Value Co-creation in Tourism – Scale Validation and Replication Regarding Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Intention

Abstract

This study aimed to validate for the Brazilian context a value co-creation scale directed towards tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018) and also to measure its effects in relation to the intention of word-of-mouth recommendation. The methodological procedures adopted included translation of the original scale, face validation, adaptations to the research object and data analysis through structural equation modeling (SEM). The sample comprised 210 tourists who have experienced tourism experiences in the last 02 years. The data collection instrument was made using the Google Forms platform and submitted to respondents in the second half of 2018. Among the results: a) All 5 dimensions of the original scale were supported in this research (significance, collaboration, contribution, recognition and affective response) and b) the scale presented an R² of 0.614, explaining 61% of the intention of mouth-to-mouth recommendation.

Keywords
Value co-creation; Service-Dominant Logic; Tourism; Experiences

Resumo

Este estudo teve como objetivo validar para o contexto brasileiro uma escala de cocriação de valor direcionada para o turismo (Busser & Shulga, 2018) e também mensurar os seus efeitos em relação à intenção de recomendação boca-a-boca (WoM). Os procedimentos metodológicos adotados incluíram tradução da escala original, validação de face, adaptações ao objeto de pesquisa e análise de dados por meio de modelagem de equações estruturais (MEE). A amostra compreendeu 210 turistas que vivenciaram experiências de turismo nos últimos 02 anos. O instrumento de coleta de dados foi feito pela plataforma Google Forms e submetido aos respondentes no segundo semestre de 2018. Entre os resultados: a) Todas as 5 dimensões da escala original foram suportadas nesta pesquisa (significância, colaboração, contribuição, reconhecimento e resposta afetiva) e b) a escala apresentou um R² de 0,611, explicando 61% da intenção de recomendação boca-a-boca.

Palavras-chave
Cocriação de valor; Lógica Dominada por Serviços; Turismo; Experiências

Resumen

Esta investigación tuvo como objetivo validar para el contexto brasileño una escala de co-creación de valor dirigida al turismo (Busser & Shulga, 2018) y también medir sus efectos en relación con la intención de recomendación de boca en boca. Los procedimientos metodológicos adoptados incluyeron la traducción de la escala original, validación facial, adaptaciones al objeto de investigación y análisis de datos a través del modelado de ecuaciones estructurales (SEM). La muestra incluyó a 210 turistas que han experimentado experiencias turísticas en los últimos 02 años. El instrumento de recopilación de datos se realizó utilizando la plataforma Google Forms y se presentó a los encuestados en la segunda mitad de 2018. Entre los resultados: a) Las 5 dimensiones de la escala original fueron respaldadas en esta investigación (importancia, colaboración, contribución, reconocimiento y respuesta afectiva) yb) la escala presentó un R² de 0.614, lo que explica el 61% de la intención de la recomendación boca a boca.

Palabras clave
Co-creación de valor; Lógica dominada por el servicio; Turismo; Experiencia

1 INTRODUCTION

Value co-creation is a management initiative that brings different stakeholders together (e.g., the organization and customers) to produce a mutually valued outcome (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Different contexts and stakeholders have been studied over the years (Pera et al., 2016), such as: churches, regarding the processes of community and shared leadership (Grandy & Levit, 2015), open innovation (Antikainen et al., 2010 ), cultural programs (Nasholm & Blomquist, 2015), health companies (Nadurupati et al., 2015) and, more recently, tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018).

Especially in tourism, co-creation research has explored various ways in which consumers are increasingly involved in defining and creating the services and products they consume, rather than selecting from predefined and predesigned options (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009; Prebensen, Vitterso, & Dahl, 2013). In this sense, Busser and Shulga (2018) realized that hospitality providers are increasingly engaging their customers in co-creation activities aiming at mutual positive outcomes. Examples include TripAdvisor, Airbnb, and Marriot. In 2014, for example, TripAdvisor announced video-advertisement contests open to its fan base to submit best and worst travel experiences.

Thus, Busser and Shulga (2018) proposed the co-created value scale for tourism with five dimensions, which represented: meaningfulness, collaboration, contribution, recognition, and emotional response. In the original study, the scale was validated by the authors in two different samples, and in each of them the authors created a simulation environment for respondents: in the first, respondents were asked to imagine themselves as tourists in a resort destination, having different co-creation experiences, such as destination stay, accommodation, restaurants, entertainment, day trips, or wellness services; in the second, respondents were asked to imagine themselves participating in a contest to co-create an advertisement promoting a new summer coffee drink for a well-known fast-food chain. After the simulations, the respondents assessed the level of value co-creation they have experienced by rating items on the scale. In view of these validations, the scale proved to be flexible and adaptable to different contexts within tourism.

In our research, we sought to answer the following research questions: is the co-created value scale in tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018) valid in Brazil? If so, what are the effects of value co-creation on word-of-mouth (WoM) recommendation intention? To this end, we sought to validate Busser and Shulga’s (2018) scale in the Brazilian context and test its effects on WoM recommendation intention. Therefore, by achieving these objectives, this study has contributed to the scarce quantitative research on value co-creation and its effects on the tourism industry (Ribeiro, Kevin, Costa, & Urdan, 2019).

The research sample consisted of 210 respondents and the data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). Unlike the original study, only tourists who have experienced some value co-creation activities in the past two years were surveyed. Therefore, we used data from real-life situations, rather than made-up examples. Among the main results, we validated the five-dimensional co-created value scale and achieved an explained variance (R²) of 0.611 (61%) in relation to WoM recommendation intention.

