Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

Digital Divide in Tourism

Valeria Minghetti and Dimitrios Buhalis
Journal of Travel Research 2010 49: 267 originally published online 20 October 2009
DOI: 10.1177/0047287509346843

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/3/267

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/3/267.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 14, 2010

Proof - Oct 20, 2009

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011

 Journal of Travel Research

Digital Divide in Tourism 49(3) 267­–281

© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287509346843
http://jtr.sagepub.com

Valeria Minghetti1 and Dimitrios Buhalis2

Abstract
Tourism is an important wealth creator at both global and local levels.  An appropriate diffusion of the information and communication
technologies (ICTs) in this sector can improve the social and economic impacts, from which many citizens and organizations in
developed and developing countries can benefit.This article analyzes digital divide and proposes an integrated theoretical framework
to explore the relevant factors that lead to unequal access and use of ICTs for tourists and destinations. It integrates the technical,
social, and motivational aspects derived from different approaches to digital divide to demonstrate how these factors affect the
capacity of markets and destinations to meet and interact effectively in a global tourism environment.

Keywords
digital divide, markets, destinations, economic and social disparities

Introduction search to consumption and memories. The Internet in particular

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have
revolutionized the structure and organization of the tourism
system (Poon 1993; Sheldon 1997). The Internet and the
convergence among informatics, communication, and multi-
media have provided both tourists and destinations new
channels through which to empower their communication
process while reducing search and distribution costs (Buhalis
and Law 2008; Buhalis 2003).
Tourism is a global industry (Wahab and Cooper 2001),
and although the biggest part of international tourist flows is
still generated by and between developed countries and
regions, there is a strong center–periphery relationship as
many emerging destinations are located in peripheral or less
developed areas (Scheyvens 2002). Even within developed
countries, tourists generally leave rich metropolitan areas
toward popular resorts in peripheral regions (e.g., beach and
ski resorts, small art cities). All these peripheral locations are
often less accessible from the main tourist-generating
regions, both physically and electronically (Nash and Martin
2003; Buhalis 2000; Hall and Page 2006; Hohl and Tisdell
1995). However, the evolution of tourism demand, the emer-
gence of a more skilled and demanding traveler who wishes
to explore new destinations and live new experiences, sup-
ported by transport developments (low-cost carriers, fast
trains, and the proliferation of private cars) and the Internet,
make all these destinations close to their potential markets.
Innovation technologies are increasingly critical for the
management and marketing of tourism organizations and desti-
nations. They also determine tourist consumer behavior as they
affect his or her entire decision-making process from product
makes the search of destinations, tourism providers, and ser-
vices easier and richer than do traditional channels. It increases
the opportunities to build direct relationships between consum-
ers and suppliers and to bypass external offline and online
intermediaries. Browsing the Web also allows users to assess
alternatives, in terms of product attributes and price, as well as
to build personalized itineraries (Buhalis 2003).
Although the diffusion of ICTs has a great potential for
ensuring sustainable global and tourism development, espe-
cially in less developed areas (UNCTAD 2004), disparities
still exist in access, skills, use of ICTs, and services. Many
infostructural and above all knowledge barriers have to be
overcome therefore to support wide use. This also applies to
the developed regions of the world, which face the challenge
of ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to benefit
from Internet services.
According to Warschauser (2004), “What is most important
about ICT is not so much the availability of a computing device
or the Internet line, but rather the people’s ability to make use of
that device and line to engage in meaningful social practices.”
This has far-reaching implications for tourism. Information is
the lifeblood of tourism (Buhalis 2003; Poon 1993; Sheldon
1997) and the emergence of the Internet has changed the entire
value chain of tourism creation, marketing, distribution, and
1
CISET-Ca’ Foscari University,Venice, Italy
2
Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom
Corresponding Author:
Valeria Minghetti, CISET-Ca’ Foscari University, Riviera S. Pietro 83, 30034
Oriago di Mira,Venice, Italy
Email: ming@unive.it

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011

268 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
consumption (Buhalis 1998; Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier
2000). Disparities in possessing, controlling, processing, com-
municating, and distributing information have a greater impact
on tourism production and consumption than in other economic
sectors. These disparities are determined by both the techno-
logical tools available to provide and distribute accurate
information widely and the ability to use these tools effectively.
Digital divide can lead to digital and social exclusion—when
individuals, communities, and organizations are unable to fully
participate in the network society and determine their own des-
tiny (Selwyn 2004). For tourists and destinations, this means
being unable to participate in the emerging electronic market
and benefit from arising opportunities.
In the past several years, there has been an upsurge of
digital divide literature exploring its impacts for general
socioeconomic development (Antonelli 2003; Castells 2002;
Chen and Wellman 2004; van Dijk 2005, 2006; Dragulanescu
2002; Norris 2001; Warschauser 2004). Nevertheless, there
is still no evidence of research on the implications of ICT
disparities for the tourism sector. Although there is research
on the propensity of tourists to use the Internet and ICT in
general and on their capacity to use them properly (Kah,
Vogt, and MacKay 2008; Pan and Fesenmaier 2006;
Morrison et al. 2001; Bonn, Furr, and Susskind 1999; Weber
and Roehl 1999), as well as on the diffusion of innovation in
tourism enterprises and destinations (Garkavenko and Milne
2008; Collins, Buhalis, and Peters 2003; Paraskevas and
Buhalis 2002; van der Borg et al. 2001), there are no studies
assessing the effects of the digital gap on the relationships
between tourist demand and supply and on the development
of the tourism system as a whole.
This despite the crucial role tourism has as a driver of social
and economic development (Cooper et al. 2008). Diffusion of
ICTs in tourism can create favorable social and economic con-
ditions from which many citizens and organizations in both
developed and developing countries can benefit.
This article presents an integrated theoretical framework to
investigate the relevant factors that generate unequal access,
use, and engagement with ICTs for tourists, destinations, and
businesses. It discusses how these factors affect the capacity
of markets and destinations to meet and interact globally. The
article proposes a framework based on a multidisciplinary
approach derived from revising and adapting models on the
digital divide developed in different disciplines (information
sciences, economics, social and communication sciences,
political economy, and education) to tourism. The model takes
into consideration the macroenvironmental conditions in
which tourists live and businesses and DMOs operate. The
main factors and determinants driving demand-and-supply
behavior are identified by integrating the economic, social,
and motivational aspects described in digital divide models
with the behavioral and intention-based variables defined in
the studies on ICT adoption among tourists and tourism busi-
nesses. A set of propositions are then developed to guide the
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
discussion and further investigation based on the proposed
framework.
Digital Divide and Its Effects on Tourism
Defining the Digital Divide
Analyses of the diffusion of innovations, introduced by Rogers
(1962) and Bass (Bass 1969), postulate the presence of a digital
gap between communities of users and potential users (Tuomi
2000). However, Rogers’s study assumes a mechanical, linear
process of ICT access and adoption only affected by the user’s
requirements, neglecting the role that personal characteristics
(demographic, educational, sociological, etc.), environmental
conditions (technological, economic, and political), and govern-
ment rules (e.g., restrictions and censure) can have on potential
users’ choices and behavior.
The OECD (2001) defines digital divide as “the gap
between individuals, households, businesses and geographic
areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to
their opportunities to access ICTs and to their use of the
Internet for a wide variety of activities” (p. 4). Norris (2001)
delineates two main dimensions of the digital divide: the inter-
national or global digital divide, which refers to the divergence
of ICT access and usage between industrialized and develop-
ing societies, and the domestic or social digital divide, which
deals with the gap between information included and excluded
in each country. The global digital divide is caused by a
number of factors, such as differentials in GDP and income
(ITU 2003; Martin and Robinson 2004), human capital and
digital skills (Barzilai-Nahon, Rafeali, and Ahituv 2005;
Norris 2001), telecommunication infrastructure and connec-
tivity (Gray 2004; Guillen and Suarez 2004; ITU 2003), policy
and regulatory mechanisms (Corrocher and Ordanini 2002;
Gray 2004; ITU 2003), and sociodemographic characteristics
(Barzilai-Nahon, Rafeali, and Ahituv 2005; Chen and Wellman
2004; Chinn and Fairle 2004). The domestic or social digital
divide is mainly dependent on social demographic and eco-
nomic characteristics of different local communities and
regions, including age (Hargittai 2002); gender (Bridges.org
2001; Chen and Wellman 2004); race and ethnicity (Hoffman
and Novak 1998; OECD 2001); literacy, education, and
language skills (OECD 2001; Robinson, Di Maggio, and
Hargittai 2003); disabilities (Institute of Social and Ethical
Accountability 2005); place of residence; and geographical
location (urban vs. rural areas). Both concepts are designed to
explain disparities between individuals, households, and
among different countries or regions within the same country.
No variable has been specifically identified to explain differ-
ences in access and use of ICTs between enterprises and public
bodies, which also depend on their location, legislation, level
of democratization as well as organization size and structure,
management culture, region of operations, value system, and
other factors.
Minghetti and Buhalis 269

Figure 1. The global map of digital inclusion risk

Source: Maplecroft (2009).
This figure has been reproduced with the permission of Maplecroft.Net Ltd.

Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of global Table 1. International Telecommunication Union Digital
digital inclusion risk, designed by Maplecroft according Opportunity Index
to the Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) calculated by the Digital Opportunity:
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). DOI ranks Main Areas of Analysis Variables Used
countries in four categories (high-opportunity, upper- Opportunity Percentage of the population covered by
opportunity, medium-opportunity, and low-opportunity mobile cellular telephony
digital access economies) according to a composite index, Mobile cellular tariffs, as a percentage of
which combines 11 variables grouped in three main areas as per capita income (100 minutes of use
demonstrated in Table 1. per month in U.S. dollars)
The geographical evolution of tourism follows a similar Internet access tariffs, as a percentage
development of the global and domestic digital divide. More of per capita income (20 hours per
month in U.S. dollars)
than 50% of the international tourism flows and receipts is Infrastructure Proportion of households with a fixed-
concentrated in the developed areas of the world (Europe, line telephone
with the exception of Eastern European countries, North Mobile cellular subscribers per 100
America, and Oceania) and are mostly generated by intrare- inhabitants
gional tourism (especially within Europe; UNWTO 2008). Proportion of households with Internet
The rest of the international traffic is determined by trips access at home
from the northwest to the southeast regions, made by tourists (Mobile) Internet subscribers per 100
inhabitants
coming mainly from Western developed countries who visit Proportion of households with a computer
less developed regions. For example, most of the top 10 Utilization Internet users per 100 inhabitants
spending countries at the international level (UNWTO Ratio of (fixed) broadband Internet
2008), with the exception of China, present a high GDP per subscribers to total Internet
capita (IMF 2007). Apart from China, 20% of them are subscribers
included within the high-opportunity digital access econo- Ratio of (mobile) broadband Internet
mies (Japan and Korea), while the rest are in the group of the subscribers to total Internet
subscribers
upper-opportunity digital access economies, according to the
DOI index (ITU 2005; Table 2) Source: Adapted from ITU, MIC, KADO (2005).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011

270 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)

Table 2. Top 10 Tourism Spenders

International Expenditures Population GDP per Capita GDP as Percentage Digital Opportunity
2006 (in billion U.S. dollars) (in millions) (in U.S. dollars) of Total indexa
United States 104.3 299.7 44024.2 27.3 .66
Germany 83.0 82.3 35432.7 6.0 .66
United Kingdom 78.3 60.5 39630.9 5.0 .69
France 37.8 61.3 36708.3 4.7 .64
Japan 37.7 127.7 34180.7 9.0 .77
China 28.2 1314.1 2012.5 5.5 .45
Italy 27.4 58.3 31790.6 3.8 .63
Canada 26.0 32.6 39141.3 2.6 .67
Korea 20.3 48.3 18391.7 1.8 .80
Spain 20.3 44.1 27902.7 2.5 .65
World 741.6 6445.7 7495.0 100.0
Sources: UNWTO (2008), International Monetary Fund (2007), ITU, UNCTAD (2007).
a.Values between 0 and 1, where high digital opportunity ≥0.7.

Digital Divide in Tourism Travelocity) to retrieve information on flights, hotels, and

Generally, tourists use technologies and the Internet to speed up
and enhance their information search and vacation planning
(Poon 1993; Sheldon 1997; Buhalis 2003) and to access desir-
able opportunities and services (Wilson 2006). The Internet in
particular “enables users to assert their need for information that
is framed within their personal context, rather than that of the
promoter” (Pan and Fesenmaier 2006, p. 826). In developed
areas, technology-savvy consumers use computers, PDAs,
iPods, etc. to access travel-related content and offers, which can
contribute to their decision-making process and enrich their
experience. In peripheral areas, ICTs and Internet access often
reaches only a small share of the population that usually has a
high purchasing power and tends to assimilate a Western tour-
ism consumption behavior, taking several business and leisure
trips per year. For example, according to the India Outbound
Travel Monitor (Nielsen Co. and PATA 2008), about 50% of
Indian travelers use the Internet to collect information on desti-
nations and 12% of them also book travel and accommodation
through online travel agencies.
Having access does not necessarily mean that people will
use technology wisely. There are also tourists who have
access to ICTs and the Internet but are not able to use it effec-
tively because of a number of different causes, including
lack of knowledge, trust, literacy, language skills, and con-
tent availability of credit card and low bandwidth. This is
what Cho (2004) defined as a horizontal or second-level
divide: differences in the quality and intensity of use among
ICT users (e.g., between productive and consuming users,
between power and passive users). “Access to ICTs does not
denote use of ICT; while use of ICT does not necessarily
entail meaningful use of ICT” (Selwyn 2004, p. 349). For
example, inexperienced Internet users may not be able to
easily reach online suppliers or tourist portals, search
engines, and online travel agencies (e.g., Expedia, Kayak,
tourist destinations or to book travel services.
Considering tourism destinations, ICT-skilled tourism
enterprises and destination marketing organizations (DMOs)
have huge opportunities to apply ICT tools for communicat-
ing their offering, enhancing their visibility on the market
and strengthening their competitiveness (Gretzel, Yuan, and
Fesenmaier 2000; Buhalis 1998). Even smaller companies
gradually use affordable and simple solutions, application
service providers, as well as a range of distribution solutions
to participate in the emerging marketplace (Paraskevas and
Buhalis 2002). On the contrary, tourism businesses (espe-
cially small to medium enterprises [SMEs]) and DMOs with
low ICT use are often cut off from electronic distribution
channels and eCommerce (Buhalis and Kaldis 2008; Collins,
Buhalis, and Peters 2003). The risk is to become invisible for
a rising share of the market that increasingly relies on the
Internet for travel search and purchase (Morrison et al.
1999). According to the ETC New Media Trend Watch, in
some of the main tourism-generating countries, like Germany
and the United Kingdom, Internet penetration is about 60%
to 70% and most Web users collect tourist information
online, while 30% to 50% buy one or more tourist services
online. In the United States, the Internet has matured as a
travel distribution channel, with 70% of online leisure travel-
ers booking at least some of their personal travel online, and
52% purchasing all or most of their personal travel online
(Jupiter Research Corporation 2007).
Tourism destinations and SMEs in peripheral, low-
digital-access regions are even more disadvantaged than
their colleagues located in developed countries (Buhalis
1998, 2003; UNCTAD 2004). Not only are they excluded
from the considerable set of their prospective customers but
they also still struggle with access to expertise, capital, and
technologies that could enable them to promote their prod-
ucts and develop suitable tools for attracting new markets.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011

