Study findings show that, from the destination stakeholders’
point of view, there is a need to counterbalance the currently dominant focus on technology with softer though
more existential values to construct a sustainable path of destination development. As for the theoretical
contribution, this study clarifies properties of smart tourism destinations and stakeholders’ sense-making of the
concept of smart tourism destination.

1. Introduction and delivery of tourist products and services at destinations. Similarly,

The concept of smart tourism destinations has emerged with the
development of information and communication technologies (ICTs)
and has been seen as extremely important for the tourism industry
(Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2015; Buhalis & Law, 2008; Del Chiappa &
Baggio, 2015; Gelter et al., 2020; Gretzel, Werthner, et al., 2015). The
concept of smart tourism destinations refers to destination management
as a way of developing tourism destinations through ‘digital trans­
formation’ (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014). As a related concept, smart
tourism is described in terms of the collection and aggregation of in­
formation from tourist operators, infrastructures and individuals rele­
vant to a particular destination. This information is then digitised,
creating a commercial and human value for those who visit the desti­
nation with a focus on sustainability, experiences and efficiency (Chen
et al., 2021; Gretzel, Sigala, et al., 2015; Um & Chung, 2021; Ye et al.,
2021). Um and Chung (2021) state that smart tourism not only elevates
tourism resources but also enables tourism management, enhances
quality of life and improves communication. Lee et al. (2021) stress that
smart tourism is a holistic approach where ICTs support the marketing
Baggio and Del Chiappa (2014) emphasise that a smart tourism desti­
nation employs technological infrastructures to create a digital envi­
ronment (i.e. ecosystem). This digital environment is discussed in
scholarly literature as essential for a destination to become more effec­
tive in terms of knowledge creation and sharing, as well as enhanced
tourist experiences (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014). Yet, as the number
of stakeholders increases, destinations become more complex, what
causes decision-making processes to be complex and difficult to manage
(Pan et al., 2021).
Although the term ‘smart’ has gained increased attention in the
literature, the topic is still in urgent need of both theoretical clarification
as well as empirical examination and specification (Gelter et al., 2020;
Pearce, 2020; Werthner et al., 2015). The various tourism destination
stakeholders, as well as those not typically addressed in the tourism
literature, such as distributors of technological applications and solu­
tions, also need more in-depth explanations in order to understand the
concept of smart tourism, as stressed by Gretzel and de Mendonça
(2019). Buhalis (2022, p. 3) claims that while the importance of ICTs in
tourism is recognised, there “is a lack of understanding of how

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Jennie.Gelter@miun.se (J. Gelter), Matthias.Fuchs@miun.se (M. Fuchs), Maria.Lexhagen@miun.se (M. Lexhagen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100690
Received 1 June 2021; Received in revised form 3 January 2022; Accepted 4 January 2022
Available online 20 January 2022
2212-571X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Gelter et al.
stakeholders can harness the benefits of smartness and agility at the
destination”. Thus, they need to learn about and implement ideas from
the concept of smart tourism destinations in the course of related
development and change processes. Eichelberger et al. (2020) stress that
it is essential that stakeholders understand and develop the ability to
accept and make use of smart infrastructures. In fact, most of the pub­
lished research focuses on technology and governance (Gretzel & de
Mendonça, 2019), but there is a need to address more strongly the
‘understanding’ and ‘learning’ processes of stakeholders that are asso­
ciated with the concept of smart tourism destinations (Cavalheiro et al.,
2020). The prefix ‘smart’ is particularly difficult to interpret, since
smartness is mainly perceived as a characterisation of ‘advancements’
(Cavada et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2021), thus significant mis­
interpretations can be observed. Lee et al. (2021, p. 27) highlight that
even if research progress has been made, “its main focus has yet to
develop to a level which benefits certain stakeholders”. There is,
therefore, an urgent need to further clarify the concept of smart tourism
destinations, as well as to better recognise its constituent elements.
Similarly, Li et al. (2017) suggest unveiling the core of ‘smart’ through
additional research efforts.
With the above as the background, this study presents a critical
approach to the research field of tourism and destination management,
disseminating new discussions, research directions and implications for
destination management. Accordingly, this research makes a novel
contribution in clarifying the properties of smart tourism destinations by
analysing interviews of destination stakeholders to answer the research
question: How do destination stakeholders make sense of the concept of
smart tourism destinations? Destination stakeholders in this context, refer
to the stakeholders that are most strongly involved in and, thus, heavily
influence the digitisation process at each destination – e.g. municipal­
ities, industry, and ICT experts, respectively. The aim is to contribute to
a more comprehensive and critical understanding of a complex
emerging phenomenon. In sum, this study sets out to explore stake­
holders’ perceived meaning of smart tourism destinations, thus, to make
sense of the concept of smart destinations through comprehensive
qualitative text analysis using the GABEK® methodology. This study
thereby offers a platform which will be able to develop new and com­
plementary insights through identified themes in order to make better
sense of the processes involved.
The structure of the paper is as follows: The theoretical background
will be presented first, and the specification of the employed method­
ology will be discussed. Major findings are then presented and impli­
cations for tourism destination management are discussed. The
concluding section highlights study limitations and provides input for
future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Destination management and ICT
The dominant understanding of tourism destination management
has changed with the proliferated use of ICTs (Buhalis & Law, 2008;
Xiang, 2018). As the notion of ‘smartness’ entered the research field
(Gretzel, Werthner, et al., 2015; Jovicic, 2016), the understanding of
tourism destinations and destination management was seriously chal­
lenged (Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019). Additionally, with regard to
socio-technical change, the transition process of building new
socio-technical systems in modern societies is difficult to implement due
to often unbalanced economic interests and societal needs (Gretzel,
Fuchs, et al., 2020; Kemp et al., 2001). Because of this complex inter­
connectedness between technical, human and institutional components
that follow smart development, Nam and Pardo (2011, p. 288) stress
that the notion of smart “requires a comprehensive understanding of the
complexities and interconnections among social and technical factors.”
However, as highlighted, the majority of previous studies on smart
tourism destinations focus on governance and technology-related issues
2
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
(Cavalheiro et al., 2020; Gretzel & de Mendonça, 2019), and especially
the utilisation of technology itself (Lim et al., 2017). Therefore, there is a
strong need to scrutinise the process of making sense of the concept of
smart tourism destinations from the tourism destination stakeholders’
perspectives. This will add important insights into how the concept is
understood, communicated, implemented and, finally, used in a most
sustainable and responsive way. Notably, Pearce (2015) stresses that
there is a lack of destination management research which examines is­
sues related to delivering multiple management functions at a destina­
tion. Consequently, in smart destination management there is a need to
acknowledge the added complexity of interactions between stakeholders
primarily concerned with destination development and those that are
suppliers of ICT solutions and technology infrastructure (Farsari, 2021).
2.2. Smart destination management and socio-technical transformations
Technological changes are not happening autonomously, but rather
through endogenous problem-solving processes, economic interests and
human creativity as a part of socio-technical transformations (Fuchs
et al., 2021; Kemp et al., 2001). These transformation processes are
pushing the frontiers of knowledge, changing preferences, and contin­
uously establishing new social institutions and norms. The transition to
smart tourism destinations, thus consists of a change from one
socio-technical configuration to another, thereby involving changing
both technology, self-concepts, and concepts of management, as well as
technology and work (Illich, 1975; Samerski, 2018). Such reconfigura­
tion processes, however, do not occur without major challenges. A major
reason is that the elements in an existing socio-technical system
configuration are interlinked and adapted through regulations, habitual
user practices, existing infrastructures, and accumulated and incorpo­
rated types of knowledge (Fuchs & Baggio, 2017; Von Tunzelmann et al.,
2008). Accordingly, Geels (2002) states that these configurations do not
remain unchanged over time. Therefore, the author (Geels, 2002)
highlights the importance of understanding system inertia in order to
intentionally construct a desirable path of system development. In sum,
with an increased level of digitisation and number of
ICT-infrastructures, destinations became more networked. This requires
new management approaches to deal with the consequences of the
increased complexity that spread across and beyond traditional desti­
nation boundaries (Farsari, 2021). As a result, management, when
change is imminent, involves the importance of understanding the
context in order to respond, react and adapt to implement suitable
strategies where problems are identified (Ahn et al., 2002). Also, the
same authors emphasise that it is important that these processes provide
stakeholders with opportunities to express themselves about how
change might impact themselves. Therefore, a qualitative text analysis
of stakeholder interviews is considered crucial (Wilson & Hollinshead,
2015). Put differently, as different destination stakeholders have
different perceptions about change and the concept of smart, listening to
their expectations and experiences seems imperative.
2.3. Sense-making and social systems
When studying social systems, Weick (1993) suggests adding the
complex layer of human sense-making, which would append new and
relevant learning dimensions to a complex phenomenon. Sense-making
has been defined as the process in which people make sense of their
particular way of experiencing the world (Klein et al., 2006a). This also
comprises the knowing how to understand an ongoing process of change
and anticipate trajectories as well as act accordingly (Mills et al., 2010).
Weick (1993) stresses that sense-making frameworks provide a major
aid in comprehending shared meanings by framing, interpreting, and
discovering through ongoing reflection and synthesis. Sense-making is,
thus, a critical element of the process of understanding complex phe­
nomena (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Weick, 2016; Weick et al., 2005).