In addition to this introduction, the paper is divided into five sections. Initially, we present the theoretical framework, then we describe the methodological procedures, present the results and the discussion. Finally, some concluding remarks are given.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Value Co-Creation in Tourism

The nature of value has been discussed since the Greek philosophers (e.g. Aristotle). Specifically, there are two general meanings of value, “value-in-exchange” and “value-in-use”, reflecting different ways of thinking about value (Vargo et al., 2008). The traditional view is called goods-dominant (G-D) logic and is based on the value-in-exchange meaning of value. In this logic, value is created (manufactured) by the company and then distributed in the marketplace, usually in exchange for money (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Also, companies and consumers have different roles, and value creation is often seen as a series of activities carried out by the company (Vargo et al., 2008).

From the discussions of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2004) and Vargo and Lusch (2004), an alternative marketing logic emerged based on value-in-use, called service-dominant (S-D) logic. From this perspective, the roles of producers and consumers are not distinct, meaning that value is always co-created, jointly, and reciprocally (Vargo et al., 2008). In this new logic, value co-creation has garnered considerable attention from both scholars and practitioners as a comprehensive concept that describes collaboration between multiple stakeholders (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2014; Rankan & Read 2014), who are often unaware of each other, but who contribute for mutual well-being (Vargo & Lusch, 2016).

In tourism, research on value co-creation has emphasized the ways in which consumers are increasingly involved in the definition and creation of tourism services and products, rather than selecting from predefined options (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009; Prebensen et al., 2013). Other scholars have focused on the analysis of how tourists share their experiences on social media and online platforms (Johnson & Neuhofer, 2017; Micera & Crispino, 2017; Wu, Pearce & Dong, 2017), and on the impacts on the value of destinations and tourist attractions. Various stakeholders have been considered in these studies, including: residents (Lin, Chen & Filieri, 2017), employees (Sorensen & Jensen, 2015), companies (Chen, Kerr, Chou & Ang, 2017), researchers (Higuchi & Yamanaka, 2017), and other actors involved in co-creating value in tourism.

In summary, scholars seek to understand how value is co-created in tourist experiences and subsequently shared on social media, online platforms, and virtual communities (Camilleri & Neuhofer, 2017; Johnson & Neuhofer, 2017).

2.2 Co-created value scale for tourism

The scale presented by Busser and Shulga (2018) draws on the principles of theory of value (Hartman, 1967) and service-dominant logic (Vargo, & Lusch, 2004), seeking to assess axiological aspects of value co-creation. Instead of being specifically geared toward value co-creation, the scale focuses on customer value assessment. The five dimensions of the scale are: meaningfulness, collaboration, contribution, recognition, and emotional response.

The meaningfulness dimension reflects the belief of an individual (agent or beneficiary) that value is co-created when the service is important, meaningful, and worthwhile. Edvardsson, Skalen and Tronvoll (2011) explain that value co-creation is shaped by social forces and reproduced in their structures. Research by Cederholm and Hultman (2010), for instance, showed that the so-called lifestyle entrepreneurship – i.e. driven by personal values rather than by common economic market or growth values ​​– is endemic to tourism niches that find meaning in these values ​​and, therefore, turn them into economic values. In this dimension, it is understood that when the value co-creation process is meaningful, the result of this process has more value (Bulser & Shulga, 2018).

The collaboration dimension is understood as the cooperation for mutual benefit between two or more agents involved in value co-creation. It means having mutual understanding, common vision, and functional interdependence. Ranjan and Ready (2014) clarify that value co-creation involves consumers taking an active role and creating value together with organizations through direct and indirect collaboration in one or more stages of production or/and consumption. When collaboration is perceived positively, it creates value, reduces the negative evaluation of service failures, and influences company performance (Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Grewal, 2012).

The dimension of contribution is a belief about the extent to which a beneficiary shares its own resources, both tangible and intangible, to achieve the desired results. A closely related construct is engagement, that measures the intensity of an individual's participation, together with an organization's offerings and/or organizational activities, which either the customer or the organization initiate (Vivek, Beatty & Morgan, 2012). One can see that engagement is, to some extent, an antecedent of value co-creation and specifically of contribution. In crowdfunding, engaged people make their financial resources available for projects with ideas and talents from certain groups or skills, and technologies from others, and in such a way create joint value for everyone (Ordanini, Micele, Pizzetti & Parasuraman, 2011).

The fourth dimension represents the recognition of a beneficiary, both intrinsic or extrinsic, of his/her essential value in the process of value co-creation. In general, some people are extrinsically motivated by compensation for their contributions, while others may be more driven by fame and attention (Kumar et al., 2010). As an example of intrinsic recognition, studies carried out in religious organizations have shown that the sense of belonging, of being recognized as a member of a certain community, has positive effects – financial or others –to the growth of these congregations (Dougherty & Whitehead, 2011; Grandy, 2013).

The fifth dimension, emotional response, is defined as a general affective reaction to co-creation. It is a feeling that occurs in response to a specific stimulus. In this study, the emotional response is represented by the components interest, fun, entertainment, enjoyment and how exciting something is. In the work of Busser and Shulga (2018) it is explained that the emotional response is related to the emotional and hedonic value, which normally are sub-dimensions of perceived value (e.g., Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). In the same line, Chan, Hsu and Baum (2015) argue that positive feelings between tourists and travel providers are important so that collaboration continues in the future.