Minghetti and Buhalis 271
Their online presence often reflects the level of ICT deploy-
ment in their own location rather than the level of use
expected by their clientele, which often operates in high-ICT
regions. These destinations and businesses have a high
dependence on external traditional intermediaries (i.e., tour
operators and incoming agents) to promote and sell their
products (Bastakis, Buhalis, and Butler 2004; Buhalis 2000).
On both the demand and the supply side of the tourism
market, engagement with ICTs is therefore less concerned
with issues of access and ownership. The core issue is how
tourists and businesses develop their ICT skills and how are
they able to use the available online resources (Jung et al.
2001 in Selwyn 2004).
In spite of the general consensus in the international
development community about the need for countries around
the world to bridge both social and global digital divides
(Bridges.org 2001; James 2002; OECD 2001; UNCTAD
2004), there is little evidence of studies and research specifi-
cally geared toward the tourism sector.
ICT diffusion, adoption, and use in the tourism industry
have been the subject of scholarly inquiry in the past 10
years. A number of studies in the tourism and IT literature
have discussed the significance of the Internet as a com-
munication channel and the variables explaining online
information search and tourists’ purchasing behavior (Kah,
Vogt, and MacKay 2008; Buhalis and Law 2008; Steinbauer
and Werthner 2007; Pan and Fesenmaier 2006; Luo et al.
2004; Morrison et al. 2001; Bonn, Furr, and Susskind 1999;
Weber and Roehl 1999). Other studies have investigated
the spread of innovation in tourism businesses and DMOs
and the internal and external factors explaining ICT accep-
tance and usage (Huh et al. 2009; Garkavenko and Milne
2008; Hornby 2004; Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000;
Collins, Buhalis, and Peters 2003; Paraskevas and Buhalis
2002; van der Borg et al. 2001). However, the effects of
inequalities in access, use, and engagement with ICTs on
the tourism system at both the global and local levels have
been largely under-researched. Digital inclusion or exclu-
sion is expected to have a major impact on tourism
competitiveness, as it creates and/or deepens economic and
social disparities between tourists and destinations.
Analyzing these effects implies integrating macro and
micro perspectives, taking into account the environmental
(technical, political, economic, etc.) conditions in which
tourism markets, businesses, and organizations develop
and operate as well as the structural, cultural, and motiva-
tional aspects driving their attitudes and decision-making
processes. The range of models elaborated in different
disciplines to assess the digital divide can be used to build
a multidimensional approach for the tourism sector. Imp-
lementation of the proposed approach should also help to
identify appropriate actions to bridge the digital gaps and to
develop communication mechanisms between digitally
excluded markets, destinations, and businesses.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
Defining Paradigms to Analyze the Digital Divide
In the past 20 years, the digital divide has been the subject of
research in different disciplines, including information sciences
(informatics and telematics), economic sciences, social and
communication sciences, political sciences (political economy),
and education sciences (Selwyn 2004). Depending on the dif-
ferent perspectives adopted (quantitative vs. qualitative) and the
particular questions addressed, research in this field has devel-
oped across three main levels of analysis: inequalities in access
(the early digital divide), use (the primary digital divide), and
engagement with ICTs (the secondary digital divide, or digital
exclusion; Cho 2004; Warschauser 2004).
A number of theoretical models have been developed to
describe and measure the digital divide according to the three
levels of analysis. These include economic and technical
models, sociotechnical models, and social capabilities models.
While economic and technical models tend to focus on early
and primary digital divide (access and use), social capabilities
models discuss the effects of digital exclusion on societies and
in participation (engagement with ICTs). To benefit from the
range of expertise and disciplines, the research done has exam-
ined the DOI model (ITU, MIC, KADO 2005; ITU, UNCTAD
2007), the access rainbow model (Clement and Shade 1998,
2000; Shade 2002), the social position and network model
(Castells 2002; van Dijk 2005, 2006), and the strategic restruc-
turing model (Wilson 2006; Table 3)
The social position and network model extends the concept
of social access to ICTs, focusing more on individuals’ capabili-
ties and characteristics. In particular, van Dijk’s model analyzes
the gap in the use of new technology between individuals and
communities according to four main successive aspects: mate-
rial access, motivational access, skills access, and usage access
(Figure 2). This succession is motivated by technology access
as a dynamic process caused by many social, mental, and tech-
nological factors (van Dijk 2006).
Material access “comprises physical access and other type of
access that are required to reach complete disposal of and con-
nections to computers and other technological devices” (van
Dijk 2006, p. 224). In tourism, material access can be achieved
through home and office ICTs, but also through wireless net-
works at destinations that power Internet connections, business
centers, and kiosks that provide hardware and software that
empower connections. Motivational access reflects the wish to
have a computer or an Internet connection, which means that
“there are not only ‘have-nots’, but also ‘want-nots’” (van Dijk
2006, p. 226). The want-nots may use more traditional methods
of communication and transaction that they rely on others for
performing some of their tasks. In tourism, there are people who
appreciate the usefulness of access and want to use technology
for accessing information and undertaking transactions. Equally,
even in technologically advanced regions, there are people who
prefer to outsource this process to assistants, secretaries, or
travel agencies for a variety of reasons.
272 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)

Table 3. Major Theoretical Paradigms Related to Digital Divide

Theoretical Level of Digital Authors’

Paradigms Divide Analysis Main Models References Objectives Main Aspects
Economic and Early and primary ITU digital ITU, MIC, KADO Classifying countries into Approach based on 11
technical digital divide opportunity (2005); ITU, four categories according variables grouped into
models (access and use) model UNCTAD to a composite index of three categories: consumer’s
(2007) ICT development (high opportunity to participate
digital opportunity access in the information society,
economies; upper-access infrastructure, extent of
economies; medium- ICT use
access economies; and
low-access economies)
Sociotechnical Early and primary Access rainbow Clement and Measuring access to ICTs Approach deriving from the
models divide, some indica- model Shade (1998, according to three models used for network
tions on second- 2000), Shade technical layers (carriage, protocols. Although the
ary digital divide (2002), Kling info infrastructure, physical layers are distinct, they
(engagement with (2004), Tuomi devices and software tools), are also interoperable,
ICTs) (1999) three social infrastructure as all those aspects are
layers (information content, interlinked and mutually
services for people, role reinforcing.
of service providers, skills,
literacy, social facilitation),
and a political layer
(governance)
Social capabilities Secondary digital Social position Castells (2002), Assessing how to reduce Approaches focused more on
models divide (engagement and network van Dijk (2005, the digital gap between individuals’ capabilities and
with ICTs) model 2006) individuals and characteristics; van Dijk
communities, according model as a combination of
to four main successive a resource-based approach
aspects: material access, with a social position and
motivational access, skills network approach
access, and usage access
Strategic Wilson (2006) Assessing digital inclusion Modified structural approach
Restructuring or exclusion of consumer that analyzes ICT diffusion
model and business staff taking into account the
according to eight aspects: complex social, political, and
physical access, financial economic interactions that
access, cognitive access, operate simultaneously at
design access, content the macro, meso, and micro
access, production access, levels
institutional access, and
political access
Note: ICTs = information and communication technologies.

The skills needed to access includes three types: instru-
mental digital skills (the capacity to work with hardware and
software), information skills (the ability to search, select,
and process information in computer and network sources),
and strategic skills (the capacity to use computer and net-
work sources as the means for reaching some goals and
improving one’s position in society). Finally, usage access
refers to the individual’s ability to use ICTs effectively and
depends on factors like usage time, usage applications and
diversity, broadband versus narrowband use, more or less
creative use, etc. In tourism, regular users of travel services
seem to develop their skill and usage access through exper-
tise in the available services online. Infrequent travelers tend
to lack the essential knowledge of critical services and either
have to rely on more experienced users or miss out.
The model is cumulative and recursive. When the full pro-
cess of appropriation for a specific tool is completed, a new
innovation arrives and the process starts again, wholly or partly
(van Dijk 2006). The main consequence of digital divide for
individuals is the degree of their participation in the most rele-
vant fields of society and the economy (van Dijk 2006).
The Strategic ReStructuring (SRS) model (Wilson 2006) on
the other hand stresses the importance of structures, institutions,
politics, and government policies in shaping ICT diffusion,
rejecting the assumption that individuals—meant as consumers
or staff of businesses and organizations—can leapfrog external