According to Ancona (2012), sense-making is needed when pure
J. Gelter et al.
understanding becomes unintelligible and inadequate, thus, often occurs
during periods of fundamental change (Ancona, 2012). Consequently,
the sense-making process also illuminates initially unknown gaps in the
understanding of change. Moreover, Ancona (2012) stresses that
sense-making involves exploring new frameworks and interpretations to
help understand the particular context. This seems imperative in order
to “act with resilience, verifying and updating our maps to better our
understanding and achieve more desirable outcomes” (Ancona, 2012, p.
11). It is crucial to emphasise that a certain type of pre-knowledge is
required for sense-making to form mental simulation (i.e. looking for­
ward – prospective) (Klein el al., 2006b). Thus, the study at hand focuses
on prospective sense-making; it analyses how destination stakeholders
make sense of the current and future state of smart tourism destinations,
thereby affecting both tourism destination management practice (Brown
et al., 2015) and scientific study.
Notably, the contribution to managerially relevant knowledge at
tourism destinations based on the concept of smart tourism destinations
is difficult to assess, especially since the smart aspect of the concept is not
well delineated and understood. It is primarily related to the introduc­
tion of new ICTs, along with a poorly-considered concept of ‘efficiency’
on the part of mass industry regarding the processing and distributing of
data and information (Fuchs & Sigala, 2021; Samerski, 2018; Tenner,
2019). The contemporary smart tourism destination discourse and the
current understanding of the concept still focuses mainly on technology
and its capacity to secure economic growth (Gretzel, Fuchs, et al., 2020;
Gretzel, 2021; Gretzel et al., 2020; Gretzel & de Mendonça, 2019;
Gretzel & Jamal, 2020; Gretzel & Koo, 2021; Gretzel, Sigala, Xiang, &
Koo, 2015; Gretzel, Werthner, Koo, & Lamsfus, 2015). Methodologi­
cally, the majority of existing research on smart tourism destinations is
conceptual in nature. Therefore, there is a need for novel in-depth
research approaches that critically develop the epistemological base
for tourism destination studies (Gelter et al., 2020; McKercher & Pri­
deaux, 2014). In a similar way, Sigala (2018, p. 151) states that existing
“disciplinary silos are not appropriate to study complex phenomena”. In
other words, if studies on smart tourism destinations remain to ‘prove’
ideologically-based assumptions and replicate similar methods with
similar results, there will continue to exist “causal agents that create,
disseminate and entrench” particular beliefs “as part of the ethos” that
underpins the discipline of tourism science (McKercher & Prideaux,
2014, p. 25). Therefore, novel and critical approaches are needed when
studying tourism destinations’ continual processes of change, adapta­
tion and socio-technical transformations due to digitisation that chal­
lenges a destination’s structure, function and management practices.
Strikingly, conceptual understanding and sense-making at the stake­
holder level is insufficient, therefore calling for a greater recognition
that transcends requirements deduced from ideology-driven paradigms
(Gretzel, Fuchs, et al., 2020). Instead, a qualitative text analysis of
stakeholder interviews will better contribute by allowing new and crit­
ical perspectives to emerge.
3. Methodology
When research areas are new and previous work is not sufficient for
theory-building, qualitative methods can be supportive (Wilson & Hol­
linshead, 2015). Thus, explorative work is necessary to clarify research
topics and to support both scientific work and direction of practice. For
the study at hand, individual experiences of the concept of smart tourism
destinations is analysed by carefully listening to tourism destination
stakeholders which then provide a means for sense-making at the indi­
vidual level (Starbuck, 2015). The present study builds on twenty in­
terviews conducted at two Swedish destinations during 2019 with three
destination stakeholder groups (Table 1): four experts (i.e. tourism
researcher and digitisation developers), twelve from the municipality (i.
e. destination management organisations and business development
offices), and four from the industry (i.e. manager of tourism operators
and businesses that drive digitisation processes). The abbreviations for
3
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
Table 1
Interview groups.
Category Number of Abbreviations
interviews
Experts 4
Tourism researcher 1 [Ex-Re. STHLM] – Expert, researcher in
Stockholm
Digitisation developers 2 [Ex-Dd. STHLM] – Expert, digitisation
developer in Stockholm
1 [Ex-Dd. ÅRE] – Expert, digitisation
developer in Åre
Municipality 12
DMO 6 [Mu-DMO STHLM] – Municipality,
DMO in Stockholm
1 [Mu-DMO ÅRE] - Municipality, DMO in
Åre
Business development 2 [Mu-BDO. STHLM] – Municipality,
offices Business development offices in
Stockholm
3 [Mu-BDO. Åre] – Municipality,
Business development offices in Åre
Industry 4
Distributor of ICT 1 [In-ICT STHLM] – Industry, distributor
of ICT in Stockholm
Digital business 1 [In-Cons. STHLM] – Industry, digital
development business development consultant in
consultants Stockholm
1 [In-Cons. ÅRE] – Industry, digital
business development consultant in Åre
Hotel manager 1 [In-Hotel ÅRE] – Industry, hotel
manager in Åre
each stakeholder group and destination placed in Table 1 are used in the
result section for the interview citations.
The interviews serve as a linguistic expression of sense-making and
simultaneously as a means of encoding knowledge (Ivanova-Gongne &
Törnroos, 2017). Also, they mirror conceptual descriptions of complex
socio-technical phenomena, expressing change, contextual in­
terpretations, thereby providing the individual “perspective on how
things are, as well as how they should be” (Ivanova-Gongne and
Törnroos, 2017, p. 105). As the concept of smart tourism destinations is
a driver of change, it is important to understand how particular ex­
pressions gained through interviews may play a role in mobilising digital
change in tourism destinations (Pesonen, 2020). Obviously, a single
interview will not capture the complex nature of change, and thus needs
to be merged and balanced with several other interviews to identify
varieties and commonalities (Vaara et al., 2016). In fact, the multiplicity
of interview-based qualitative texts analysed in the present study pro­
vides a holistic picture of the ‘whole-situation’ (Starbuck, 2015).
3.1. Sense-making analysis
By engaging with interviewees in a process of sense-making and
comprehending how they interpret and understand the concept of smart
tourism destinations, different meanings are assigned to the same
particular context and concepts. By this, the present study refers to ex­
pressions that are used by the interviewees, yet are equivocal in their
multiple meanings. This study follows Wibeck and Linnér’s (2021)
proposed steps in sense-making analysis (Fig. 1): 1) mapping relevant
arenas for sense-making; 2) vertical analyses, i.e. by in-depth exami­
nation of the data, focusing on the content of communications, and thus,
analysing how perceptions and understandings of different destination
stakeholders are expressed with which linguistic resources (Wibeck &
Linnér, 2021). Notably, Entman (1993) stresses that keywords are
J. Gelter et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690

Swedish state public inquiry Ett land att besöka (SOU 2017), which
proposes an overall policy for sustainable tourism and the growing
hospitality industry, points out that there is a lack of definition for smart
smaller urban areas and rural areas. Moreover, the inquiry stresses that
knowledge about the development of smart, sustainable and inclusive
cities can serve as a starting point for smart rural areas. Based on the
concept of smart cities, which is primarily used for urban development,
Åre municipality has the opportunity to take a position in the develop­
ment of smart and sustainable rural areas (Åre kommuns digital­
iseringsstrategi, 2021). Therefore, Åre municipality needs new and
Fig. 1. Steps in a comprehensive sense-making analysis (Wibeck &
complementary knowledge about smart and sustainable areas that are
Linnér, 2021).
adapted to the conditions that exist in Åre municipality (Åre kommuns
digitaliseringsstrategi, 2021). Stockholm, on the other hand, is the
considered linguistic resources through which dominant frames in the
capital of Sweden and one of the fastest growing regions in Europe. In
understanding can be identified. Framing has been emphasised by pre­
2018, there were nearly 15 million overnight stays in commercial
vious research as important for creating meaning by accentuating rele­
lodgings (Stockholms besöksnäring, 2019). Stockholm is changing as a
vant dimensions of sense-making (Wibeck & Linnér, 2021). After
result of overall trends such as urbanisation, globalisation and increased
identification of the linguistic resources as keywords, step 3 employs a
life expectancy (Strategi för Stockholm som smart och uppkopplad stad,
thematic analysis to identify recurring themes in the interview texts.
2017). At the same time, developments in digitisation and new tech­
By this particular sense-making approach, tourism scholars and
nology are providing new opportunities. This is reflected in changing
tourism practitioners as well as stakeholders can gain a variety of
expectations from residents, entrepreneurs and visitors as well as new
important insights. Furthermore, as equivocal concepts are often too
forms of services and solutions (Strategi för Stockholm som smart och
general and highly abstract, they are not stable and, therefore subject to
uppkopplad stad, 2017). Stockholm also has the potential to take
different understandings of various problems and goals to be achieved,
advantage of the opportunities from digitisation offers through high
and on how to attain these goals (Wibeck & Linnér, 2021). This equiv­
gender equality, extensive IT infrastructure and high digital maturity. In
ocality may depend on actors’ interpretative frames, current knowledge,
addition, Stockholm has the potential for increased digitisation due to its
values and tacit or explicit assumptions (Wibeck & Linnér, 2021).
long history of being a leading city in ICTs, with many start-up com­
Therefore, examining the sense-making of the concept of smart tourism
panies and established global companies (Strategi för Stockholm som
destinations is imperative to learn if and how different destination
smart och uppkopplad stad, 2017). Beside these differences, the two
stakeholders’ understandings of the concept may diverge. Also, this
destinations have in common a shared need to contextualise, understand
insight facilitates transparent decision-making, supports the quality of
and make sense of the concept of smart. Both destinations include visitors
managerial decision-making, avoids difficulties in understanding how to
as an aspect in their digitisation strategies and examine how digitisation
apply the concept of smart and enriches scientific analysis (Wibeck &
and new technology will make life easier and better not only for resi­
Linnér, 2021).
dents and entrepreneurs but similarly for visitors. Also, both destina­
tions share the opinion that residents, entrepreneurs and visitors will
3.1.1. Step 1: mapping relevant arenas for analysis
gain increased added value through digitisation.
