INTRODUCTION
By putting the spotlight on perceptions of authenticity in each culture, tourism allows for culture commodification of everyday objects (Halewood & Hannam, 2001), and among the consumption of these objects, we find souvenirs. These must be understood as more than just tangible artefacts a traveler can bring home or present as gifts to others. These objects are more than a simplification of the other (Mosquera, 2011) or products of manual labor and traditional technics. Souvenirs provide a gateway to a lived experience, they are memory triggers that provide context for reenactments (Swanson, 2004), and a manifestation of individualism (Swanson & Timothy, 2012).
Souvenirs can be viewed as multidimensional objects (Sakkopoulos et al., 2015) that provide culture mediation between hosts and guests (Bracco, 2017) and, as such, different social sciences have studied this subject with distinct approaches.
Its value has a huge impact on the tourism industry, (Soukhathammavong & Park, 2019), having become over the years an important element, part of tourists’ experiences, and is therefore considered a field of academic interest, and is gaining more and more scientific expressiveness. Although studies are known to provide plenty of information in the field of souvenirs, it is important to bring new perspectives on this topic (Schilar & Keskitalo, 2018). For example, the social deprivation and the impediment to travel, originating from the COVID-19 pandemic, have given rise to a profound impact on tourism and the souvenirs industry itself. It is in this sense that we believe that a bibliometric analysis of the published articles can provide a more objective and essential set of information for the progress of research in the souvenir industry.
With this exercise, we try to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the state of the art on souvenirs industry?
(2) What are the main pillars underpinning the conduct of research in this field? (3) What new opportunities may arise for the development of new studies? Therefore, our study aims to offer a bibliometric review on souvenir studies, providing a systematized state of the art that highlights six main research perspectives currently identifiable, main contributions and authors, as well as other important conclusions that can support future research on such a key subject within tourism and cultural studies.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted in this paper follows the parameters of a conceptual study assisted by bibliometric analysis. Compared with traditional literature review, this approach provides replicable and objective coverage of a specific field (Weed, 2006). The clusters identification within the academic literature is an important approach in the field of bibliometrics (van Eck & Waltman, 2010), because it allows for a more systematic research analysis, exploring their theoretical foundations and finding conceptual /
thematic patterns. To perform the bibliometric analysis, we used the VoSViewer software, a charting algorithm tool that allows for
map drawing through the entire network, establishing relationships between the selected research papers (Zupic & Čater, 2015).
Through this process, it is possible to identify research areas or subareas and to determine the relationships between them, thus permitting a clear view of the paths that this scientific subject has taken. This analytical process adds objectivity and quantifiability to studies of a more conceptual matrix, significantly reducing the level of potential bias, inherent to studies that are based only on literature review (Nerur et al., 2008).
In recent studies, this bibliometric analysis is more frequently used, because it allows a compiling of significant data about a given scientific area and, from there, contributes to the development of more precise explanations of any state-of- the-art in a research field (Loureiro et al., 2020; Ruiz-Real et al., 2020). Results make it possible to replicate and validate research assumptions (Pestana et al., 2019; de Sousa & Manfredo, 2020), being, therefore, an ideal method to expose and examine patterns of emerging theories. Since tourism is still a relatively recent field of study, such approaches seem to be particularly adequate (Tribe, 1997).
Data Collection
The research papers analyzed in this study were collected using the PRISMA method, (Figure 1), which consists of a set of criteria leading to the selection of items that will frame a systematic review (Donato & Donato, 2019). The sample was collected in March 2021, using a combination of keywords in two academic reference databases, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. Constituting an important factor in the criteria used in this research, we combined these two databases containing the scientific papers with the greatest impact, and most relevant to the field of tourism research.
Both Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus Index are the most often selected as data sources for bibliometric analysis (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). In the initial data collection phase trial this study tested both WoS and Scopus. The WoS search results were not satisfactory because the journal articles on souvenirs collected were smaller than Scopus and all articles identified in WoS were also found in Scopus. Scopus Index is one of the largest known and powerful databases in science, containing many unique documents (Sánchez et al., 2017), but having a bigger database does not mean a complete database. Still, Scopus database has often been used to make a comprehensive understanding of tourism research subfields (eg, Trupp et al., 2020; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019).
Figure 1: Sample collection process
Source: adapted from WoS and Scopus databases
Selection Process
Following several research trials on the two platforms with different keywords, the combination - “Souvenir *” AND “Tourism”
- proved to provide the most productive results, being the combination of keywords that best matched the goals of this study. After merging the two data sets and the exclusion of duplications, a sample of 282 articles was further analyzed to verify their alignment with the scope of the study.
Subsequently, content analysis was performed, with the aim of acquiring greater bibliometric accuracy and a more precise and detailed understanding of the publications’ dynamics. The rigorous association process of VoSViewer highlights the publications that stood out as most important for the topic under study (Waltman et al., 2010). Thus, using the software’s VOS technique, it is possible to visually present a two-dimensional matrix map where the elements are located and highlighted according to their similarity and influence (Börner et al., 2010).