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011

Minghetti and Buhalis 273
USAGE ACCESS
SKILLS ACCESS
• Strategic digital skills
• Informational digital skills
• Instrumental digital skills
MATERIAL ACCESS
NEXT INNOVATION
MOTIVATIONAL ACCESS
Figure 2. The model of successive kinds of access to digital
technologies
Source: Reprinted from Poetics,Vol. 34, No. 4-5, J. van Dijk, “Digital Divide
Research, Achievements and Shortcomings,” p. 15, 2006, with permission
from Elsevier.
constraints (Table 3). Technology is defined as a scarce and
desirable resource whose value is not in itself but is intimately
linked to the user’s particular purposes. This modified structural
approach identifies eight aspects of digital inclusion and exclu-
sion. Apart from physical access, financial access (cost of ICT
services relative to annual income), cognitive access (the indi-
vidual’s intellectual capacity to find and process the information
he needs and use it to meet his needs: ICT skills), design access
(human–machine interface, usability), content access (availabil-
ity of relevant applications and information online), production
access (capacity to produce one’s own content), institutional
access (availability of institutions that enable access), and polit-
ical access (access to the governing institutions where policies
are made; Wilson 2006). In tourism, the ability of destination
organizations and businesses to select, aggregate, and distribute
information to the right consumer at the right time and in the
right place is critical. Design, content, and production access
can be achieved through appropriate training, which stimulates
the development of specific skills and also motivates staff
behavioral intention to use ICTs. In addition, institutional and
governmental incentives can support businesses’ decision to
invest in innovative tools and applications.
Modeling ICT Inequalities in Tourism:
An Integrated Framework
A review of the different models suggests that there is no
single model that can individually provide a comprehensive
foundation that analyzes the causes and impacts of ICT and
digital inequalities for tourism demand and supply. To study
the differences in access, capabilities, and use of ICTs among
tourists, destinations, and businesses, as well as the effects of
the asymmetries generated by the presence of multiple digi-
tal divides, a wider set of variables needs to be taken into
account. These variables should refer to the structural (eco-
nomic, technological, social, and political) environment in
which tourists live, destinations develop, and enterprises run
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
their business. They should also examine the consumer’s
motivations, skills, and usage and the tourism organization’s
capabilities to effectively use ICTs. This is particularly the
case in tourism because of the diversity of stakeholders
involved, which means that partners may be based in the
region of origin or at the destination and may have different
degrees of motivation and skill access.
A conceptual framework is therefore proposed to apply the
digital divide theory to tourism and to guide further research
and development (Figure 3). This framework has been built
starting with three of the previously illustrated models. The ITU
quantitative approach was taken into account with the van
Dijk’s social position and network model, to analyze the market
side, and with Wilson’s strategic restructuring model, to analyze
the destination side. The aim is to combine technical, economic,
and sociocultural perspectives to assess the impact of the phe-
nomenon on tourism. This approach blends the range of theories
examined to demonstrate that for the entire tourism system to
work effectively, the different nodes should have material, moti-
vational, skills, and usage access and should reengineer their
entire processes to support effective communications and to
reduce cost.
The proposed framework identifies four groups of tourism
markets and destinations (high access, upper access, medium
access, and low access) according to levels of ICT propensity
and engagement. Here the term access is used in a broad sense,
to comprehend multiple digital accesses (not only material
access, but also skill, usage, production, contents, etc. accesses).
In reality, these groups are not silos but instead they are
logical formations on a continuum from high to low that
allow researchers to manage them as a cluster of similar
level of ICT utilization.
Preconditions for Digital Inclusion in Tourism:
The Framework Constructs
The technological development of each market and des-
tination and the capacity and extent to which they interact in
the eTourism marketplace are determined by three major
constructs (Figure 3):
1. The environment construct, which delineates the
technological, economic, financial, social, and
political conditions that affect the regions. This
construct takes into account the digital develop-
ment of both tourists’ home and host regions. This
construct includes a range of issues, such as info-
structure and connectivity, service providers,
pricing mechanisms, institutional incentives, gov-
ernment policies, etc.
2. The demand-side construct, which includes social,
cultural, and psychological factors such as psycho-
graphic characteristics (age, sex, etc.); socioeconomic
status (education, income, etc.); place of residence;
274 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
Figure 3. A proposed framework for analyzing digital divide in the tourism marketplace
TOs = tour operators; ITAs = incoming travel agencies; OTAs = outgoing travel agencies.
mental propensity (e.g., motivation and trust); instru-
mental, information, and strategic skills (e.g.,
technology and language literacy; frequency and
intensity of ICT use). This construct explains the dif-
ferences in adoption and use of ICTs between and
within groups of tourists residing in the same coun-
try or in different countries.
3. The supply-side construct, which describes the
factors that affect the propensity of public tourism
organizations and private enterprises (especially
SMEs) to access and use ICTs meaningfully.
These factors include organization size and struc-
ture, subsector (hospitality, transport, etc.),
management culture, ICT acceptance and cogni-
tive skills, design and functionality skills, and
content access.
The arrows show the development of the three constructs in
different categories of tourism markets and destinations. For
each construct, the thicker the arrow the stronger is its
development and the lower the intensity of the technological
gap suffered by markets or destinations. For example, looking
at the environmental conditions, high-digital-access markets
and destinations are generally those located in regions with a
high GDP per capita, a modern ICT infostructure, and an
efficient network of services. Similarly, high-digital-access
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
markets are generally those presenting a high socioeconomic
status, usually residing in metropolitan areas and showing good
instrumental, usage, and strategic skills.
Proposition 1: The environmental conditions in home
regions influence the propensity and ability of tourists
and tourism organizations to access and use ICTs.
Whether a market ranks as high-, upper-, medium-, or low-
access, the ranking reached within each category depends on
the effects of multiple divides (infrastructural, physical,
economic, motivational, skills, etc.). The ranking is also
determined by how the different factors within each construct
and between constructs combine together. For example, a
destination can present a higher level of Internet bandwidth and
good diffusion of broadband services but a less efficient pricing
policy, while some tourism operators can be generally located
in semiurban and rural areas, where broadband connections are
limited, or they can show lower cognitive skills and content
access. The classification should be made through the building
of a specific set of indicators that should demonstrate the
impact on tourists’ behavior and on destination and local
business development. For example, on the demand side
(Figure 3), ICT convergence gives tourists the opportunity to
empower their information search and decision-making process
and to retrieve information before, during, and after their travel
(Pan and Fesenmaier 2006).
Minghetti and Buhalis 275
Proposition 2: The classification of a tourism destination
as high-, upper-, medium-, or low-access and the po-
sition within each category depends on the effects of
multiple divides (infostructural, physical, economic,
motivational, skills, etc.) and on the combined effects
of different factors within each construct.
Motivations for Digital Market Divides
Depending on the availability of ICT resources and services
and on the ability to access, use, and engage with technolo-
gies, four categories of tourism markets can be identified.
High-digital-access tourists include tourists who usually
have a high socioeconomic status, live in countries that are at
the top of the “information society” (e.g., high Internet pen-
etration and usage as well as high online transaction
conversion rates), show a high acceptance of ICTs (motiva-
tional access), and a good level of digital skills and ICT use.
They normally use ICTs and the Web to search for and
retrieve the information they need and to book services and
are confident with online payments. According to van Dijk’s
model, they represent the “information elite” as they are gen-
erally productive and active users (Cho 2004). Within a
country, taking into account the diffusion process of an inno-
vation over time (DOI model), they can be defined as the
community of innovators (Bass 1969; Rogers 1995). These
people are often the first ones who adopt a new system (e.g.,
iPod, PDA, GPS, blogs, Twitter) or try a new online tourist
service (e.g., hotel booking through mobile phone). This
group trusts online service providers based on their credibil-
ity in the market and also through previous experience.