The first step of the sense-making analysis is to map the relevant
To provide a broader picture of the context of digitisation in Sweden,
arenas (Fig. 1). The selected Swedish destinations of Åre (Jämtland) and
the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth granted funding for
Stockholm were chosen as the study arenas because these destinations
twenty-two digitisation projects in Sweden between 2014 and 2017
are currently in the process of ‘smart development’. To be precise, Åre
(Utvärdering. Digitaliseringsprojekt inom Regionalfondens Tematiska
municipality formulated a digitisation strategy during 2020 (Åre kom­
Mål 2 och 3, 2018). Notably, 9% of the digitisation projects were
muns digitaliseringsstrategi, 2021) with the purpose to support the
tourism-related and an evaluation of approved projects showed that
municipality’s digital transformation, not only to meet future societal
they often repeated common mistakes. A reason was that many projects
challenges, but also to strengthen the digital competence among resi­
were characterised by a vague theory-of-change (Utvärdering. Digital­
dents. The digitisation effort should further contribute to a functioning
iseringsprojekt inom Regionalfondens Tematiska Mål 2 och 3, 2018).
digital infrastructure, create benefits for the citizens and promote new
Nevertheless, the digital Economy & Society Index (DESI) places
flexible working methods. The goal behind the digitisation strategy is to
Swedish individuals and companies high when it comes to access to and
adopt a flexible approach that creates the conditions for increased
use of digitisation in many different areas. Sweden is also generally
innovation. Also, it should ease the listening to the needs of the citizens
elevated in international indices that measure the digital maturity of
and employees, show clear leadership in the digital transformation and
different countries and in the World Economic Forums, Networked
ensure responsibility for management, operation and financing. Stock­
Readiness Index 2016, Sweden maintains its position with the third
holm municipality, on the other hand, formulated their digitisation
highest score of 139 countries’ indices (Hur Sverige blir bäst i världen på
strategy during 2017, with the goal to make Stockholm economically,
att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter, 2017). This indicates a high
ecologically, democratically and socially sustainable through innovative
digital maturity in society and, therefore, ideal conditions for imple­
solutions, openness and connectivity (Strategi för Stockholm som smart
mentation of the government’s digitisation strategy goals (Hur Sverige
och uppkopplad stad, 2017). The strategy aims to stimulate, guide and
blir bäst i världen på att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter, 2017):
coordinate efforts to make Stockholm smart through collaboration with
1) as everyone should be able to further develop and use their digital
residents, businesses, academia and public bodies.
skills. 2) Sweden aims to provide the best possible conditions for
Notably, these destinations are distinctly different in terms of
everyone to take part in a safe way, take responsibility for and have
destination type; Åre is one of Sweden’s most famous mountain tourist
confidence in the digital society. 3) In a similar way, Sweden aims to
destinations and in 2018, there were approximately 3 million overnight
provide the best conditions to develop, disseminate and use
stays in commercial lodgings (Fakta om turismen i Jämtland Härjedalen,
digitally-driven innovations. 4) Finally, in Sweden relevant, purposeful
2019, p. 2021). Åre municipality’s vision is to create a sustainable future
and legally secure efficiency and quality development measures take
for everyone in this region, and the interaction between digitisation,
place through digitisation.
sustainability and innovation is expected to help to realise this vision
For the data collection, twenty destination stakeholders were inter­
(Åre kommuns digitaliseringsstrategi, 2021). Interestingly enough, the
viewed that are involved in the current digitisation processes at the two

4
J. Gelter et al.
destinations. The interviews took place between January and March
2019 and lasted between 60 and 90 min. Given their involvement in the
destination’s smart development process, they own necessary pre-
knowledge for sense-making and for mental simulation (looking for­
ward), and therefore, to provide insights into their understanding of
smart tourism destinations. More precisely, the stakeholders were
identified through the ongoing smart destination development process
at each destination; the business development office in Åre municipality,
and an ICT Cluster (i.e. industrial district) in Stockholm. A snowball
sampling of interviewees was conducted based on recommendations by
each stakeholder in a multi-stage process, starting with access to the
preliminary interviewee through purposeful sampling (Ghaljaie et al.,
2017). Interviewees, then, introduced others for participation, in order
to gain access to the hard-to-reach target group in a pragmatic way
(Ghaljaie et al., 2017). Saturation was reached when no further stake­
holders within the three groups (Table 1) of experts, municipality and
the industry were mentioned and according to the criterion of reaching
stakeholders involved in current digitisation processes of smart devel­
opment with a tourism destination focus in a particular geographical
area. Table 2 summarises the questions of the semi-structured
interviews.
The interviews were subsequently transcribed verbatim to be coded in
the WINRELAN® software. The interview questions addressed the core
topical areas being researched, i.e. the way that destination stakeholders
define, describe and relate to the concept of smart tourism destinations.
3.1.2. Step 2: vertical analysis of linguistic resources through GABEK®
method
The second step entails a vertical analysis with a focus on the content
of utterances and arguments through linguistic resources in the form of
keywords in order to identify dominant themes (Fig. 1). In order to
comprehensively extract and analyse the gained interview data, this
study employs the qualitative research method GABEK® (Zelger, 2004)
to identify crucial linguistic resources. This particular method for
qualitative text analysis is based on processing the language of indi­
vidual statements, which, in turn, allows for transparently organising
the interviewees’ knowledge, assumptions, emotions and values (Weick,
2016). Put differently, to organise and systematise unstructured inter­
view data, but potentially significant knowledge, GABEK® integrates
and links multi-layered contents, thus, so far unknown critical thematic
areas can be identified (Zelger & Oberprantacher, 2002). Keywords are
considered the linguistic resources and by identifying the most
frequently used keywords using GABEK®, a snapshot of dominant
sense-making themes is provided (Entman, 1993; Wibeck & Linnér,
2021).
A central task of the social sciences is to study the ways that humans
process complex societal phenomena, which are generally unstructured
and undefined (Ayikoru, 2009; Risjord, 2014; Van der Merwe et al.,
2019). These complex social or socio-technical phenomena are typically
related to dynamic situations, thus needing detailed descriptions and
explanations to be understood (Orton & Weick, 1990). The study at hand
uses a research methodology called GABEK® (GAnzheitlich BEwältigung
Table 2
Semi-structured interview questions.
-How would you describe a smart tourism destination?
-What do you think is required of a destination for it to develop into a smart tourism
destination?
-What knowledge do you feel is currently lacking, and what do you think will be
needed in the coming years in terms of digitisation and development of smart tourism
destinations?
-Who do you think should be driving the development of a smart tourism destination?
-What, in your opinion, drives stakeholders to develop your destination into a smart
tourism destination?
- What can your destination gain and lose by becoming a smart tourism destination?
- What would you like to add to the process of developing the destination into a smart
tourism destination?
5
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
von Komplexität – Holistic Processing of Complexity), developed at the
University of Innsbruck, Austria (Zelger, 2004, 2019). The WINRELAN®
(Windows Relation Analysis) computer program, developed specifically
for GABEK® applications, is also employed, which allows for an inter­
active graphical presentation of GABEK® results. GABEK® supports any
type of human organisations in their decision-making processes to co­
ordinate actions and navigate through processes of change. In fact,
coping with change within an organisation requires taking into
consideration basic assumptions, values and experiences, as these are
essential for capturing and making sense of the way people perceive
change (Van der Merwe et al., 2019; Zelger & Oberprantacher, 2002).
Due to the interplay between actions and interpretations, human
sense-making influences the behaviour of humans and organisations, as
well as complex the dynamics of social systems (Van der Merwe et al.,
2019; Weick et al., 2005). Therefore, by using GABEK®, interview data
can be structured and networked systematically (Zelger, 2004). Alto­
gether, this leads to a holistic understanding of the total perceptive sit­
uation, which is crucial for understanding the sense-making processes of
the interviewed individuals (Van der Merwe et al., 2019). Notably, the
GABEK® methodology allows the analysis to remain as close as possible
to the concrete statements of interviewees (Wilson & Hollinshead,
2015), and to develop concise categories (‘keywords’). The analysis of
the coded qualitative interviews in WINRELAN® provides an ideal basis
for identifying the empirical key dimensions of sense-making regarding
smart destination development of the two tourism destinations being
studied.
In order to construct sequences for the unsorted interview data, an
indexing system is considered essential. The indexing system requires,
first, determining what a ‘text’ should be, implying that meaningful text
units must be established (Zelger, 2004). Text units are defined as short
textual sections that form a ‘mental unit’, i.e. a spoken sentence of
coherent thoughts (Zelger, 2019). The text units from each transcribed
interview are then coded on index cards in the WINRELAN® software
(1a, Table 3). Then, content-relevant keywords are identified for each
text unit (1b, Table 3). The identification of keywords is based on the
understanding that a keyword is content-relevant if it cannot be elimi­
nated without changing the central topic of the text unit (Zelger, 2004).
For each index card (i.e. text unit), three to nine keywords are coded to
limit complexity and allowing the reader to grasp the content more
easily. This limitation on keywords is a heuristic rule for GABEK®
analysis based on previous experience, as fewer than three keywords
cannot generate text groups, but more than nine would become far too
complex and difficult to assess qualitatively (Zelger, 2002). The coding
in WINRELAN® resulted in a total of 614 index units (i.e. on average 30
index cards per interview), with approximately 6–9 keywords in each.