In the original scale, the authors made the nomological validity by testing the antecedents brand openness and authenticity, and consequences as well-being, competitive advantage, commitment, and trust. The authors also tested the scale regarding loyalty as consequence. Literature on value points to several potential measures as concurrent criteria related to perceived value (and, consequently, to value co-creation), such as behavioral intention, satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth advertising, and intention to reward (Zauner, Koller & Hatak, 2015). In our research, in addition to validating the scale for the Brazilian context, we tested its effects regarding word-of-mouth (WoM) recommendation intention.

2.3 Engagement, value co-creation and word-of-mouth recommendation intention (WoM)

Engagement has been advocated by some scholars as a micro-foundation of value co-creation (Simeoni & Cassia, 2017). Engagement behaviors are customer behaviors towards the brand or the company – in addition to purchasing – resulting from motivational drives (Van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, & Nass, 2010). In this sense, as customers participate and become more involved in service delivery, they tend to share credit or blame for service outcomes, in addition to developing social ties (Kandampully, Zhang, & Bilgihan, 2015). Thus, customers who recommend services positively (WoM) act as advocates for service providers, becoming co-creators of value (Sashi, Brynildsen & Bilgihan, 2018).

In tourism, an important part of the research on value co-creation focuses on how tourists share their experiences on social media and online platforms (Johnson & Neuhofer, 2017; Micera & Crispino, 2017; Wu et al., 2017), shaping the value of destinations and tourist attractions through electronic word-of-mouth (e-WoM). In the hospitality sector, researchers found a positive relationship between value co-creation and customer citizenship behavior – a construct whose dimension is word-of-mouth recommendation (Assiouras, Skourtis, Giannopoulos, Buhalis, & Koniordos, 2019). The restaurant industry also found that loyal (long-term) and engaged customers tend to recommend these establishments positively (Sashi et. al, 2018).

The role of technology, especially communication and information technology, highlights at every turn the relationship between value co-creation and word-of-mouth (WoM) recommendation intention. The use of technologies seems to increase value co-creation in tourism in at least two ways: first, they allow the customization of tourism products and their experiences (Hsu, King, & Buhalis, 2016; Meehan, Lunney, Curran, & McCaughey, 2016; Sarmah, Rahman, & Kamboj, 2017); second, its use expands the reach of social interactions, allowing tourists and other interested parties to share their opinions (positive or negative) on different platforms (Novak & Schwabe, 2009; Cabiddu, Lui, & Piccoli, 2013). This means that value co-creation and experience sharing are encouraged.

In this study, we consider the positive dimension of WoM recommendation, i.e., any positive statement made by potential customers, current or former, about a product or company. For this, we drew on the positive WoM scale by Rossni et al. (2017) to make the nomological validity of the co-created value scale for tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018). The construct was chosen because there is a set of evidences that link value co-creation to positive WoM recommendation, being, therefore, suitable for the purposes of the research.

3 METHOD

This study aims to analyze the validity and reliability of the co-created value scale for tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018) in the Brazilian context – and to test it against WoM recommendation intention. For this purpose, we applied a 25-item value co-creation measurement scale (Busser & Shulga, 2018) and a WoM recommendation intention 3-item scale (Rossini et al., 2017).

The replication of a study aims to validate previous findings (Toncar & Munch, 2010). In general, we sought to investigate whether the results obtained in the previous study (original scale) and those obtained in the current research are consistent, thus validating the scale in another context or situation. The following steps for scale validation are detailed in each subtopic: scale translation, face validity, adaptations to the research object, data collection instrument, sample selection, sample characterization, and data analysis.

3.1 Scale translation

The co-created value scale was originally developed by the authors Busser and Shulga (2018) in the English language. In order to meet the objective of this research, the scale was translated into Portuguese following these steps: 1) it was translated into Portuguese by an expert in the field and proficient in both languages; 2) it was back translated into English also by an expert in the field who is experienced and proficient in both languages; 3) finally, a third expert in the field, proficient in both languages, compared the two translations to the original and validated the translation. Table 1 compares the original scale with the scale translated into Portuguese. 2010).

Table 1
Translation of the co-created value scale

Meaningfulness	Significância
It was meaningful	Ela foi significativa
This was important to me	Isso foi importante para mim
The time I spent on it was worthwhile	O tempo que eu gastei nela valeu
It was valuable to me	Ela foi valiosa para mim
My effort was worthwhile	O meu esforço valeu a pena
Collaboration	Colaboração
We were a team	Nós éramos uma equipe
We created it together	Nós a criamos juntos
We were working together	Nós estávamos trabalhando junto
We cooperated with each other	Nós cooperamos uns com os outros
We collaborated on the Project	Nós colaboramos no projeto
Contribution	Contribuição
I shared my knowledge	Eu compartilhei o meu conhecimento
I contributed my skills to this	Eu contribuí com minhas competências para isso
I contributed my experience to this	Eu contribuí com minha experiência para isso
I invested my resources	Eu investi os meus recursos
I made a personal investment in this	Eu fiz um investimento pessoal nisso
Recognition	Reconhecimento
I received credit for this	Eu recebi crédito por isso
Our results were recognized	Nossos resultados foram reconhecidos
Others recognized the outcome	Outras pessoas reconheceram o resultado
Others recognized me for this	Outras pessoas me reconheceram por isso
We achieved mutual benefits	Nós alcançamos benefícios mútuos
Affective response	Resposta Afetiva
This was fun	Isso foi divertido
This was entertaining	Isso foi bacana
This was enjoyable	Isso foi uma curtição
This was interesting	Isso foi interessante
It was exciting	Isso foi estimulante