Upper-digital-access tourists, the second group, are con-
sumers who have usually achieved a good level of access to
innovation (high material and motivational access), but their
acceptance and capacity to use technologies is strongly influ-
enced by their psychographic characteristics (e.g., age, race,
education), as well as by connectivity issues (e.g., Internet
broadband availability and prices). They have good instrumen-
tal and information skills but medium to low strategic and usage
skills. They are generally more lookers than bookers and they
are beginning to trust large brands with online transactions.
Within a country, following the DOI model theory, they are
identified as the early majority: their propensity to use online
information and distribution channels can also be influenced by
the behavior of the high-access community.
Medium-digital-access tourists are those who are sup-
posed to present a medium to low motivational and material
access and usage of technologies (in particular, low informa-
tion and strategic skills). In some cases they have no private
access to the Web at home or in office but through public
centers and Internet cafes. They still do not trust online pro-
viders and they are afraid to use credit cards online. In van
Dijk’s model, they represent the participating majority (or
the late majority, according to Rogers’s theory) and their pro-
pensity is also strongly influenced by the environmental
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
conditions of their home region (e.g., shortage of hardware
and software infrastructure and connectivity, low economic
development, and lacking of incentives). Potential online
consumers are a small fraction of the total population.
Finally, low-digital-access tourists are those who are
supposed to have a minimal structural (technological, eco-
nomic, political, etc.) access to ICT infrastructure as well as
poor digital skills (ICT literacy and knowledge). It is really
difficult to make people aware of the prospective benefits of
ICTs as they seem irrelevant to their realities. They may not
have credit cards and in general they do not trust online pro-
viders and are served by organizations in their proximity
that they can access physically. This category also includes
tourists who reside in developed regions and have access to
sophisticated ICT systems and applications but do not use
them (e.g., elderly people) for different reasons such as lack
of knowledge, trust, literacy, language, and content; no use
of credit card; or low bandwidth. They represent the discon-
nected and excluded in van Dijk’s model and the laggards
according to the DOI model theory. Often ICTs are irrele-
vant to their life and people have limited understanding of
the ICT benefits (lack of motivational access).
Proposition 3: The digital gap between tourists in high-
versus low-digital-access markets is determined by
their propensity to access and ability to use ICTs,
their different instrumental, information, and strategic
skills, as well as by effective usage of ICTs.
Driving Forces for Digital Inclusion of
Tourism Destinations
On the destination side (Figure 3), ICTs are driving forces
for local growth and cooperation between different stake-
holders (Manente and Minghetti 2005). They empower
multichannel distribution and give tourism organizations the
opportunity to promote and sell their services on a world-
wide market, building direct rapport with prospective
consumers, and bypassing intermediaries. The presence of
destinations on the electronic marketplace often depends on
the size, expertise, vision, resources, and structure of local
tourism organizations and private operators (e.g., DMOs,
information bureaus, and tourism SMEs; Buhalis 2003).
However, each destination is unique and also diverse, as
there are a large number of entities that operate within the
area. A digital gap also exist within a destination, since
public organizations versus private operators and big enter-
prises versus SMEs can have different material access,
different propensity to innovation as well as different skills
and engagement with ICTs. This makes the classification of
destinations a complex process. Nevertheless, to address
their needs and requirements and assess the effects of
multiple digital gaps on their relationships with potential
customers, destinations are considered globally and nomi-
nated in four overall levels of access (high, upper, medium,
276 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
or low access), according to a range of variables. These vari-
ables may include the availability, quality, and usefulness of
a destination management system; the usage of intranets for
internal administration and extranets for collaborating with
partners; as well as of modern technologies such as Web 2.0
applications, blogs, and Twitter. Their access is also deter-
mined by the tourism subsector they belong to (i.e., hotels
and other accommodation, incoming travel agencies, and
entertainment), their location, as well as their physical and
cognitive access to ICTs and level of design, content,
and production access. Usability, functionality, availability
of relevant applications and information online, capacity to
produce relevant and searchable contents, motivation, and
skill in using ICTs determine the inclusion or exclusion of a
business or a destination in the digital market. Consequently,
similarly to the demand markets, four groups of destinations
can be identified.
High-digital-access destinations are generally located in
well-developed regions, where organizations are highly
motivated to use ICTs and have reached a valuable level of
physical and cognitive access through using information and
strategic skills for ICT innovations. This is also due to favor-
able environmental conditions (good local ICT infrastructure
at affordable prices and supportive institutional, political,
and financial actions from central and local governments).
Marketing and distribution strategies are often built around a
centralized tourism data warehouse and are focused on the
provision of personalized services. These destinations are at
the forefront of Web applications in terms of design, content,
and production skills. ICTs are also well developed and
spread to local and regional tourism organizations within the
country. They often receive a high percentage of online
bookings for products and services. Mixing digital technolo-
gies, global positioning systems, eCommerce functionalities,
and innovative software applications, such as location-based
services, Web 2.0 recommendation systems, etc., often con-
tribute to the destination competitiveness.
Upper-digital-access destinations are regions where local
supply presents a good access to the Web, but ICT usage is less
sophisticated than in those with high digital access. This is due
to lower-level ICT infrastructure, information, and strategic
skills or higher connectivity prices (financial access). Design
access is generally good, but content and production accesses
are usually not sufficiently developed. Quite often, administra-
tive divisions and political conflicts fragment the availability
and use of resources. Online functionalities are basically
focused on a database providing a complete set of information
to potential tourists and on developing some eCommerce initia-
tives for specific products (accommodation, etc.). They tend to
receive a relatively high percentage of online bookings for
products and services.
Medium-digital-access destinations are regions that are
characterized by a low level of physical and cognitive
access to ICTs, generally determined by poor environmental
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
conditions such as poor infostructure and services, higher
Internet prices, and low instrumental, information, and stra-
tegic digital skills. Here public and private operators
basically use the Web as a promotion window, to provide
general information on the destination services. Usability
can be quite good, but the availability of relevant applica-
tions online and the capacity to produce own content are
underdeveloped. Consequently they receive a low percent-
age of online bookings for products and services.
Low-digital-access destinations are destinations with
minimal physical access to ICTs. Infostructure is limited,
and both expertise and equipment are missing. The demo-
graphic and economic structures of these countries do not
support investments in this field (very low financial, institu-
tion, and political access). Decision makers do not appreciate
the contribution of ICTs, and those in the destination with
high levels of ICT skills feel frustrated with the lack of
progress. Here tourism principals and intermediaries often
do not use the electronic channel directly to market their
supply, or they do it through public and private Web sites
(e.g., local government or international associations) or
online intermediaries that charge them considerable com-
missions. Cognitive and usage access are very low and they
tend to receive a negligible percentage of online bookings
for products and services.
Proposition 4: The propensity and ability of DMOs and
local tourism businesses, especially SMEs, to take
advantage of ICTs in high- versus low-digital-access
destinations is determined by the use of ICTs in their
region as well as in the home regions of their clientele.
It also depends on the DMOs’ business structure, their
ability to access and use ICTs effectively, and on their
expertise in transacting online.
The Effects of Digital Disparities
on the Tourism System
The disequilibrium between the digitally included and skilled
and the digitally excluded tourists and destinations leads to
an asymmetrical development of the global tourism system.
The central box in Figure 3 shows the evolution to the eTour-
ism marketplace. The horizontal arrows highlight the
relationships linking markets and destinations at the same
level of digital access (high, upper, etc.). The dotted trans-
versal arrows highlight the pattern of relationship that can
develop between markets and destinations at different levels