Collectively, the acquired index system represents networks of keywords
as the linguistic resources.
The extracted keywords were further coded with respect to positive
or negative evaluations through a second form of coding in WINRE­
LAN® (1c, Table 3). The coding of subjective evaluations aims to represent
cognitive assessments expressed in the interview data, i.e. either in a
positive or negative manner. For each text unit, the plus sign indicates
positive evaluations of states, situations, events, etc, while the minus
sign indicates negative evaluations of similar aspects (Zelger, 2004,
2019). This particular coding also allows the presentation of the situa­
tion as it should be (i.e. should-situation) within the particular context, i.
e. as positive or negative, as well as the way it actually is (i.e. sit­
uation-as-is), assessed as positive or negative. Finally, as a third step,
relevance assumptions were coded for each text unit (1d, Table 3). The
aim is to discover which topics are most relevant from the interviewee’s
perspective. Within the GABEK® framework, a topic is considered more
relevant if it is evaluated more often by the interviewees, independently
whether positively or negatively (Zelger, 2003). From this evidence, a
relevance list is generated by WINRELAN® (Table 4), which indicates
the topics that are of particular interest to the interviewed destination
stakeholders.
J. Gelter et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690

Table 3 The focus is on recurrent themes to provide an overview of key results

GABEK® process (Pechlaner & Volgger, 2012, p. 933) and sense-making analysis gained from the coded qualitative interview texts. Data processing
(Wibeck & Linnér, 2021). represents the content gained from the interviews in a transparent
Step of analysis WINRELAN® Rules of GABEK® manner through the association net graph (Fig. 2), used as a tool to sys­
(1) Coding Use of software Coding process
tematise thought content (Zelger, 2019). The association net graph in­
Vertical sense-making dicates the most important themes to address when dealing with the
analysis of linguistic topic of smart tourism destination, as discussed in detail in the results
resources. section.
(a) Definition of text units Coding text units on Text units build on
index cards in the semantic meaningfulness.
software. 4. Results
(b) Coding of keywords The manual coding of The number of keywords
keywords is displayed for each index card are at 4.1. Vertical sense-making analysis through association net graph
on the same index card, least three and limited to
and synonyms are nine. These keywords can
reduced. The researcher stand on their own to
The analysis of the association net graph starts with the initial
decides which lexical represent the core message keyword ‘smart_destination’ being purposefully selected as a starting
keywords (three to of the text unit. point. Framing the concept of smart tourism destinations supports the
nine) to code. understanding of how meaning is shaped and thus provide an in-depth
(c) Coding of evaluations Binary coding – each Evaluations expressed by
understanding of how the interviewees make sense of the concept. In
keyword is assigned respondents are identified.
positive (+) or negative this study, destination stakeholders were asked to reflect on the meaning
(− ) evaluations on the of smart tourism destinations and to describe how they define the
same index card. concept. The association net graph (Fig. 2) is analysed to identify
(d) Coding of relevancy Positive/negative Keywords are assigned dominant themes (Wibeck & Linnér, 2021) and shows conceptual as­
evaluations for the evaluations according to
sociations for the keyword ‘smart_destination’ with its particular lin­
keywords – manual both the situation-as-is and
coding by the researcher the should-situation. guistic connections.
on the index cards. When analysing the association net graph, it must be remembered
(2) Data presentation The process of data that all of the connected terms in the association net graph are not
and interpretation. interpretation.
necessarily mentioned by a single interviewee (Zelger, 2002). Instead,
Thematic analysis of
recurring themes to the association net graph displays the most connected terms from all
identify frames found conducted interviews collectively. However, it can be assumed that they
within the collected are often thought of together when discussing the concept of smart
data tourism destinations. Thus, the graph displays keywords that are most
(e) Association nets The association net Association net graphs
connected with the central keyword. For example, there is no connection
graphs are based on the display expressions that
coding of all interviews are connected more often between ‘vision’ and ‘network’, which indicates that the two keywords
collectively. than others with the were not discussed as interdependent. They are nevertheless relevant to
central expression that the sense-making of smart tourism destinations. More precisely, Fig. 2
each graph originates
presents the keywords that were related to ‘smart_destination’ through
from, and is shown in the
centre of each graph.
the coding process in WINRELAN® and Fig. 2 also shows denser lines
(f) Interpretation of Not supported by Interpretation of identified where the number of text units increase.
association net graphs software. relations, categories and Interestingly, the keyword ‘drive’ is discussed by interviewees in
patterns found in the terms of a presumption for smart tourism destinations. Notably, a need
interview data.
for a commonly shared ‘drive’ is understood as a clear willingness to
prioritise digitisation on the part of municipalities, businesses and
The reason for taking several coding steps in this study is that it interested parties and which is expected to enable smart development.
better preserves the multi-dimensional character of qualitative data and The following quote from an interviewee further illustrates how drive is
makes it transparent (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). The GABEK® discussed: “there must be a development drive for what kind of
methodology (summarised in Table 3 following Pechlaner & Volgger,
2012, p. 933) starts by sub-dividing transcribed interviews into text
units, i.e. one text unit per index card, with the final aim of representing
the gained interview data as a network of interrelated keywords – a
so-called association net graph (Zelger, 2003, 2019). The association net
graph (Fig. 2) is based on the coding of all interviews collectively and
directly exported from the WINRELAN® software. The related keywords
are also automatically derived by WINRELAN®. The graph systematises
content and indicates issues addressed by interviewees when consid­
ering ‘smart_destination’.

3.1.3. Step 3: thematic analysis after identification of keywords

The third step is a further development of Wibeck and Linnér’s
(2021) sense-making analysis that consists of a thematic analysis to
identify the themes of smart tourism destinations most relevant to
stakeholders’ sense-making. Thematic analysis is defined as a method
for identifying, organising, and describing frames found within the
collected data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Also, thematic analysis is a useful
method for studying different perspectives of several research partici­
pants and for generating unanticipated insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Fig. 2. Association net graph for ‘smart_destination’.

6
J. Gelter et al.
competence we need now and how do we help as many actors as possible
to get the needed competence” [In-Cons. ÅRE]. Interestingly, according
to the interviewees, drive is currently lacking for the implementation of
smart development in the tourism destination context, as well as
someone who takes the lead and becomes the necessary ‘driver’. This is
seen as a major obstacle, since a lack of ‘drive and ambition’ causes
difficulties in implementing a common agenda for digitisation, which,
according to the interviewees, needs to be prioritised. It is also
emphasised that: “there are different driving forces, as in the business
world it is very much about understanding new markets and finding new
business models, and for the academy, it is about competence. For the
public sector, it is about both creating jobs but also about using digiti­
sation to create greater value for their municipal members” [Ex-Dd.
ÅRE].
The ‘business’ keyword is discussed in terms of a shared need for
increased collaboration and ‘networking’, not only within trade and
industry, but also together with the municipality, civil society and the
various destination management organisations. Notably, sustainable
development is discussed in the business context as a presumption and
has been debated in terms of being essential and the point of departure
for developing smart tourism destinations. For example, one interviewee
stressed that: “for sustainability, we need to constantly advance our
knowledge and also to drive change processes, and we need more
competence there and continuously work with that, to understand how
business models change” [Ex-Dd. STHLM]. In a similar way, under­
standing, competence and knowledge are considered fundamental, not
only in relation to understanding ICT infrastructures, but also in the way
that smart technologies change tourism destinations and how this will
affect residents. Interestingly, these arguments were perceived as per­
sonal for the interviewees, since badly designed implementation will
affect everyone.
The ‘smart_solutions’ keyword is associated with ICT infrastructure
as a basic condition for smart tourism destinations. However, it is further
associated with a shared need for discussing smart solutions in relation
to customer needs rather than the other way around, as digital maturity
among residents and tourists is generally high. Notably, the interviewees
stressed as most critical the need to avoid the development of smart
solutions stored in silos instead of having a joint agenda that is trans­
parently shared, individually internalised and communicated
throughout the tourism destination. Accordingly, a holistic approach to
smart solutions and digitisation is agreed to be fundamental for smart
tourism ‘destination development’, so as to avoid the misuse of ICTs in
terms of being exclusively a means of economic growth and for devel­
oping cutting-edge technology in terms of technology euphoria. Also,
the importance of clarifying the meaning of the concept of smart was
discussed, mostly to avoid misinterpretation or to be used as a
buzzword.
The ‘vision’ keyword is discussed in terms of a need for a common
vision for strategies, sustainable development, digitisation and: “… that
you have a common vision, that you understand how to organise
yourself, that you have found the processes and methods that allow you
to work with development and improvement and evaluation. Also, that
you monitor the outside world” [Ex-Dd. STHLM]. The interviewees
emphasised the possibilities of emerging smart tourism destinations in
terms of jointly developed strategies, objectives and goals for imple­
menting digitisation, and stress the importance of having “the vision to
think further away, …external monitoring capacity and responsibility”
[Mu-DMO ÅRE]. Vision is also discussed in terms of visionary leader­
ship, as one interviewee pinpoints: “to see and to dare to invest in
something that you believe will contribute to a greater benefit for the
residents. It is still a municipality’s first task – to make life easier for
residents” [Mu-DMO STHLM].