• Source:The author

3.2 Face validity

After the initial translation, a questionnaire was created with the scale items mixed up and 10 PhDs, experts on the topic, were invited to match the items with respective dimensions. In general, face validity judges the adequacy of the indicators chosen to represent the underlying construct – it is a subjective and systematic assessment that measures what needs to be measured (Hair et al., 2010). At this stage, items with less than 80% association with the correct dimensions were rewritten to improve clarity. Table 2 shows the items that needed to be adjusted after face validity.

Table 2
Item adjustment after face validity

Before face validity	Adjustment after face validity
Meaningfulness
The time I spent on it was worthwhile	The time I spent on the experience was worthwhile
My effort was worthwhile	My effort mattered
Contribution
I shared my knowledge	I contributed with my knowledge
I invested my resources	I contributed with my resources
I made a personal investment in this	I contributed with personal investment
Recognition
We achieved mutual benefits	The group was recognized by mutual benefits
Emotional response
This was interesting	This was very interesting

• Source: the author

3.3 Adaptation to the object of study

Some minor adaptations were necessary for a better adjustment and understanding of the scale when related to actual tourist experiences. A final round table was held with three experts on value co-creation and tourism, and the final scale is shown in Table 3.

3.4 Data collection instrument

The data collection instrument consisted of: A) Opening – presenting the research policy, data about the researcher and informed consent statement; B) Questionnaire – co-created value scale for tourism, WoM recommendation intention scale, and demographic characteristics of respondents.

The instrument was made using Google Forms and consisted of two sections. In the first, there was the title of the research, the opening and the items referring to the co-created value scale and the scale of word-of-mouth recommendation intention. All items in the first section were randomized, thus avoiding any bias in the perception of logical sequencing. In the second, data regarding age, gender, education level, name (optional), and e-mail (optional) were requested.

Table 3
Adapted co-created value scale

Meaningfulness
My experience was meaningful (SIG1)
This experience was important to me (SIG2)
The time I spent on the experience was worthwhile (SIG3)
The experience was valuable to me (SIG4)
My effort in the experience mattered (SIG5)
Collaboration
We in the group who had the experience worked as a team (COL1)
We in the group created the experience together (COL2)
We in the group were working together in the experience (COL3)
We in the group cooperated with each other in the experience (COL4)
We in the group collaborated on the experience project (COL5)
Contribution
I contributed with my knowledge (CON1)
I contributed with my skills to this (CON2)
I contributed my experience to this (CON3)
I contributed with my resources in the experience (CON4)
I contributed with personal investment in the experience (CON5)
Recognition
I received credit for this experience (REC1)
Our results were recognized (REC2)
Others recognized the outcome the experience (REC3)
Others recognized me for this (REC4)
The group was recognized by mutual benefits (REC5)
Emotional response
It was an entertaining experience (RAF1)
It was a fun experience (RAF2)
It was an enjoyable experience (RAF3)
It was a very interesting experience (RAF4)
It was an exciting experience (RAF5)

• Source: the author

The items were scored in a five-point Likert-type scale, as recommended by Maddox (1985), ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

3.5 Sample selection

For this research, population was defined as those over 18 years of age who had interacted in some tourism experience in the past two years (example: beach, religious, trekking tourism, etc.). The interaction could have been with friends, tour guides, salespeople, or other stakeholders capable of influencing the tourism experience. Many works highlight interaction as an essential element in co-creating value (Millán et al., 2016; Reichenberger, 2017). In tourism, interaction often makes value and tourism experience merge, becoming inseparable elements.

The study sample was selected by convenience, non-probability sampling method. The survey link was made available through social networks, WhatsApp, and e-mails. Data collection occurred in the second half of 2018.

3.6 Sample characteristics

The sample consisted of 210 respondents, being 53.3% men and 46.7% women. Regarding the level of education, 52.4% of the respondents have complete graduate degree, 5.7% have incomplete graduate degree, 19.5% have complete undergraduate degree, 15.7% have incomplete undergraduate degree, 6.2% had completed high school and 0.5% completed elementary school.

With regard to age, the sample included respondents between 18 and 73 years old and was quite diverse, 19.5% were between 18 and 25 years old; 29.5% were between 26 and 35 years old; 20% were between 36 and 45 years old; 17.2% were between 46 and 55 years old; and 13.8% were over 55 years old.

The tourist experiences mentioned by the sample were varied, including international travel, beach tourism, trekking, trade fairs, conventions, and other activities. Table 4 summarizes sample characteristics.

Table 4
Sample characteristics

Gender
Male	53.3%
Female	46.7%
	100%
Education
Complete graduate level	52.4%
Incomplete graduate level	5.7%
Complete undergraduate level	19.5%
Incomplete undergraduate level	15.7%
Complete high-school level	6.2%
Complete elementary level	0.5%
	100%
Age
18-25 years	19.5%
26-35 years	29.5%
36-45 years	20%
46-55 years	17.2%
+ 55 years	13.8%
	100%

• Source: the author

3.7 Data analysis

Using SmartPLS software, structural equation modeling was performed with data from the co-created value scale and consequent WoM recommendation intention. Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and rho_A reliability tests were considered reliable at a level of significance of p< 0.7 (Hair et al, 2010).