of digital access. The thicker the arrows, the higher the prob-
ability of interaction between tourists and destinations, given
the presence of multiple divides. If high- and upper-
digital-access tourists would like to interact with high-
and upper-digital-access destinations, they can use
established eTourism tools and media to facilitate their inter-
action. For example, consumers can visit tourist organizations
Minghetti and Buhalis 277
online, communicate electronically, transact and evaluate. In
medium- and low-access markets and destinations there is
little technology-supported interaction between consumers
and suppliers and between suppliers. Therefore the support
of intermediaries, such as outgoing travel agencies (OTAs),
tour operators (TOs), and incoming travel agencies (ITAs), is
still essential to facilitate interactions and trade (Figure 3).
The level of access of both markets and destinations deter-
mine the industry formation and that in return influences the
power relationships between the markets and the tourist
regions as well as between stakeholders.
Going into detail, digital inequalities create a gap among
tourists in their ability to interact with the global tourism indus-
try. High-access tourists reiterate van Dijk’s model every time
a new innovation enters the market (e.g., Web 2.0. Twitter,
GPS, iPod, etc.) and display a strong e-consumption behavior.
Focusing on the Internet, perceived Web site usefulness, in
terms of ease of navigation, content, and accessibility, affects
trip planning and is a significant predictor of intent to travel to
a destination (Kaplanidou and Vogt 2006). Given tourists’
characteristics, values, and needs (social, economic, etc.; Um
and Crompton 1990), the presence of a Web site, its usability,
functionality, design, as well as the quantity and quality of
travel information to complete the booking and purchasing
processes and the presence of motivating visuals are aspects
that can represent a discriminatory factor in destination choice.
This means that ICT-advanced tourists will find easier to
arrange travel in high- and upper-access tourism regions and
interact with digitally developed organizations. Traveling to
medium- and low-digital-access areas demands more time and
cost effort on their behalf. The lack of online information, the
low-tech interactions, and the requirement for offline transac-
tions will often force consumers to rely on OTAs, TOs, and
ITAs, making the planning process less attractive and more
complex. Consequently, as the information society progresses
and a new generation of high-tech tourists emerges, less devel-
oped destinations risk to be progressively excluded from their
decision set.
On the contrary, digitally excluded tourists, especially in
medium- and low-access regions, lack material, cognitive, and
usage access to ICTs. They are generally cut off from the
eTourism marketplace and are thus unable to enjoy promo-
tional and Web-exclusive offers. Medium- and low-access
tourists also have limited opportunities to interact directly with
high- and upper-access destinations. This means that they are
dependent on traditional offline distribution channels (OTAs
and TOs) to plan and book their holiday. Although these chan-
nels are undertaking considerable efforts to modernize their
offering, they are inevitably best suited for mass tourism, where
high volume brings economies of scale. ICTs have empowered
personalization and dynamic packaging. In addition, traditional
distribution channels are increasingly using ICTs themselves to
disintermediate the distribution channel, cut costs, and operate
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
more dynamically. Unless medium- and low-access tourists are
able to take advantage of the online environment, they will not
benefit from personalized and dynamically packaged services,
Web pricing, range of products, and customer relationship
management (CRM) initiatives that are exclusively available
online.
Proposition 5: the disequilibrium between the digitally
included and skilled and the digitally excluded and
unskilled tourists and destinations leads to an asym-
metrical development of the global tourism system
and, within a region, to poor coordination of the lo-
cal tourism industry.
From the destination side (Figure 3), those with high
economic and digital developments have huge opportunities
to empower the integration of local stakeholders and to
organize and market their products directly to high-digital-
access markets (within the same country or abroad). When
attempting to serve medium- and low-access tourists, their
ability to interact and transact efficiently is reduced
dramatically. Hence, for these markets, traditional offline
intermediaries continue to play a prominent role.
Equally, medium- and low-access tourism destinations
have minimal ICT access and hence their reduced content
and production abilities represent a discriminatory factor in
reaching high- and upper-digital-access markets. Therefore,
they need to rely heavily on ITAs and TOs located in key
markets and on online intermediaries to facilitate the com-
munication and transaction processes with their higher-access
clientele. These intermediaries will probably impose unfa-
vorable commercial conditions, in order to compensate the
lower margins gained in high-tech independent markets and
destinations. In addition, their low level of loyalty will imply
that they will continue direct selling to destinations that offer
better margins and financial gains. This effectively means
that not only will the underdeveloped destinations be con-
strained to share the potential benefits with them but also
that they will be able to gain benefits only when there are
synergies with the commercial interests of their distributors.
To the degree that medium- and low-digital-access desti-
nations want to target high- and upper-digital-access
tourists, they need to support investment in expertise, equip-
ment, and training to develop their infostructure and build
suitable ICT tools for addressing their key markets.
Proposition 6: Destinations with low accessibility are
more dependent on external intermediaries for pro-
moting their offerings to the marketplace. These
intermediaries would probably impose higher com-
missions and unfavorable commercial conditions.
This leads to an unequal distribution of wealth cre-
ated through tourism.
278 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
Modeling the Effects of the Digital
Gap: Theoretical Implications
and Practical Guidance
The proposed framework offers both theoretical and practi-
cal benefits for tourism research and policy making. It
demonstrates the importance of a multidisciplinary approach
and particularly the analysis on the social and capability
aspects of digital divides in tourism. In more detail, it shows
how these disparities are less concerned with issues of access
and ownership but more with how tourists and destinations
develop their ICT skills and how they are capable of making
use of the technological tools available.
For example, recent studies carried out in Thailand
(Vatanasakdakul, Tibben, and Cooper 2004) and in the tourism
sector (Cosh and Assenov 2007) have shown that although the
government has funded projects to improve ICT infrastructure
and widen Internet and eCommerce functionalities, their use in
firms is still very limited. The reason is that immediate social
and cultural expectations of eCommerce users in the country are
not met by current technologies. In addition, the high depen-
dency of the local industry on external trade operators and, in
the case of tourism, from intermediaries located in highly devel-
oped markets, does not give incentives to Thai travel agents to
modify their business model. Local agencies generally show a
lack of knowledge of eCommerce and poor Web design capa-
bilities (content management, security issues, etc.). Many of
them also feel “that the online channel is already overpopulated,
while they are already busy in satisfying physical customers”
(Cosh and Assenov 2007, p. 499).
Whether inequalities of motivational, material, and even
skills access may partly disappear, inequalities in usage access
risk becoming structural unless there is specific action.
The evolution of the contemporary society (sociocultural dif-
ferentiation and individualization, rising socioeconomic
inequalities, privatization and liberalization) on one hand
and the characteristics of ICTs on the other (complexity,
expensiveness, multifunctionality, etc.) will contribute to
increase unequal distribution of resources and the positional and
personal disparities related to digital media usage (van
Dijk 2005).
The framework also offers practical implications for
policy makers and stakeholders involved. Given that the
development of ICT infrastructure and use has positive
effects on economic growth and that tourism often acts as a
driver of economic and social development, especially in
developing areas, the exploitation of technology is critical
for the tourism industry to achieve competitive advantage
and to provide economic benefits for their locality, reducing
the asymmetric distribution of economic, political, and cul-
tural capital globally.
In particular, developing destinations face increasing disad-
vantages in establishing links with their clientele, promoting
their resources, distributing their products, and collaborating
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
with industry partners, especially in high- and upper-digital-
access markets. This has considerable effects, as not only do
they fail to fulfill their full potential and then to gain sufficient
economic and sociocultural benefits but they are also unable to
build their resources and expertise in order to improve their
competitiveness and ensure their future prosperity. Paradoxically,
as technology progresses, the gap between the ICT-included
and the ICT-excluded widens, further jeopardizing the social,
cultural, and economic development at the global level. Highly
developed tourism markets and destinations that systematically