The ‘understand’ keyword is associated with a shared need for
increased understanding, knowledge and competence development. It is
not only about smart tourism destination development, but digitisation
in particular and its usability for businesses, municipalities, residents
7
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
and visitors. In general, interviewees highlight the ‘understanding’
perspective as a major presumption in the context of smart tourism
destination development, comprehending smart tourism development,
human-technology-based interaction and sustainable development as
fundamental values. Additionally, one interviewee stresses: “… how
democracy works on an individual level, and I would very much like to
be involved and understand these different processes and also ensure
that the individual and human perspective is included. It is also a bit
problematic that digitisation, for example, is so much about technology
in public conversations, when in fact perhaps only 15% of digitisation is
about technology, and the rest – 85% – is about organisation and mind-
set, to handle the effects and leave the old complicated world that we
could control and understand, and that we live in a complex world that is
constantly changing” [Ex-Dd. STHLM]. In fact, there is consensus in
avoiding discussions and development in closed silos, but to instead
open up and integrate residents, businesses and the government to
transparently inform, communicate and discuss, so as to ensure the
learning, understanding and development perspective, respectively.
Interestingly, the ‘digitisation’ keyword occurs in many text units
with several associations that are discussed in this context. For example,
associations for digitisation are strongly related to the importance of
addressing sustainability in the context of smart tourism destinations.
The interviewees also emphasise concepts, such as building ‘networks’,
relationships and creating trust between municipalities, businesses, the
public sector and residents, and also highlight the need for under­
standing and prioritising the relationship between tourism and ICTs.
Altogether, it appears to be an issue, since several interviewees stress a
lack of ‘networks’ for smart development for knowledge sharing, which
is emphasised by one interviewee as follows: “We have no platforms in
Sweden today to facilitate change across borders, there are no such
platforms, there are a lot of actors and a lot of silos, silos, silos” [In-Cons.
STHLM]. Digitisation-related discussions also refer to possibilities for
digital development in the context of understanding how digitisation
will affect the tourism industry, new business models and destination
management practice.
Also, the ‘municipality’ keyword occurs in many text units, which
show that there are high expectations for municipalities when it comes
to developing smart tourism destinations. This is stressed by one inter­
viewee as follows. “Those who drive the process should be the munici­
palities in many ways. We cannot hand over to the businesses to build
the smart destination” [Mu-BDO. STHLM]. Notably, the way that mu­
nicipalities understand the concept and organise accordingly to support
ICT infrastructures opens up possibilities for collaboration with busi­
nesses, academies and residents. However, this is considered a chal­
lenge, as exemplified by one interviewee who states that “today, the
digital infrastructure is built mostly in silos, i.e. we have different sys­
tems that have different modes of operation, which means that you have,
for example, a system for doing one thing at one destination and it is not
so easy to transfer it to another destination” [Ex-Re. STHLM]. Further­
more, there is a need to allocate resources from the municipality for
‘destination_development’ in terms of funding, but it is even more
important for them to take a leading position to operate the smart
development ‘process’ and provide support accordingly.
4.2. Evaluations of keywords
The coding of positive and negative evaluations contains both the
evaluation of the situation-as-is (List 1, Table 4), and the evaluation of an
imagined phenomenon, i.e. the should be-situation (List 2, Table 4)
(Zelger, 2002). Bringing together all evaluations coded in WINRELAN®
shows what the interviewees deemed particularly important. Values,
wishes, goals and priorities become apparent from the data, as normal
speech utterances often contain prescriptive judgments (Zelger, 2002,
2019). More precisely, when coding evaluations, expressions are gath­
ered that have been expressed as predominantly positive or negative
regarding the conceptualisation and contextualisation of smart tourism
J. Gelter et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690

destinations. For example, several respondents highlight that there is a Table 4

risk that increased digitisation might exclude humans for various rea­ Evaluation and relevancy for ‘smart_destination’ from WINRELAN®.
sons, pointing to such issues as non-affordability, lack of knowledge, and Keyword Relev. List 1 List 2
tendencies towards marginalisation. The interviewees also consider
Number + – + –
that, if the main reason for smart development is profit, the individual
perspectives of residents and visitors risk being given a too low priority, sustainability 73 13
competence 52 1 1 8 1
discussed using terms such as “we forget the needs we are building on. understand 46 1 2 7
Who formulates the needs? How are they formulated? What effects do cooperate 45 1 3 5
we want to achieve? If we do not do that, if we are not smart in Together 51 2 7
formulating ‘smart’, then we lose the point” [Ex-Re. STHLM]. A main resources 43 4 4
Smarter 45 1 7
issue that a majority of interviewees consider to be highly negative is
knowledge 34 3 4
that much discussion and development relating to ‘smart’ occurs in 5G 27 6
‘closed silos’. The interviewees described this as a major risk that could UNSDG_Agenda_2030 33 2 4
not only slow down development but may also exclude certain social holistic_approach 26 3 3
groups which, at the same time, become non-transparent. However, sustainable 31 6
leadership 31 1 5
there are also positive experiences among stakeholders, such as smart
development leading to a human-centric responsiveness due to List of eval. 1 = Situation as it is.
increased digitisation, and a simpler society described by promising List of eval. 2 = Situation should be.
expressions such as ‘automagic’. For example, one interviewee high­ Relevancy number is the number of keywords.
lights: “being automagic, which is responsive, where humans are in the
focus and technology is used in a way that you do not have to change, evaluated positively in the ‘should be’ context, thus, implying that the
and you do not have to own a lot of expensive things and you do not have current situation shows sustainability gaps (Table 4, List 2). Also, the
to understand technology, and you have also been involved in shaping keyword ‘sustainable’ is evaluated positively in the ‘should be’ situation
the responsiveness. We need to talk about responsiveness, change the which shows that this keyword is discussed as a prerequisite in the long-
vocabulary” [Ex-Dd. STHLM]. In sum, the coding of positive and nega­ run. Similarly, the keywords ‘competence’, ‘understand’ and ‘knowl­
tive evaluations for ‘smart_destination’ shows that the situation-as-is – edge’ are considered important for the ‘should be’ context and, thus,
the way interviewees observe, understand and contextualise the current frequently recurring themes in the interviews. However, the keywords
situation – is evaluated positively only by a relatively small margin. The are also evaluated negatively in both the situation as it is and the situation
negative evaluations are related to concepts such as a current lack of should be perspectives, as the interviewees feel there is a current lack of
collaboration and transparency for smart development, as stressed by competence, understanding and knowledge among stakeholders and
one interviewee: “You have to open up and be more transparent in the municipalities in general. A lack of ‘competence’ in the ‘should be’ sit­
things you do, so that it does not become my guest or your guest, but that uation is discussed as negatively affecting management and the estab­
it is our guest” [Ex-Re. STHLM]. There are also concerns that technology lishment of smart tourism destinations.
can be misused if it is not properly evaluated how it can be implemented Several keywords are related to ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable’,
with a human-centric understanding, as one interviewee emphasises: “a such as ‘UN-SDG _Agenda_2030’ and ‘resources’ (Table 4), thus reaf­
smart destination is a transparent destination, and if it is built with fear firming that sustainability is deemed highly relevant for emerging smart
… if we want to be smart, then we must dare to put smart as openness” tourism destinations. New leadership styles are also considered impor­
[Mu-DMO. STHLM]. tant, as stressed by one interviewee: “If we decide that “smart” means
In fact, interviewees gave smart tourism destinations decidedly connected and sustainable, then we leave the old and enter something
positive evaluations for the should-situation, which implies very prom­ new, where the old contains value hierarchies and now we can instead
ising prospects for future trajectories. In sum, stakeholders stressed a have value networks” [Ex-Dd. STHLM]. However, the keyword ‘lead­
shared optimistic prospect for a positive future development, if critical ership’ is evaluated negatively in both situation ‘as it is’ and ‘should be’ as
issues, such as sustainability and substantial understanding of the smart a lack of leadership is currently missing and this will negatively affect
destination development processes are prioritised and considered. the establishment of smart tourism destinations, thus, the ‘should be’
Additionally, common strategies and visions from stakeholders about situation. In a similar vein, the interviewee continues: “If you want to be
how to work together in joint networks would impoverish the current sustainable and connected, you must constantly be a co-developer. If
‘knowledge silo’ approaches. you are a co-developer, then you have a network and relationships and
you build trust in those networks. And, yes, the whole exercise of au­
4.3. Relevancy of keywords and thematic analysis thority will have to be overthrown.” Notably, most keywords are eval­
uated more positively in the ‘should be’ situation which shows that they
The relevancy list displays the keywords considered most relevant, as are deemed important for the future trajectories of smart tourism des­
they are most often associated with the central keyword, ‘smart_desti­ tinations. Thus, interviewees highlight the need for cooperation across
nation’. Table 4 summarises the identification of relevant values, goals various sectors and actors, essentially working together in networks as a
and priorities by the interviewees. Specifically, the analysis of keywords recurring theme, with a common vision and goal to create a sustainable
is conducted to identify the importance of various keywords and path of development for emerging smart tourism destinations.