The next step was to test convergent validity. Procedurally, the following criteria were adopted: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) must be above 0.5 and less than the values of composite reliability (CR).

Discriminant validity was assessed by the Fornell and Larcker criterion, comparing the square roots of the AVE values of each construct with the (Pearson) correlations between the constructs. The square roots of AVEs must be greater than the correlations of the constructs (Ringle, Silva, & Bido, 2014).

Finally, bootstrapping was used to assess confidence intervals, hypothesis tests, and complex inferential situations (Efron & Tibishrani, 1993), and the R² value to measure how much co-created value explains word-of-mouth recommendation intention.

4 RESULTS

The validity of the scale was tested with structural equation modeling (SEM). We used a confirmatory perspective for two reasons: first, because the original scale by Busser and Shulga (2018) was widely discussed and consolidated in the literature; second, because the authors also adopted robust and exhaustive methodological procedures, validating the scale in a nomological way, comprising different effects of co-created value in relation to different antecedents and consequences. Thus, the confirmatory perspective proved to be adequate for our research.

4.1 Model validity

The convergent validity of the model was supported, in turn, discriminant validity showed that some changes were necessary to fit the model. In the dimension of meaningfulness, items SIG1 and SIG2 were removed, remaining items SIG3, SIG4, and SIG5. All items in dimensions collaboration (COL1, COL2, COL3, COL4 and COL5), contribution (CON1, CON2, CON3, CON4 and CON5), and recognition (REC1, REC2, REC3, REC4 and REC5) were supported. Finally, in the dimension of Emotional Response, item RAF1 was removed, remaining items RAF2, RAF3, RAF4, and RAF5. The final model supported the 5 dimensions of the original co-created value scale explaining 61% (R Square Adjusted: 0.611) of WoM recommendation intention. Table 5 shows reliability and convergent validity values, and Table 6 presents the results of discriminant validity testing.

Table 5
Reliability and convergent validity

	Cronbach's Alpha	rho_A	CR	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
WoM	0.842	0.845	0.905	0.760
Collaboration	0.894	0.895	0.922	0.703
Contribution	0.852	0.853	0.894	0.629
Recognition	0.844	0.848	0.890	0.618
Emotional response	0.861	0.872	0.906	0.709
Meaningfulness	0.757	0.757	0.861	0.674

• Source: the author

The reliability of the construct was confirmed, as the CR (Composite Reliability) indicates adequate values in all dimensions (> 0.7), as well as the Cronbach's alphas (> 0.7). The results also confirm the convergent validity, as AVE (Average Variance Extracted) results are less than CR and are above 0.5.

Table 6
Discriminant validity

	WoM	Collaboration	Contribution	Recognition	Emotional response		Meaningfulness
WoM	0.872
Collaboration	0.506	0.839
Contribution	0.689	0.621	0.793
Recognition	0.517	0.664	0.655	0.786
Emotional response	0.837	0.532	0.682	0.558		0.842
Meaningfulness	0.786	0.564	0.786	0.553		0.778		0.821

• Source: the author

After the adjustments that led to the exclusion of items SIG1, SIG2, and RAF1, the results provided support for the discriminant validity of the items. The final result is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Validated model of value co-creation regarding word-of-mouth recommendation intention

SmartPLS Bootstrapping was also run for the model with P Values of 0.001 for all paths. Table 7 below presents the results of t-test and P Values.

Table 7
Bootstrapping

	T Statistics	P Values
Cocreation -> Word-of-mouth	24.486	0.001
Cocreation -> Collaboration	29.327	0.001
Cocreation -> Contribution	54.108	0.001
Cocreation -> Recognition	26.143	0.001
Cocreation -> Emotional response	33.612	0.001
Cocreation -> Meaningfulness	36.500	0.001

• Source: the author

Bootstrapping is used to construct confidence intervals and complex inferential situations (Efron & Tibishrani, 1993). All paths were significant.

5 DISCUSSION

Several studies have measured the effects of value co-creation in the tourism and hospitality sector. In a destination resort, for example, a study showed that stronger relational results are achieved between customer and company, when tourists are invited to co-create and an engaged business relationship is promoted (Busser & Shulga, 2019). In the same vein, another study suggested that value co-creation was positively related to subjective well-being (SWB), i.e., as tourists co-create their experiences, they also increase the positive assessment of life, including satisfaction, positive emotion, engagement, and purpose (Fan, Hsu & Lin, 2020). Despite the considerable amount of attention given to value co-creation, in Brazil research is still scarce and, as far as we know, there is no valid co-creation scale validated for the Brazilian tourism context. Therefore, in this article, we made an exploratory effort in validating and replicating the measurement scale of value co-creation for tourism (Busser & Shulga, 2018) and relating it word-of-mouth recommendation intention (Rossini et al., 2017).