use and benefit from advanced computer-based and Internet
applications will continue to strengthen their position and affect
the evolution of the sector. Conversely, others that are able to
use basic or simple electronic applications, or those that do not
use them at all, will stay behind and be excluded from the first
tear of the global tourism community. They will inevitably be
more dependent on offline and online tour operators and travel
agencies for putting their offerings forward to the marketplace.
Consequently, digital divide initiatives should be combined
with development policies for tourism in order to support the
welfare of these destinations (countries and regions).
Conclusions and Future Research
Tourists and destinations within developed countries and
between developed and developing countries suffer from a
multiplicity of technological divides (motivational, physical,
informational, etc.), which lead to different levels of digital
exclusion. Increasingly it is evident that high-tech tourists
and regions or enterprises meet in an electronic marketplace
and communicate directly through electronic channels, elim-
inating the need for spatial concentration of production and
distribution. In contrast, medium- and low-digital-access
tourists and destinations still depend on analog transactions
and physical intermediaries to develop their vacation plan-
ning process and to transact.
It is therefore surprising that the theories of digital divide
have received little attention in the tourism literature. Although
there is a general consensus in academic circles and develop-
ment communities about the need for countries to measure and
bridge domestic and international digital divides around the
world, there is little evidence of research and initiatives specifi-
cally geared to reduce the digital gap between tourism markets
and destinations within and between countries. Studies on digi-
tal divide in tourism appear particularly relevant in countries
where tourism represents a driver of socioeconomic develop-
ment, especially since most clients come from high-access
countries. This is because tourism enterprises and destinations
that attract consumers from technologically advanced markets
are increasingly expected to communicate and transact online.
Equally, the study of digital divide is critical for less techno-
logically developed regions that need to expand their ICT usage
to be able to promote their offerings, interact with consumers,
and reduce their dependency on intermediaries. The diffusion of
Minghetti and Buhalis 279
innovation and the meaningful use of ICTs provide both tourists
and destinations with the tools to empower their communica-
tion and interaction as well as their mutual benefits.
The proposed framework can assist the analysis of the
digital divide in the eTourism marketplace. Here the inequal-
ities in access, use, and engagement with ICTs between
tourism markets and destinations and the effects of the digi-
tal gap on the relationship between demand and supply are
conceptualized as a product of exogenous and endogenous
factors (the three constructs). The different combination and
intensity of these factors generate multiple divides (infra-
structural, physical, economic, motivational, skills, etc.) that
can be used to classify a market and a destination into high,
upper, medium, or low access.
A number of considerations must be given to guide future
investigation. First, as anticipated above, a set of (simple or
weighted) indicators should be built to assess the positioning
of tourism markets and destinations, by translating the
impact of the three constructs, and then of each activated
factor within each construct, on tourists’ behavior as well as
on destination and local businesses development.
Second, further research supported by quantitative and
qualitative data is required to confirm or challenge the vari-
ous aspects of the framework and to test the indicator set.
This might be achieved through an empirical exploration of
ICT disparities in tourism markets and destinations with dif-
ferent structures, in order to refine the constructs and the
factors included and examine in detail the effects on the
dynamics of relationships between demand and supply.
As stated by Wilson (2006), “the greatest challenge is to
frame research questions so that multiple factors could be
brought together in a common field of analysis” (p. 37). The
organization of empirical surveys in a sample of countries
can help explore disparities in digital access and usage and to
analyze their effects on tourists’ behavior and travel planning
process and on destinations’ capacity to join the global tour-
ism market. A number of specific questions have to be
answered. What are the main causes of digital exclusion
among tourists and tourism destinations in developed and
developing countries? To what extent the presence of a des-
tination on the Internet, the functionality and usability of its
Web site, as well as the quantity and quality of information
and services provided will represent an ever stronger dis-
criminatory factor in the destination choice? How can the
digital divide be bridged in order to reduce the isolation of
medium- and low-digital-access tourists and support their
capacity to interact with high-access destinations? What are
the implications of digital exclusion for tourism organiza-
tions and destinations in low- and medium-digital-access
regions and the impacts on their competitiveness? Only a
comprehensive discussion of all types of digital divide,
including motivational, material, physical, skills, and usage
issues, will provide a comprehensive knowledge base to
effectively reduce the digital gaps and support the sociocul-
tural and economic inclusion of all tourism stakeholders.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Simon W. Kiarie to
the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Antonelli, C. (2003). “The Digital Divide: Understanding the Econom-
ics of New Digital Information and Communication in the Global
Economy.” Information Economics and Policy, 15 (2): 173-99.
Barzilai-Nahon, K., S. Rafeali, and N. Ahituv (2005). “Measur-
ing Gaps in Cyberspace: Constructing Digital Divide Index.”
http://www.asis.org/Chapters/europe/news/nahon.pdf (accessed
December 2007).
Bass, F. M. (1969). “A New Product Growth for Model Consumer
Durables”. Management Science, 15 (5): 215-27.
Bastakis, C., D. Buhalis, and R. Butler (2004). “The Impact of Tour
Operator’s Power on Small and Medium Sized Tourism Accom-
modation Enterprises on the Mediterranean Islands.” Tourism
Management, 25 (2): 151-70.
Bonn, M. A., H. L. Furr, and A. M. Susskind (1999). “Predicting a
Behavioral Profile for Pleasure Travelers on the Basis of Inter-
net Use Segmentation.” Journal of Travel Research, 37: 333-40.
Bridges.org (2001). Spanning the Digital Divide: Understanding
and Tackling the Issues. http://www.bridges.org/publications/65
(accessed April 2007).
Buhalis, D. (1998). “Strategic Use of Information Technologies in
Tourism.” Tourism Management, 19 (1): 409-21.
Buhalis, D. (2000). “Relationships in the Distribution Channel of
Tourism: Conflicts between Hoteliers and Tour Operators in the
Mediterranean Region.” International Hospitality, Leisure and
Tourism Administration Journal, 1 (1): 113-39.
Buhalis, D. (2003). eTourism: Information Technology for Strategic
Tourism Management. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Buhalis, D., and K. Kaldis (2008). “eEnabled Internet Distribution
for Small and Medium Sized Hotels: The Case of Athens.” Tour-
ism Recreation Research, 33 (1): 67-81.
Buhalis, D., and R. Law (2008). “Progress in Tourism Manage-
ment: Twenty Years on and 10 Years after the Internet: The state
of eTourism Research.” Tourism Management, 29 (4): 609-23.
Castells, M. (2002). The Internet Galaxy. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Chen, W., and B. Wellman (2004). “The Global Digital Divide
within and between Countries.” IT and Society, 1 (7): 39-45.
Chinn, M. D., and R. W. Fairle (2004). “The Determinants of the
Global Digital Divide: Across-Country Analysis of Computer
and Internet Penetration.” Center Discussion Paper No. 881.
Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
280 Journal of Travel Research 49(3)
Cho, C. M. (2004). “How to Measure the Digital Divide?” ITU/
KADO Symposium on Building Digital Bridges, Busan, Repub-
lic of Korea, September 10-11, 2004. http://www.itu.int/osg/
spu/ni/wsisbridges/ (accessed December 2007).
Clement, A., and L. R. Shade (1998). “The Access Rainbow: Con-
ceptualizing Universal Access to the Information/Communica-
tions Infrastructure.” Working Paper No. 10, July 1998, Faculty
of Information Studies, University of Toronto. http://www3.fis.
utoronto.ca/research/iprp/publications/wp/wp10.html (accessed
December 2007).
Clement, A., and L. R. Shade (2000). “The Access Rainbow: Concep-
tualizing Universal Access to the Information/Communications
Infrastructure.” In Community Informatics: Enabling Communi-
ties with Information and Communication Technologies, edited by
Michael Gurstein. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 32-51.
Collins, C., D. Buhalis, and M. Peters (2003). “Enhancing Small
Medium Tourism Enterprises’ Business Performance through
the Internet and E-learning Platforms.” Education & Training,
45 (8/9): 483-94.
Cooper, C., J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert, and S. Wanhill, Eds.
(2008). Tourism: Principles and Practice, 4th edition. London:
Pearson. (ISBN: 1408200090)
Corrocher, N., and A. Ordanini (2002). “Measuring the Digital
Divide: A Framework for the Analysis of Cross-Country Differ-
ences.” Journal of Information Technology, 17 (1): 9-99.
Cosh, K., and I. Assenov (2007). “Reviewing the Use of Online
Service by the Tourism Industry in an Emerging Market: The
Case of Thailand.” In Information and Communication Technol-
ogies in Tourism, edited by M. Sigala, L. Mich, and J. Murphy.
New York: Springer, pp. 493-502.
Dragulanescu, N. (2002). “Social Impact of the Digital Divide in a
Central-Eastern European Country.” International Information