perceived issues when conceptualising and contextualising smart
tourism destinations as mirrored by the interview data. Interestingly, 5. Discussion
Table 4, generated by WINRELAN®, shows that ‘sustainability’ is the
most frequently recurring theme when discussing smart tourism desti­ The concept of smart tourism destinations is mainly derived from the
nations. Although the meaning of sustainability was not discussed in implementation of technology and governance principles (Gretzel & de
depth by the interviewees, the notion comprises the sustainability di­ Mendonça, 2019), with a majority of definitions relating to ICTs. Most of
mensions of ‘economic, ecological and social’. Notably, some in­ the current concepts and notions about smart tourism are not designed
terviewees mentioned the UN sustainable development goals in support and realised jointly with tourism businesses or destination managers, as
of emerging smart tourism destinations, e.g. “the sustainability goals highlighted by Gretzel (2021). Also, many current visions about smart
aim to improve quality of life for the residents” [Ex-Dd. ÅRE]. More tourism destination development are “designed and implemented in a
concretely the keyword occurs 73 times during the interviews and is top-down fashion” which causes the status for smart to remain limited

8
J. Gelter et al.
(Gretzel, 2021, p. 5). In a similar way, the present study shows that
discussions about smart tourism destinations need to more extensively
address issues relating to stakeholders’ knowledge, preferences, and
values. In fact, Pan et al. (2021) state that it is critical to address how
stakeholders are impacted by the context of smart tourism destinations,
and not let purely financial interests drive development and
decision-making. The study at hand shows that making sense of smart
tourism destinations requires a holistic understanding and scrutinising
of the concept to grasp its various dimensions. For example, several
interviewees point out that for a destination to be smart, sustainability
must be the main pillar and the destination must work actively with the
implementation of Agenda 2030 and the global goals for sustainable
development. Implementing sustainability requires an increased un­
derstanding of the different dimensions of tourism destinations and how
these change with the introduction of smart technology. These various
dimensions that the respondents in this study highlight as critical are the
networks around smart development, resources, leadership and thus,
ambitions and visions for sustainability and transparency. Furthermore,
according to the interviewees, this requires increased knowledge,
networking and building a common goal, being able to understand these
dimensions and how they change with increased ICTs. This is also sup­
ported by Gretzel (2021) who emphasise that a holistic understanding of
smart and collaboration is needed to sustain openness and as a result
avoid silo thinking. More precisely, this study reveals recurring themes
that involve the understanding of the process of change and complex
phenomena to highlight trajectories and act sustainably in an effective
manner (Klein et al., 2006a; Mills et al., 2010). In a similar fashion,
Gretzel (2021) suggests that smart tourism needs to move away from old
business models, which is also emphasised by an interviewee. Gretzel
(2021) also suggests that more concrete guidance is needed to achieve
smart development, which also is stressed by several interviewees.
The main themes clearly indicate that there are specific aspects
beyond economic growth and the implementation of ICTs that are of
importance to the interviewees. Perspectives regarding ‘understanding’
and ‘learning’, for example, are deemed critical, especially from a
democratic perspective, to allow for transparency, avoid smart devel­
opment behind closed doors and ensuring that residents, visitors and
stakeholders have an equal voice. In fact, the present study strikingly
shows a frustration regarding the current situation due to a lack of
transparency, a forum for building networks and joint dialogues.
Simultaneously, however, there are high expectations for the future
prospects of smart tourism destinations. The themes revealed in this
study are linked to evaluations about the possibilities and the desir­
ability of current and imagined trajectories. Notably, combining ‘as it is’
with the ‘should be’ situation provides guidance for practical imple­
mentation and may help avoid an ideologically inspired trajectory only
from the point of view of economic growth and the infusion of tech­
nology (Fuchs & Sigala, 2021; Gretzel, Fuchs, et al., 2020). Instead, to
transcend the growth paradigm, Gretzel, Fuchs, et al. (2020) and Fuchs
et al. (2021) are stressing the creation of strong relationships, trust and
human-centred networks. Specifically, this implies preventing actors
from becoming ostracised or overlooked in local decision-making pro­
cesses or networks (Brouder, 2018). This concern is also discussed by
several interviewees in terms of closed silo processes. Instead, meaningful
networks need to be created in order to: (1) empower bottom-up ap­
proaches, through access to networks and tools so that networks are
recognised; (2) understand the networks within which actors seek to
engage; (3) evaluate the triple bottom line impact of activities through
the behaviour of communities with which an organisation has interacted
(Fisher, 2010; Fuchs & Baggio, 2017).
Also, there is a need for further research about smart tourism desti­
nations and sustainability, which is shown by Ribes and Baidal (2018, p.
166) who stress the importance of research on the “mechanisms which
link smartness and sustainability”. Notably, Ivars-Baidal et al. (2021, p.
13) highlight that “sustainability has also been insufficiently considered
until now by smart destinations”. This indicates that sustainability not
9
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
only needs to be further addressed in the literature, but also from a
managerial point of view. In fact, in this study, sustainability occurred as
the most frequently recurring theme, although interviewees do not
discuss the concept itself in depth in this context. Interestingly, Gretzel
and Jamal (2020) advocate these dimensions in researching smart
tourism destinations, which the present study further supports through
empirical data. For example, interviewees underline that, if sustain­
ability is not central, the core of smart development must be reconfig­
ured. Thus, further research about tourism and sustainability could
consider, for example, the environmental consequences of technology
use (Gretzel et al., 2020; Gretzel & Jamal, 2020), among other aspects,
such as institutional arrangements that favour human and ecological
concerns on a global scale.
Additionally, the results of this study suggest implications for
destination management in advocating an approach to smart tourism
destination management that treats the destination as a complex social
system (Beritelli & Bieger, 2014; Farsari, 2021), thus putting emphasis
on building networks and on understanding the process of change due to
increased digitisation in tourism (Pesonen, 2020). Specifically, grasping
the change from one socio-technical configuration to another requires
adapted regulations, user practices and institutional norms (Geels,
2002), and the critical questioning of incorporated knowledge (Von
Tunzelmann et al., 2008). All considered, the major recurring themes
identified in this study address organisational perspectives that support
understanding, networking and sustainable development based on inter­
personal relationships that facilitate these mechanisms (Beritelli &
Bieger, 2014). It is, therefore, deemed essential to build trust, to meet and
discuss to jointly create a sustainable agenda for managing and organising
emerging smart tourism destinations. In sum, making sense of smart
tourism destinations illuminates the stakeholders’ understanding of
both current and upcoming changes as well as their conceptual in­
terpretations. This is crucial to highlight in order to avoid that the
concept of smart tourism destination is only rhetorically used.
6. Conclusion
This study analysed what it is to make sense of a complex technology-
driven development context and how the phenomenon of smart tourism
destinations is reconstructed by destination stakeholders. When
listening to how interviewees characterise smart tourism destinations,
the understanding they have and their feelings and/or interpretations, it
reflects recurring themes in terms of sustainability, various interrelated
actors and networks, a need for understanding and learning, change
processes and serious doubts regarding a lack of transparency. Also, a
misuse of technology, such as a means for power and benefiting certain
businesses that are already too big and dominant has been discussed. It is
essential to gain these insights because established definitions of smart
tourism destinations and practices do not comprehensively address
these critical issues which, therefore is a theoretical contribution by the
present study. Previous definitions, understandings, and descriptions of
the concept of smart tourism destinations either involve a rather glori­
fied and emotionally charged vision for an enhanced quality of life, or
are merely technology driven (Gelter et al., 2020). Definitions, thus need
to correspond more strongly with the way that stakeholders make sense
of smart tourism destinations. In a similar way, Gretzel and Koo (2021)
stress that more research is needed about how the concept of smart
tourism destinations is used in policymaking and planning, as well as
more interdisciplinary research about what impacts and barriers can be
expected in a smart tourism destination system. There is also an
increased need for collaboration in destination networks due to the
complex interdependencies of actors and elements (Baggio, 2020; Bag­
gio et al., 2010; Fuchs & Baggio, 2017). These interdependencies are
related to internal and external pressures that will increase with multi­
faceted digitisation, which the interviewees clearly emphasised. Also,
Pan et al. (2021) argue that much focus in current research is still on
stakeholders that have transactional relationships with a destination and
J. Gelter et al.
highlight that there is a need to more strongly expand the concept of
smart and the scope of various local stakeholder groups. In sum, the
main theoretical contribution of this study is that the current
sense-making of smart tourism destinations illuminates dominant and
recurring themes, such as sustainability, a holistic understanding of the
concept, a need for ethics-based transparency and interdisciplinary
networking to avoid ‘silo thinking’. Also, this study shows that the
constituent elements of the concept of smart tourism destinations from
the stakeholder perspective, mirror new technology and its possibilities,
openness, a simpler society, responsiveness and development. There­
fore, making sense of the concept of smart tourism destinations will
improve decision-making processes and communication (Pan et al.,
2021), which is also addressed by several interviewees in the present
study.
6.1. Methodological implications
As for methodological implications, the advantage of using GABEK®
over other qualitative approaches is its rigorous and traceable data
analysis process (Zelger, 2004, 2019). It facilitates presentation and
interpretation through net graphs consisting of keywords that display
the empirical data (Zelger & Oberprantacher, 2002). The methodology
has been widely used within social sciences, such as for innovation
research, organisational development, knowledge development, man­
agement research and many more (Zelger, 2019). GABEK® has also been
used in tourism research (Eckert et al., 2019; Kallmuenzer, 2018;
Nusantara et al., 2021; Pechlaner & Volgger, 2012), but applications are
scarce in addressing the intersection between tourism and digital
development which makes this study a novel topical and methodological
contribution to tourism research. GABEK® as an effective analysis de­
vice of qualitative data and the coding within the WINRELAN® soft­
ware, reflects the current sense-making of the concept of smart tourism
destinations in the context of two Swedish destinations by stakeholders
actively involved in a destination wide digitisation process. The pro­
posed sense-making approach and the employed GABEK® analysis
method are effective ways to represent and make accessible stake­
holders’ current sense-making. As a result, it was possible to find pat­
terns which emerge from the qualitative data that can, in turn, be used
for further studies in smart tourism destination research. The various
steps of the conducted sense-making and thematic analysis support
further development of destination management theory by showing
interrelated issues as well as their interdependencies at the destination
management level. Continually, many opportunities and challenges
exist for extending research on smart tourism destination management
and for managing smart destinations. However, as a foundation, a
comprehensive understanding of the concept of smart tourism destina­
tions is imperative to prevent various management challenges and to
create a sustainable path of destination development in the digital age.
