Dienst van SURF
© 2025 SURF
There are substantial differences between models of the economic impacts of tourism. Not only do the nature and precision of results vary, but data demands, complexity and underlying assumptions also differ. Often, it is not clear whether the models chosen are appropriate for the specific situation to which they are applied. The goal of this article is to provide an overview and evaluation of criteria for the selection of economic impact models. A literature review produced 52 potential criteria, subdivided into 10 groups. Based on an analysis of experts' opinions, the perceived importance of each criterion was determined and a set of essential criteria created. To illustrate the usage of these essential criteria, five models (export base, Keynesian, ad hoc, input-output and computable general equilibrium) were evaluated and compared based on their performance on these criteria. This paper builds on the existing literature by showing that it is possible to make a more informed choice among economic impact models of tourism.
LINK
In the first part of this article we intend to indicate a traditional theory about the testability of economic theories. This theory is based on a rationality postulate: rationality is presupposed. The second part will deal with a second theory on economic theory formation, in which rationality occurs as a result.
In tourism management, traditional input-output models are often applied to calculate economic impacts, including employment impacts. These models imply that increases in output are translated into proportional increases in labour, indicating constant labour productivity. In non-linear input- output (NLIO) models, final demand changes lead to substitution. This causes changes in labour productivity, even though one unit of labour ceteris paribus still produces the same output. Final demand changes can, however, also lead to employees working longer, harder and/or more efficiently. The goal of this article is to include this type of 'real' labour productivity change into an NLIO model. To do this, the authors introduce factor augmenting technical change (FATC) and a differentiation between core and peripheral labour. An NLIO model with and without FATC is used to calculate the regional economic impacts of a 10% final demand increase in tourism in the province of Zeeland in the Netherlands. Accounting for real productivity changes leads to smaller increase in the use of labour, as productivity increases allow output to be produced using fewer inputs.
LINK
The transition towards an economy of wellbeing is complex, systemic, dynamic and uncertain. Individuals and organizations struggle to connect with and embrace their changing context. They need to create a mindset for the emergence of a culture of economic well-being. This requires a paradigm shift in the way reality is constructed. This emergence begins with the mindset of each individual, starting bottom-up. A mindset of economic well-being is built using agency, freedom, and responsibility to understand personal values, the multi-identity self, the mental models, and the individual context. A culture is created by waving individual mindsets together and allowing shared values, and new stories for their joint context to emerge. It is from this place of connection with the self and the other, that individuals' intrinsic motivation to act is found to engage in the transitions towards an economy of well-being. This project explores this theoretical framework further. Businesses play a key role in the transition toward an economy of well-being; they are instrumental in generating multiple types of value and redefining growth. They are key in the creation of the resilient world needed to respond to the complex and uncertain of our era. Varta-Valorisatielab, De-Kleine-Aarde, and Het Groene Brein are frontrunner organizations that understand their impact and influence. They are making bold strategic choices to lead their organizations towards an economy of well-being. Unfortunately, they often experience resistance from stakeholders. To address this resistance, the consortium in the proposal seeks to answer the research question: How can individuals who connect with their multi-identity-self, (via personal values, mental models, and personal context) develop a mindset of well-being that enables them to better connect with their stakeholders (the other) and together address the transitional needs of their collective context for the emergence of a culture of the economy of wellbeing?
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
The projectThe overarching goal of DIGNITY, DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY, is to foster a sustainable, integrated and user-friendly digital travel eco-system that improves accessibility and social inclusion, along with the travel experience and daily life of all citizens. The project delves into the digital transport eco-system to grasp the full range of factors that might lead to disparities in the uptake of digitalised mobility solutions by different user groups in Europe. Analysing the digital transition from both a user and provider’s perspective, DIGNITY looks at the challenges brought about by digitalisation, to then design, test and validate the DIGNITY approach, a novel concept that seeks to become the ‘ABCs for a digital inclusive travel system’. The approach combines proven inclusive design methodologies with the principles of foresight analysis to examine how a structured involvement of all actors – local institutions, market players, interest groups and end users – can help bridge the digital gap by co-creating more inclusive mobility solutions and by formulating user-centred policy frameworks.The objectivesThe idea is to support public and private mobility providers in conceiving mainstream digital products or services that are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible, regardless of their income, social situation or age; and to help policy makers formulate long-term strategies that promote innovation in transport while responding to global social, demographic and economic changes, including the challenges of poverty and migration.The missionBy focusing on and involving end-users throughout the process of designing policies, products, or services, it is possible to reduce social exclusion while boosting new business models and social innovation. The end result that DIGNITY is aiming for is an innovative decision support tool that can help local and regional decision-makers formulate digitally inclusive policies and strategies, and digital providers design more inclusive products and services.The approachThe DIGNITY approach combines analysis with concrete actions to make digital mobility services inclusive over the long term. The approach connects users’ needs and requirements with the provision of mobility services, and at the same time connects those services to the institutional framework. It is a multi-phase process that first seeks to understand and bridge the digital gap, and then to test, evaluate and fine-tune the approach, so that it can be applied in other contexts even after the project’s end.Partners: ISINNOVA (Italy), Mobiel 21 (Belgium), Universitat Politechnica deCatalunya Spain), IZT (Germany), University of Cambridge (UK), Factualconsulting (Spain), Barcelona Regional Agencia (Spain), City of Tilburg(Netherlands), Nextbike (Germany), City of Ancona (Italy), MyCicero (Italy),Conerobus (Italy), Vlaams Gewest (Belgium)