and Library Review, 34 (2): 139-51.
Garkavenko, V., and S. Milne (2008). “New Zealand Travel Agents
in the Internet Era: Spatial Differences in ICT Impact, Adoption
and Perception.” In Information and Communication Technolo-
gies in Tourism, edited by P. O’ Connor, W. Hoepken, and U.
Gretzel. New York: Springer, pp. 371-82.
Gray, V. (2004). “Statistics in Perspective: ITU’s Digital Access Index
(DAI).” ITU/KADO Symposium on Building Digital Bridges,
Busan, Republic of Korea, September 10-11, 2004. http://www.
itu.int/osg/spu/ni/wsisbridges/ (accessed April 2007).
Gretzel, U., Y. L. Yuan, and D. R. Fesenmaier (2000). “Preparing for
the New Economy: Advertising Strategies and Change in Destina-
tion Marketing.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (2): 146-56.
Guillen, M. F., and S. L. Suarez (2004). “Explaining the Global Digi-
tal Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-
National Internet Use.” WeBI/Mack Centre Working Paper Series.
http://emertech.wharton.upenn.edu/Working_Papers/InternetPol-
Paper5.SocForces.pdf (accessed October 2005).
Hall, C. M., and S. Page (2006). The Geography of Tourism and Recre-
ation: Environment, Place, and Space. London: Routledge.
Hargittai, E. (2002). “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in
People’s Online Skills.” First Monday. http://www.firstmonday.
org/issues/issues7_4/hargittai (accessed December 2007)
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
Hoffman, D. L., and T. P. Novak (1998). “Bridging the Racial
Digital Divide on the Internet.” Science, 280 (17): 390-91.
Hohl, A. E., and C. A. Tisdell (1995). “Peripheral Tourism—
Development and Management.” Annals of Tourism Research,
22 (3): 517-34.
Hornby, G. (2004). “Adoption of Destination Marketing Systems
by Tourism Operators in Australia: Expert Perceptions.” In
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2004,
edited by A. J. Frew. New York: Springer, pp. 348-57.
Huh, H. J., T. Kim, and R. Law (2009). “A Comparison of Compet-
ing Theoretical Models for Understanding Acceptance Behavior
of Information Systems in Upscale Hotels.” International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 28 (1): 121-34.
Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (2005). “An Employ-
ers’ Forum on Disability Briefing for CRS Practitioners.” http://
www.csmworld.org/public/DisabilityandtheDigitalDivide.pdf
(accessed October 2005).
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2007). World Economic Out-
look Database October 2007. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/
ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/index.aspx (accessed April 2008).
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2003). World Telecom-
munication Report: Access Indicators for the Information Society.
Executive Summary. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wt-
dr_03/material/WTDR2003Sum_e.pdf (accessed June 2007).
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2005). “Building
Digital Bridges.” Approaches and Best Practices, Executive
Summary, WSIS Thematic Meeting, November 2005, in coop-
eration with Ministry of Information and Communication of
Korea, Korea Agency for Digital Opportunity and Promotion.
International Telecommunication Union, Ministry of Information
and Communication of Korea, Korea Agency for Digital Oppor-
tunity and Promotion (ITU, MIC, KADO) (2005). “Building
Digital Bridges.” Approaches and Best Practices, Executive
Summary, WSIS Thematic Meeting, November. http://www.itu
.int/publ/S-POL-WSIS.BDB-2005/en (accessed May 2009).
International Telecommunication Union, United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (ITU, UNCTAD) (2007). “World Infor-
mation Society Report 2007.” Beyond WSIS, Executive Summary,
May. http://itu,int/wisr (accessed May 2009).
James, J. (2002). “Low-Cost Information Technology in Develop-
ing Countries: Current Opportunities and Emerging Possibili-
ties.” Habitat International, 26 (1): 21-31.
Jupiter Research Corporation (2007). The US Online Travel Consumer
Survey 2007. http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp
?productid=1671643&SID=73485660-441316861-506247329
(accessed May 2009).
Kah, J. A., C. Vogt, and K. MacKay (2008). “Online Travel Infor-
mation Search and Purchasing by Internet Use Experiences.”
Information Technology & Tourism, 10: 227-43.
Kaplanidou, K., and C. Vogt (2006). “A Structural Analysis of Des-
tination Travel Intentions as a Function of Web Site Features.”
Journal of Travel Research, 45: 204-16.
Kling, R. (2004). “The Internet and Unreferred Scholarly Publish-
ing.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
38: 591-631.
Minghetti and Buhalis 281
Manente, M., and V. Minghetti (2006). “Destination Manage-
ment Organizations and Actors.” In Tourism Business Fron-
tiers. Consumers, products and industry, edited by D. Buhalis
and C. Costa. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
pp. 228-37.
Maplecroft (2009). Global Map of Digital Inclusion Risk. http://maps.
maplecroft.com/loadmap?template=min&issueID=17&close=y
(accessed May 2009).
Martin, S. P., and J. P. Robinson (2004). “The Income Digital Divide:
An International Perspective.” IT and Society, 1 (7): 1-20.
Morrison, A. M., J. S. Taylor, A. J. Morrison, and A. D. Morrison
(1999). “Marketing Small Hotels on the World Wide Web.”
Information Technology & Tourism, 2 (2): 97-113.
Nash, R., and A. Martin (2003). “Tourism in Peripheral Areas—
The Challenges for Northeast Scotland.” International Journal
of Tourism Research, 5: 161-81.
Nielsen Co., with Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (2008).
Nielsen India Outbound Travel Monitor 2008, http://blog.nielsen
.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/press_release8
.pdf (accessed May 2009).
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information
Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD.
Pan, B., and D. R. Fesenmaier (2006). “Online Information Search:
Vacation Planning Process.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33
(3): 809-32.
Paraskevas, A., and D. Buhalis (2002). “Web-enabled ICT Outsourc-
ing for Small Hotels: Opportunities and Challenges.” Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43 (2): 27-39.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, Technologies and Competitive Strate-
gies. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Robinson, J. P., P. Di Maggio, and E. Hargittai (2003). “New Social
Survey Perspectives on the Digital Divide.” IT and Society, 1
(5): 1-22.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The
Free Press.
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for Development: Empowering
Communities. Edinburgh, UK: Pearson Education.
Selwyn, N. (2004). “Reconsidering Political and Popular Understand-
ings of the Digital Divide.” New Media Society, 6 (3): 341-62.
Shade, L. R. (2002). “The Digital Divide: From Definitional
Stances to Policy Initiatives.” Department of Canadian Heritage
P3: Policy and Program Forum, Ottawa April 16.
Sheldon, P. (1997). Tourism Information Technologies. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International.
Tuomi, I. (1999). Corporate Knowledge: Theory and Practice of
Intelligent Organizations. Helsinki, Finland: Metaxis.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Linneuniversitetet on November 9, 2011
Tuomi, I. (2000). “Beyond the Digital Divide.” Third UCB Human-
Centered Computing, July 5-7, 2000. http://www.cs.berkeley.
edu/~jfc/hcc/retreat3/Divide.pdf (accessed March 2008)
Um, S., and J. L. Crompton (1990). “Attitude Determinants in Tourism
Destination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 432-48.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
(2004). UNCTAD’S eTourism Initiative, Doc. TD(XI)/BP/6), 26
April. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdxipbd6_en.pdf (accessed
June 2007).
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2008).
Tourism Highlights. 2008 Edition, Facts and Figures section.
http://unwto.org/facts/menu.html (accessed April 2009).
van der Borg, J., V. Minghetti, and L. Riganti (1997). “The Attitude of
Small and Medium-Sized Tourist Enterprises towards Information
and Telecommunication Technologies. The Case of Italy.” In Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies in Tourism, edited by A.
Min Tjoa. New York: Springer, pp. 286-94.
van Dijk, J. (2005). The Deepening Divide. Inequality in the Infor-
mation Society. London: Sage.
van Dijk, J. (2006). “Digital Divide Research, Achievements and
Shortcomings.” Poetics, 34: 221-35.
Vatanasakdakul, S., W. Tibben, and J. Cooper (2004). “What Pre-
vents b2b eCommerce Adoption in Developing Countries?
A Socio-Cultural Perspective.” Proceedings of the 17th Bled
eCommerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia, June 21-24, 2004.
Wahab, S., and C. Cooper (2001). “Tourism, Globalization and the
Competitive Advantage of Nations.” In Tourism in the Age of Glo-
balization, edited by S. Wahab and C. Cooper. London: Routledge.
Warschauser, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethink-
ing the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weber, K., and W. S. Roehl (1999). “Profiling People Searching
for and Purchasing Travel Products on the World Wide Web.”
Journal of Travel Research, 37 (3): 291-98.
Wilson, E. J. (2006). The Information Revolution and Developing
Countries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bios
Valeria Minghetti is a senior researcher at CISET-Ca’ Foscari
University. Her research interests include tourism demand analysis
and forecasting, tourism statistics collection (methodology and pro-
cedures), the economic impact of tourism at different territorial
scales, the interconnections between tourism and transports, and the
use of information technologies in tourism.
Dimitrios Buhalis is a professor in tourism and the deputy director of
the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research (ICTHR)
at Bournemouth University. His research focuses on eTourism,
management of tourism distribution channels, and strategic tourism
marketing and management.