6.2. Managerial implications
The results from this study can be applied not only to the interde­
pendence in the tourism sector, due to increased non-tourism ICT actors,
but also to management functions, thus following the adaptive whole-
system management perspective (Dietz et al., 2003). This adaptability
for complex phenomena requires strategies for adaptive tourism man­
agement that facilitate learning and change (Fuchs & Sigala, 2021;
Pesonen, 2020). For example, Dietz et al. (2003) address certain prin­
ciples for adaptive management: (1) Information that can be verified, is
trustworthy and understood. (2) Be prepared for change through
adaptation, and not have “too much confidence in the current state of
knowledge” (Dietz et al., 2003, p. 1909). (3) Maintain face-to-face
communication and dense social networks to increase the potential for
trust. Interestingly, these principles are also stressed by the interviewees
in terms of their understanding of new business models and how they
change with increased digitisation. Similarly, it is deemed critical to
10
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
understand the relationship between tourism and ICTs and in particular,
how smart technology changes tourism destinations. Also, several in­
terviewees stress the need of finding and getting access to the platforms,
networks and processes for smart development, and thus build trust be­
tween municipalities, businesses, the public sector and residents. To be
prepared for change, several interviewees highlight that there is a need
to constantly advance knowledge and thus support learning processes.
But most important, a majority of the interviewees pinpoint the
importance of working together, cooperate, be transparent and
communicate as no man is an island, which one interviewee said and
strongly emphasised that “we must do this together, transparently”.
6.3. Limitation and future research
A limitation of the present study concerns the quantification of
qualitative data (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). To gain an understand­
ing of the associations, relevance, evaluations and themes of the concept
of smart tourism destinations, the keywords assigned to smart tourism
destinations were taken as an indicator of importance. However, these
numbers should not be over-emphasised but instead seen as an indica­
tion (Weick, 2016). Furthermore, caution is necessary with respect to
discarding keywords from the obtained findings. More precisely, if a
keyword has received zero or only few associations, this should not be
interpreted as a measure of its irrelevance to tourism destination man­
agement in practice. Another limitation of the study is that the inter­
viewed stakeholders do not reflect a stakeholder perspective in a general
sense as they have a particular pre-understanding. Therefore, future
research should address additional stakeholder groups, such as tourists,
locals and particular businesses that are affected by digitisation, to
illuminate their sense-making of the concept.
In sum, centralised command and control that eliminates re­
dundancies in order to be more effective has proven to be problematic,
as is the case with sole authority management exercised in traditional
mental silos (Dietz et al., 2003; Fuchs & Sigala, 2021). Instead, there is a
need to comprehend reasons and consequences of organisational
complexity and, as Johanisova and Wolf (2012, p. 563) advocate,
“change institutions, mind-sets and infrastructures”. This study follows
the call by Lai and Li (2021) to re-theorize tourism from the linguistic
turn to comprehend processes of meaning creation, as well as Doering
and Zhang’s (2018) call for critical tourism studies to analyse the praxis
of sense-making and world creation in tourism. To be concrete, this
study shows that there are serious gaps in managerial knowledge and
capacity that an adaptive smart destination management could close.
For example, increased ICTs at tourism destinations will change the
structure and function of the destination, thus substantially increase
social and technological complexity. Therefore, this increased
complexity will require changing both institutions and mind-sets
through agile approaches were needs and problems are discovered in
close cooperation and not through traditional knowledge silos. Also, in
order to respond, react and adapt it is crucial to strengthen the under­
standing of change, not only in the context of increased ICTs at desti­
nations but also create preparedness for change, which is particularly
evident with the Covid-19 pandemic, which has changed society, the
economy, and tourism on many levels (Gössling et al., 2020). Gretzel,
Fuchs, et al. (2020) stress that smart business networks and strategic
partnerships/information exchange is important to be better prepared
for change. Thus, by understanding these changes that are evident in
society, shift the focus both in practice and in research, from technology
euphoria to how smart development can support society to become more
sustainable, open, transparent, and responsive.
Credit author statement
Jennie Gelter: Conceptualisation, Methodology. Data curation,
Writing – original draft preparation. Visualization, Investigation. Mat­
thias Fuchs; Conceptualisation, Supervision. Validation. Writing-
J. Gelter et al.
Reviewing and Editing. Maria Lexhagen: Conceptualisation, Supervi­
sion. Validation. Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Role of the funding source
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
None
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to all respondents who participated in this research
project.
References
besöksnäring, S. (2019). Retrieved (23.08.2021) from: https://www.stockholmbusiness
region.com/globalassets/about-us/facts-and-figures/facts-about-tourism/month
ly/sommar2019_manadsstatistik_stockholms_besoksnaring.pdf.
Ahn, B., Lee, B., & Shafer, C. S. (2002). Operationalizing sustainability in regional
tourism planning: An application of the limits of acceptable change framework.
Tourism Management, 23(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00059-
0 P. Fredman, & J. V. Haukeland (Eds.), New frontiers in nature-based tourism (pp.
Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. Snook,
N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The Handbook of teaching leadership: Knowing, doing
and being (pp. 3–19). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Åre kommuns digitaliseringsstrategi. (2021). Retrieved (18.01.2021) from: https://are.
se/kommunpolitik/kommunal-forfattningssamling/ovriga-styrande-dokument/
5754-strategi-digitalisering/file.
Ayikoru, M. (2009). Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical
issues in tourism (pp. 62–79). Bristol: Blue Ridge Summit: Channel View Publications.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845410988-005.
Baggio, R. (2020). Tourism destinations: A universality conjecture based on network
science. Annals of Tourism Research, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2020.102929. online first).
Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital
ecosystems. Information Technology & Tourism, 14(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40558-013-0001-5
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Network science: A review focused on tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 802–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2010.02.008
Beritelli, P., & Bieger, T. (2014). From destination governance to destination leadership
–Defining and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective.
Tourism Review, 69(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2013-0043
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brouder, P. (2018). The end of tourism? A gibson-graham inspired reflection on the
tourism economy. Tourism Geographies, 20(5), 916–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14616688.2018.1519721
Brown, A. D., Colville, I., & Pye, A. (2015). Making sense of sensemaking in organization
studies. Organization Studies, 36(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840614559259
Buhalis, D. (2022). Smart tourism. In D. Buhalis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of tourism
management and marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (in press).
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. In Z. Xiang, &
I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp.
553–564). Vienna: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_40.
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2015). Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism
experience through personalisation of services. In Information and communication
technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 377–389). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_28.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism
management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet—the state of eTourism
research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2008.01.005
Cavada, M., Hunt, D. V., & Rogers, C. D. (2014). November). Smart cities: Contradicting
definitions and unclear measures. In World sustainability forum (pp. 1–12). MDPI AG.
Cavalheiro, M., Joia, L. A., & Marcuzzo do Cavalheiro, M. (2020). Towards a smart
tourism destination development model: Promoting environmental, economic, socio-
cultural and political values. Tourism Planning & Development, 17(3), 237–259.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1597763
Chen, Z., Chan, I., Mehraliyev, F., Law, R., & Choi, Y. (2021). Typology of
people–process–technology framework in refining smart tourism from the perspective of
tourism academic experts. Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02508281.2021.1969114
11
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations:
Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 4(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science,
302(5652), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015
Doering, A., & Zhang, J. J. (2018). Critical tourism studies and the world: Sense, praxis,
and the politics of creation. Tourism Analysis, 23, 227–237.
Eckert, C., Zacher, D., Pechlaner, H., Namberger, P., & Schmude, J. (2019). Strategies
and measures directed towards overtourism: A perspective of European DMOs.
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(4), 639–655.
Eichelberger, S., Peters, M., Pikkemaat, B., & Chan, C. S. (2020). Entrepreneurial
ecosystems in smart cities for tourism development: From stakeholder perceptions to
regional tourism policy implications. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
45, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.011
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.1993.tb01304.x
Ett land att besöka - En samlad politik för hållbar turism och växande besöksnäring.
(2017). SOU 2017:95. Retrieved (14.06.2021) from https://www.regeringen.se/4a
ddac/contentassets/153ef49a58224148be5ae509ebb619b0/sou-2017_95-webb.pdf.
Fakta om turismen i Jämtland Härjedalen. (2019). Retrieved (13.09.2021) from: https://
jht.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FAKTA-OM-TURISM-2019-EMAIL-WEBB.pdf.
Farsari, I. (2021). Exploring the nexus between sustainable tourism governance,
resilience and complexity research. Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02508281.2021. 1922828
Fisher, A. (2010). Mapping the great beyond: Identifying meaningful networks in public
diplomacy. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, 2, 1–87.
Fuchs, M., & Baggio, R. (2017). Creativity and tourism networks: A contribution to a
post-mechanist economic theory. Critical tourism studies VII. Palma de Mallorca,
1–17.