Some occurrences were noted in the dimensions of Significance and Emotional Response – the items SIG1, SIG2 and RAF1 were deleted for being associated with each other and in relation to the dependent variable WoM recommendation, not allowing discriminant validity until they were excluded. This suggested that due to cultural and linguistic differences, meaning nuances were lost in translation in some items in significance and emotional response dimensions. For example, the items “My experience was meaningful (SIG1)” and “This experience was important to me (SIG2)” seem to have very similar meaning in the Brazilian context. Thus, these items should either be excluded or adapted in future studies. In the emotional response dimension, similar situations occurred between the terms “entertaining” (RAF1), “fun” (RAF2) and “enjoyable” (RAF3), but to a lesser extent. Only the item “It was an entertaining experience (RAF1)” was eliminated so that discriminant validity was established.

While the items of emotional response measure affective reactions, the items of the meaningfulness dimension measure the belief in how important, significant, and valuable an experience is. Perhaps in the Brazilian context, something important, significant, and of great value is seen as something similar to the emotions measured in this study. It is also worth noting that value co-creation is measured on the scale as a reflective construct, i.e., the factors have a common cause and, therefore, the factors can be correlated.

Despite the occurrences noted in dimensions “Meaningfulness” and “Emotional Response”, both were supported in this study (Meaningfulness with three items and Emotional Response with four items). We argue that the importance of experiences and emotions experienced by tourists create social forces that – as explained by Edvardsson et al. (2011) –shape value co-creation. At the same time, our results suggest – in line with the literature –that positive feelings between tourists and practitioners are important for new collaboration to develop between these and other actors in the future (Chan et al., 2015; Facco, Grohmann, & Moreira, 2018).

In the dimension of collaboration, all five items in the scale were supported. Collaboration is an essential element for value co-creation. Increasingly, tourism professionals are changing service encounters into experience encounters, exploring the potential to advance knowledge, innovation, and value creation in tourism (Sorensen & Jensen, 2015). By adopting an experience-centric approach – instead of providing standardized services – tourism professionals have a greater understanding of tourists’ needs and desires, considering the complexities of their tourist experiences and making for a greater value co-creation.

The contribution dimension represents the belief about the extent to which a beneficiary shares its own resources, both tangible and intangible, to achieve the desired results. In our research, all five items of this dimension were supported. In this sense, a series of strategies can be used by companies to influence the dynamics of value co-creation in tourism, such as: dialogue, access, risk assessment, transparency, flexibility, and compatibility (Chen et al., 2017). This set of actions can promote the cooperation not only of tourists, but also of other stakeholders (for example, interorganizational cooperation) (Wilke, Costa, Ferreira & Freire, 2019). This, in turn, positively influences the development of service innovation across the tourism industry (Chen et al., 2017).

In the recognition dimension, all five items were also supported. Some studies argue that some people, when they feel recognized, are more committed to their experiences (Kumar et al, 2010; Grandy, 2013) and, in such a way, are more likely to engage in value co-creation experiences.

In general, the scale was validated for the Brazilian tourism context with all supported dimensions. Only items SIG1, SIG2, and RAF1 were excluded. Cultural, linguistic, and sample limitations may have influenced the scale validation. Despite this, the dimensions were supported and the model presented satisfactory values for Cronbach's alpha, rho_A, CR, average variance extracted, discriminant validity with Fornell and Larcker criteria, and bootstrapping procedure, enhancing the quality of the scale and, thus, the causal relationship with WoM recommendation intention, which presented an adjusted R² of 0.611.

The emphasis on value co-creation is important because a significant change is taking place. Traditionally, tourism research was product-centric, i.e., focused on how tourist experiences could be created by companies (O'Dell & Billing, 2005). Currently, the human factor and the co-creation of experiences lie at the heart of the debate (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009). Value is also generated through interactions between individuals (Smed, Dressler, & Have, 2016), 2016) and, therefore, through WoM recommendation.

The positive relationship between value co-creation and WoM recommendation found in this study, is consistent with research on value co-creation, especially in qualitative studies. For example, many researchers have analyzed how the interaction between tourists, travelers, bloggers, and other stakeholders shapes and creates brand value of destinations and attractions by sharing and recommending their experiences (Brejla & Gilbert, 2012; Oyner & Korelina, 2016; Micera & Crispino, 2017; MacKay, Barbe, Van Winkle, & Halpenny, 2017). In our work, we present empirically the size of this effect (61%) consolidating the theoretical relationship between the constructs. In this sense, our results add to the existing literature on value co-creation and WoM recommendation and expand the theoretical understanding to the field of tourist experiences – a segment in which this relationship is still in its infancy.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

We contribute to the existing research on value co-creation and we add to the literature by validating a measurement scale in the context of Brazilian tourism. With this, we add to quantitative studies on value co-creation that assess its varied effects (Ribeiro et al., 2019).

Among our theoretical advances, two should be highlighted: First, different from the original study by Busser and Shulga (2018), in our research we worked with real-life tourist experiences, thus furthering research on value co-creation in tourism and adding to the robustness of the measurement scale; Second, when applying the scale to the WoM recommendation intention, we extend the theoretical understanding about the impact of co-created value on a relationship that remains little known regarding tourist experiences.

By demonstrating that value co-creation explains 61% of tourists' intentions to recommend (WoM), we empirically confirm that WoM recommendation intention is strongly related with value co-creation (Zauner et al., 2015). In fact, the interaction between actors has been shown to be a key element in creating good tourist experiences and recommendation intention. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) argue that because value lies in the experience, is the interaction between customer and organizations that creates value. In tourism, where experience and value often combine, we realize that value is co-created from the interaction of multiple stakeholders, not limited to the company-customer pair. Through the integrated action of all destination stakeholders (tourism companies, destination management organizations, residents, and others) and by involving tourists in the design of the offer, it is possible to create an authentic tourist experience that meets the requirements of modern tourists (Loncaric, Prodan, Dlacie, 2017).