Fuchs, M., Fossgard, K., Stensland, S., & Chekalina, T. (2021). Creativity and innovation
in nature-based tourism: A critical reflection and empirical assessment. In
175–193). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fuchs, M., & Sigala, M. (2021). Strategic use of information technologies in tourism - a
review and critique. In Z. Xiang, M. Fuchs, U. Gretzel, & W. Höpken (Eds.), Handbook
of e-Tourism (pp. 1–37). Cham: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-05324-6_67-1.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Gelter, J., Lexhagen, M., & Fuchs, M. (2020). A meta-narrative analysis of smart tourism
destinations: Implications for tourism destination management. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(20), 2860–2874. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1849048
Ghaljaie, F., Naderifar, M., & Goli, H. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method
of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14
(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/SDME.67670
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A
rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Gretzel, U. (2021). Conceptualizing the smart tourism mindset: Fostering utopian
thinking in smart tourism development. Journal of Smart Tourism, 1(1), 3–8. https://
doi.org/10.52255/smarttourism.2021.1.1.2
Gretzel, U., & de Mendonça, M. C. (2019). Smart destination brands: Semiotic analysis of
visual and verbal signs. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(4), 560–580.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-09-2019-0159
Gretzel, U., Fuchs, M., Baggio, R., Höpken, W., Law, R., Neidhardt, J., Pesonen, J.,
Zanker, M., & Xiang, Z. (2020). E-Tourism beyond COVID-19: A call for
transformative research. Journal of Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 187–203.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00181-3
Gretzel, U., & Jamal, T. (2020). Guiding principles for good governance of the smart
destination. In Travel and tourism research association: Advancing tourism research
globally (Vol. 42). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2020/research_papers/42.
Gretzel, U., & Koo, C. (2021). Smart tourism cities: A duality of place where technology
supports the convergence of touristic and residential experiences. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 26(4), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10941665.2021.1897636
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and
developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-
015-0196-8
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for
understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
558–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.043
Hur Sverige blir bäst i världen på att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter. (2017).
Retrieved (04.10.2021) from: https://www.regeringen.se/4ad143/contentassets/
95f8ed6239b84d9d86702bcaebe391b7/hur-sverige-blir-bast-i-varlden-pa-att-anvan
da-digitaliseringens-mojligheter–en-skrivelse-om-politikens-inriktning-skr.
Illich, I. (1975). Tools for conviviality. London: Fontana.
Ivanova-Gongne, M., & Törnroos, J.-A.̊ . (2017). Understanding cultural sensemaking of
business interaction: A research model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33,
102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.04.001
Ivars-Baidal, J. A., Celdrán-Bernabeu, M. A., Femenia-Serra, F., Perles-Ribes, J. F., &
Giner-Sánchez, D. (2021). Measuring the progress of smart destinations: The use of
indicators as a management tool. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19,
100531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100531
Ivars-Baidal, J. A., Celdrán-Bernabeu, M. A., Mazón, J. N., & Perles-Ivars, Á. F. (2019).
Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: A new scenario for destination
J. Gelter et al.
management? Current Issues in Tourism, 22(13), 1581–1600. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13683500.2017.1388771
Johanisova, N., & Wolf, S. (2012). Economic democracy: A path for the future? Futures,
44(6), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.017
Jovicic, D. Z. (2016). Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism destinations. Tourism
Geographies, 18(4), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1183144
Kallmuenzer, A. (2018). Exploring drivers of innovation in hospitality family firms.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1978–1995.
Kemp, R., Rip, A., & Schot, J. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the
management of niches. In R. Garud, & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation
(pp. 269–299). New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781410600370-19.
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006a). Making sense of sense-making 1:
Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73. https://doi.org/
10.1109/MIS.2006.75
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006b). Making sense of sense-making 2: A
macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88–92. https://doi.org/
10.1109/MIS.2006.100
Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a
complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483. https://doi.
org/10.1147/sj.423.0462
Lai, K., & Li, X. (2021). Tourism in a semantic mirror: Re-theorizing tourism from the
linguistic turn. Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00472875211019464
Lee, P., Zach, F. J., & Chung, N. (2021). Progress in smart tourism 2010-2017: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Smart Tourism, 1(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/
10.52255/smarttourism.2021.1.1.4
Li, Y., Hu, C., Huang, C., & Duan, L. (2017). The concept of smart tourism in the context
of tourism information services. Tourism Management, 58, 293–300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.014
Lim, C., Mostafa, N., & Park, J. (2017). Digital omotenashi: Toward a smart tourism
design systems. Sustainability, 9(12), 2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122175
McKercher, B., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Academic myths of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 46, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.02.003
Mills, J. H., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sense-making: The critical
sense-making approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 5(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641011068857
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). June). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of
technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international
digital government research conference: Digital government innovation in challenging times
(pp. 282–291).
Nusantara, A., Volgger, M., & Pforr, C. (2021). Evaluating the complex impact of policy
changes on tourism development: The case of Surakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Global
Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(4), 614–623.
Orton, D. J., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1990.4308154
Pan, B., Lin, M. S., Liang, Y., Akyildiz, A., & Park, S. (2021). Social, ethical, and moral
issues in smart tourism development in destinations. Journal of Smart Tourism, 1(1),
9–17. https://doi.org/10.52255/smarttourism.2021.1.1.3
Pearce, D. G. (2015). Destination management in New Zealand: Structures and functions.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi: 10.1016/j.
jdmm.2014.12.001.
Pearce, P. L. (2020). Smart tourists and intelligent behavior. In Z. Xiang, M. Fuchs,
U. Gretzel, & W. Höpken (Eds.), Handbook of e-Tourism (pp. 1–17). Cham: Springer.
https://doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-05324-6_66-1.
Pechlaner, H., & Volgger, M. (2012). How to promote cooperation in the hospitality
industry: Generating practitioner-relevant knowledge using the GABEK qualitative
research strategy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24
(6), 925–945. https://doi: 10.1108/09596111211247245.
Pesonen, J. (2020). Management and leadership for digital transformation in tourism. In
Z. Xiang, M. Fuchs, U. Gretzel, & W. Höpken (Eds.), Handbook of e-Tourism (pp.
1–34). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05324-6_68-1.
Ribes, J. F. P., & Baidal, J. I. (2018). Smart sustainability: A new perspective in the
sustainable tourism debate. Investigaciones Regionales - Journal of Regional Research,
42, 151–170.
Risjord, M. (2014). Philosophy of social science: A contemporary introduction. New York:
Routledge.
12
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100690
Samerski, S. (2018). Tools for degrowth: Ivan Illich’s critique of technology revisited.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1637–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.10.039
Sigala, M. (2018). New technologies in tourism: From multi-disciplinary to anti-
disciplinary advances and trajectories. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25,
151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.12.003
Starbuck, W. H. (2015). Karl E. Weick and the dawning awareness of organized
cognition. Management Decision, 53(6), 1287–1299. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-
04-2014-0183
Strategi för Stockholm som smart och uppkopplad stad. (2017). Retrieved (08.09.2021)
from: https://start.stockholm/globalassets/start/om-stockholms-stad/politik-och-de
mokrati/styrdokument/strategi-for-stockholm-som-smart-och-uppkopplad-stad.pdf.
Tenner, E. (2019). The efficiency paradox: What big data can’t do. New York: Penguin
Random House.
Um, T., & Chung, N. (2021). Does smart tourism technology matter? Lessons from three
smart tourism cities in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(4),
396–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1595691
Utvärdering. (2018). Digitaliseringsprojekt inom Regionalfondens Tematiska Mål 2 och 3.
Retrieved (04.10.2021) from: https://tillvaxtverket.se/download/18.4b0b6bb
11677dcddd156e3f2/1544710709692/ramboll_utvärdering_digitalisering_ERUF_
FINAL.pdf.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change
in organisations: Approaches and directions for future research. The Academy of
Management Annals, 10(1), 495–560. https://doi.org/10.5465/
19416520.2016.1120963
Van der Merwe, S. E., Biggs, R., Preiser, R., Cunningham, C., Snowden, D. J., O’Brien, K.,
Jenal, M., Vosloo, M., Blignaut, S., & Goh, Z. (2019). Making sense of complexity:
Using sensemaker as a research tool. Systems, 7(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/
systems7020025
Von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P., & Metcalfe, S. (2008). Technological
paradigms: Past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3), 467–484.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtn012
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sense-making in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2393339
Weick, K. E. (2016). Constrained comprehending: The experience of organizational
inquiry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0001839216633453
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense-
making. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1050.0133
Werthner, H., Koo, C., Gretzel, U., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Special issue on smart tourism
systems: Convergence of information technologies, business models, and
experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 556–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.03.042
Wibeck, V., & Linnér, B. O. (2021). Sense-making analysis: A framework for multi-
strategy and cross-country research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20,
1–12. https://doi10.1177/1609406921998907.
Wilson, E., & Hollinshead, K. (2015). Qualitative tourism research: Opportunities in the
emergent soft sciences. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 30–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2015.06.001
Xiang, Z. (2018). From digitization to the age of acceleration: On information technology
and tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 147–150. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.023
Ye, H., Sun, S., & Law, R. (2021). An investigation of developing smart tourism from the
perspective of stakeholders. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(10),
1156–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1953086
Zelger, J. (2002). GABEK® Handbook for the method, ume 1. Innsbruck University,
Department of Knowledge Organization, Institute for Philosophy.
Zelger, J. (2003). Qualitative research by the method GABEK®. Preprint, (78), 1–37.
Zelger, J. (2004). Qualitative research by the GABEK® method. Qualitative Research:
Different Perspectives, Emerging Trends, 231–264.
Zelger, J. (2019). Erforschung und entwicklung von communities: Handbuch zur qualitativen
textanalyse und wissensorganisation mit GABEK®. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Zelger, J., & Oberprantacher, A. (2002). Processing of verbal data and knowledge
representation by GABEK® - WinRelan®. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.2.866