In addition to theoretical contributions, this research also has managerial implications for tourism managers. Our results suggest that value co-creation generates cognitive and affective triggers that make tourists want to share their experiences with other people (WoM). These experiences can be manifested in different types of comments, such as statements about the authenticity of the place, recommendations, and intention to repeat the visit (Johnson & Neuhofer, 2017). For tourism professionals, the dimensions of value co-creation can help to understand these triggers and to identify what really creates value in tourist experiences.

Among the main limitations of this study, using only the tourist as a unit of analysis stands out. Future researchers may try to expand the population and consider other stakeholders as tourism professionals, residents, and public officials.

Further research should focus on value co-creation antecedents. Engagement, for instance, measures the intensity of an individual's participation in a connection to an organization's offerings and/or organizational activities that the customer or organization initiates (Vivek et al., 2012). The construct is discussed in the literature as a prerequisite for value co-creation, but we are not aware of empirical research that attests to the relationship. Finally, other research may consider the negative aspects of stakeholder interaction. Value co-destruction, in particular, examines the possible negative outcomes of stakeholder interaction in a given experience (Camileri & Neuhofer, 2017).

APPENDIX

APPENDIX
Co-created value scale. CFA results.

Factors and items	OL	CR	AVE
Meaningfulness
The time I spent on the experience was worthwhile	0.845	0.861	0.674
The experience was valuable to me	0.820
My effort in the experience mattered	0.796
Collaboration
We in the group who had the experience worked as a team	0.853	0.922	0.703
We in the group created the experience together	0.793
We in the group were working together in the experience	0.892
We in the group cooperated with each other in the experience	0.830
We in the group collaborated on the experience project	0.821
Contribution
I contributed with my knowledge	0.824	0.894	0.629
I contributed with my skills to this	0.803
I contributed my experience to this	0.823
I contributed with my resources in the experience	0.776
I contributed with personal investment in the experience	0.735
Recognition
I received credit for this experience	0.834	0.890	0.618
Our results were recognized	0.828
Others recognized the outcome the experience	0.740
Others recognized me for this	0.768
The group was recognized by mutual benefits	0.753
Emotional response
It was a fun experience	0.905	0.906	0.709
It was an enjoyable experience	0.721
It was a very interesting experience	0.869
It was an exciting experience	0.861

• Note: OL - Outer Loadings; CR - composite reliability; AVE - average variance extracted.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Antikainen, M., Makipaa, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 100-119.
• Assiouras, I., Skourtis, G., Giannopoulos, A., Buhalis, D., & Koniordos, M. (2019). Value co-creation and customer citizenship behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 1027-1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102742.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102742
• Binkhorst, E., & Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620802594193.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620802594193
• Brejla, P., & Gilbert, D. (2012). An exploratory use of web content analysis to understand cruise tourism services. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1910.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1910
• Busser, J., Shulga, L. (2018). Co-created value: multidimensional scale and nomological network. Tourism Management, 65, 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014
• Busser, J., & Shulga, L. (2019) Role of commercial friendship, initiation and co-creation types. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(4), 488-512. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-12-2018-0290.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-12-2018-0290
• Cabiddu, F., Lui, T., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42(XX), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.001.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.001
• Camilleri, J., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2322-2340. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0492.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0492
• Cederholm, E., & Hultman, J. (2010). The Value of Intimacy – Negotiating Commercial Relationships in Lifestyle Entrepreneurship. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(1), 16-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250903442096.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250903442096
• Chan, A., Hsu, C., & Baum, T. (2015). The impact of tour service performance on tourist satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A study of Chinese tourists in Hong Kong. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(1-2), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.986010.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.986010
• Chen, J., Kerr, D., Chou, C., & Ang, C. (2017). Business co-creation for service innovation in the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1522-1540. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0308.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0308
• Dougherty, K., & Whitehead, A. (2011). A place to belong: small group involvement in religious congregations. Sociology of Religion, 72(1), 91-111. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq067.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq067
• Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0200-y.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0200-y
• Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap New York: Chapman and Hall.
• Facco, A., Grohmann, M., & Moreira, C. (2018). Estudo sobre a importância da qualidade da experiência no consumo de serviços turísticos: o caso de um parque temático. PODIUM Sport, Leisure and Tourism Review, 8(1), 98-114. https://doi.org/10.5585/podium.v8i1.294.
  » https://doi.org/10.5585/podium.v8i1.294
• Fan, D., Hsu, C., & Lin, B. (2020). Tourists' experiential value co-creation through online social contacts: Customer-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business Research, 108, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.008.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.008
• Grandy, G. (2013). An exploratory study of strategic leadership in churches. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(7), 616-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0081.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0081
• Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hartman, R. (1967). The structure of values: Foundations of scientific axiology Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Higuchi, Y., & Yamanaka, Y. (2017). Knowledge sharing between academic researchers and tourism practitioners: A Japanese study of the practical value of embeddedness, trust and cocreation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10), 1456-1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1288733.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1288733
• Hsu, A., King, D., & Buhalis, D. (2016). In-destination tour products and the disrupted tourism industry: Progress and prospects. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(4), 413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-016-0067-y.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-016-0067-y
• Johnson, A., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). Airbnb: An exploration of value co-creation experiences in Jamaica. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2361-2376. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0482.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0482
• Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: A review and future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3), 379-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151
• Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010). Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375602.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375602
• Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents' perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.013
• Loncaric, D., Prodan, M., & Dlacic, J. (2017). Co-creating tourist experiences to enhance customer loyalty and travel satisfaction. Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe, 4, 321-334. https://doi.org/10.20867/tosee.04.43.
  » https://doi.org/10.20867/tosee.04.43
• Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2014). Service-Dominant Logic: premises, perspectives, possibilities Cambridge University Press.
• MacKay, K., Barbe, D., Van Winkle, C., & Halpenny, E. (2017). Social media activity in a festival context: Temporal and content analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(2), 669-689. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0618.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0618
• Maddox, R. N. (1985). Measuring satisfaction with tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 23(3), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1356766708090584.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1356766708090584
• Meehan, K., Lunney, T., Curran, K., & McCaughey, A. (2016). Aggregating social media data with temporal and environmental context for recommendation in a mobile tour guide system. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(3), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2014-0064.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2014-0064
• Micera, R., & Crispino, R. (2017). Destination web reputation as “smart tool” for image building: the case analysis of Naples city-destination. Journal of Tourism Cities, 3(4), 406-423. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-11-2016-0048.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-11-2016-0048
• Nasholm, M., & Blomquist, T. (2015). Co-creation as a strategy for program management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0063.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0063
• Novak, J., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Designing for reintermediation in the brick-and-mortar world: Towards the travel agency of the future. Electronic Markets, 19(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-009-0003-5.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-009-0003-5
• O'Dell, T., & Billing, P. (2005) Experience scapes: Tourism, culture and economy Copenhagen Business School Press, DK.
• Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 443-470. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111155079.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111155079
• Oyner, O., & Korelina, A. (2016). The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation on customer satisfaction: Searching for new forms of co-creation in the Russian hotel industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2016-0005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2016-0005
• Pera, R., Icchiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholders ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4033-4041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.047.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.047
• Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79-87.
• Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Prebensen, N., Vitterso, J., & Dahl, T. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist resources. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.012.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.012
• Ranjan, K., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2
• Ribeiro, T., Kevin, K., Costa, B., & Urdan, A. (2019). Conhecendo as bases da cocriação de valor. Revista Eletrônica de Administração e Turismo, 13(1), 1906-1926. http://dx.doi.org/10.15210/reat.v13i1.14629.
  » https://doi.org/10.15210/reat.v13i1.14629
• Ringle, C., Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2014). Modelagem de Equações Estruturais com Utilização do Smartpls. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2), 56-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717.
  » https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717
• Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Grewal, D. (2012). Understanding the co-creation effect: When does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(6), 771-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0274-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0274-1
• Rossini, G., Gouveia, D., Lopes, E., Santos, E. (2017). O efeito moderador do risco percebido na percepção dos outros consumidores (OCP – (other consumer perception). BASE - Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos, 14(4), 269-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.4013/base.2017.144.03.
  » https://doi.org/10.4013/base.2017.144.03
• Sarmah, B., Rahman, Z., & Kamboj, S. (2017). Customer co-creation and adoption intention towards newly developed services: An empirical study. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(3), 372-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-07-2016-0070.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-07-2016-0070
• Sashi, C., Brynildsen, G., & Bilgihan, A. (2018) Social media, customer engagement and advocacy: An empirical investigation using Twitter data. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(3), 1247-1272. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0108.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0108
• Simeoni, F., & Cassia, F. (2017). From vehicle suppliers to value co-creators: the evolving role of Italian motorhome manufacturers. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1293619.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1293619
• Smed, K., Dressler, S., & Have, P. (2016). The Vikings are here! Experiencing volunteering at a Viking heritage site, Scandinavian. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 16(1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1084149.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1084149
• Sorensen, F., & Jensen, J. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management, 46, 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009
• Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.009
• Toncar, M., & Munch, J. (2010). Meaningful replication: when is a replication no longer a replication? A rejoinder to Stella and Adam. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(1), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679180105.
  » https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679180105
• Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K., Mittal, V; & Nass, S. (2010). Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094670510375599.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094670510375599
• Vivek, S., Beatty, S., & Morgan, R. (2012). Customer engagement: exploring customer realationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201.
  » https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201
• Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkg.68.1.1.24036.
  » https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkg.68.1.1.24036
• Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
• Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
• Wilke, E., Costa, B., Ferreira, M., & Freire, O. (2019). Interorganizational cooperation in tourist destination: Building performance in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 72, 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.015.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.015
• Wu, M., Pearce, P., Dong, W. (2017). How satisfying are Shanghai’s superior hotels? The views of international tourists. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1096-1115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2015-0014.
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2015-0014
• Zauner, A., Koller, M., & Hatak, I. (2015). Customer perceived valued conceptualization and avenues for future research. Cogent Psychology, 2(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2015.1061782.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2015.1061782

• How to cite: Ribeiro, T. L. S.; Costa, B. K.; Freire, O. B. L. Value Co-creation in Tourism - Scale Validation and Replication Regarding Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Intention. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, São Paulo, 15 (2), e-1924, May./Aug. http://dx.doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v15i2.1924

Edited by

Editor: Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 Apr 2021
• Date of issue
  May-Aug 2021

History

• Received
  20 Dec 2019
• Accepted
  10 June 2020