In the next section, the outputs that result from the bibliometric approach are presented and discussed. Firstly, the most relevant features of the studied panel of articles are presented, specifically regarding the articles’ bibliometric characterization, the number of citations, the methodology adopted, the publication countries of origin, the researcher’s affiliation, sponsors funding,
the most used keywords, a correlational map between the most used terms, and journals. Secondly, resulting from the mapping of the knowledge networks generated among the main articles panel, clusters are presented through co-citation analysis. Based on this mapping, the most cited and representative studies of each cluster were identified and subjected to content-analysis, allowing for the definition of a cluster name, based on the main content present in the collected data.
Finally, in the third section, we present a future research agenda based on an in-depth content analysis of all articles from the same sample published between 2019-2021. The 105 articles sampled provided a framework that allowed us to define a future research agenda on souvenirs, based on the authors’ explicit conclusions.
RESULTS
As mentioned before, the bibliometric analysis provided a sample of 282 articles. Figure 2 reveals the early publication evolution of those articles, indicating that souvenirs have been part of tourism studies for over almost 50 years, albeit most of the publications were published in the last 20 years. A publishing rate, which is still increasing rapidly, clearly reinforces that this subject is ever more important.
Figure 2: Early Publications Evolution – main panel
These papers were developed in different geographical areas, ranging from all continents and hemispheres, however, some standing out, namely the United States of America (53), Indonesia (27), United Kingdom (26), Australia (17), Canada (16), Thailand (15), China (13), South Africa (10), representing 63% of the sample. These countries are a) important in producing international tourism research, due to the number of respective research institutions and b) important tourist destinations, where the souvenir business may be considered a relevant economic sector (e.g. Indonesia, Thailand) (e.g. USA, UK, Australia, Canada). Considering the higher education institutions associated with the analyzed papers, it is possible to perceive their respective influence in this field of study, through their number of citations. Based on this understanding, six universities can be highlighted, namely Purdue University, United States (214), Carleton University, Canada (50), the University of Vaasa, Finland (22), and to a lower degree, the Russian State Social University, Russia (8), the Umeå University, Sweden (7), Graduate school of environmental and information studies, Tokyo (6).
The VoSViewer software also helps us understand which journals are associated with our main panel. From the main panel studies, the software, presents the top journals that have published papers on this topic (see table 1). This information becomes relevant, because from it, we understand which journals are providing the largest number of studies on souvenirs in tourism. The top three main journals with the most publications in this field are Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research, and African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure. Apart from the two main journals, which are also main references in tourism research, in general, the importance of an African tourism journal is noteworthy. This may be due to the relevance of handicraft and other local products in many African countries, often strongly associated to unique cultural identity, with a pertinence of debate related to both economic opportunities and commoditization of cultural heritage.
Table 1: Journals with more publications on Souvenir Research
Source: adapted from VOSViewer, Clarivate and Scimago Rank Legend: I.F. - Impact Factor; Q. - Quartil
As for the main authors, their articles and impact, as visible through the number of citations received. Table 2 shows the important role of conceptual debate in souvenir research, anchored in the important topics of ‘tourist experience’ within a marketing perspective and ‘authenticity’.
Table 2: The Most Relevant Studies Source: Adapted from VOSViewer
Note: Quantitative: Psychometric and experimental methodologies; Qualitative: case studies and phenomenological studies and Conceptual: theoretical studies.
It should also be clear that the most influential authors, in terms of the number of highly cited articles in the field are Littrell, (1993) and Swanson (2004). Figure 3 additionally reveals the most cited, and thus influential articles, their connections (through co-citation) and corresponding thematic proximity, also revealing evolutions in chronological order, which highlights the density of thematic focus, visible through the proximity to the most influential documents that function as clear hubs of influence in souvenirs studies.
Figure 3: Temporal Network Panel Source: VoSViewer
Before diving into the main clusters of research subjects and contributions, we still must mention the most common keywords found in souvenirs studies (Figure 4), namely the 10 most commonly found in these papers, those being tourism (138), souvenirs (114), tourism behavior (98), heritage tourism (92), authenticity (86), tourism market (84), tourism economics (80), tourism development (75), tourism destination (72) and marketing (67). The keywords “Souvenirs” and “Tourism” emerge naturally as those that are at the center of this theme, and both present links with several topics. We notice that the keyword “souvenirs”
appears frequently, in association with themes related to culture and its essential meaning (heritage, authenticity and identity), and the role of the tourist experience centered on satisfaction through shopping (as a tourist experience). “Sustainable tourism” can link the two themes, Souvenirs” and “Tourism”, focusing on economic and cultural sustainability.
Figure 4: Keywords map: VoSViewer
Finally, the word cloud (Figure 5) on the most common words found in the text of all analyzed articles, reveals word correlation in diverse word connections, showing the central role of ‘experience’, which is linked to both ‘shopping’, ‘culture’ and ‘place’, and particularly to the term ‘authenticity’.
Figure 5: Word-Cloud in the Literature Source: VoSViewer
‘Consumption’ interestingly connects with ‘production’, ‘place’ and ‘memory’, possibly mirroring the increasingly used theme of ‘co-creation of consumption experiences’, although interestingly the concept of ‘co-creation’ does not (yet) stand out specifically. The creation of souvenirs and associated tourist experiences, namely the practice of souvenir consumption, and
the whole consumption process, particularly occurring at and shaped by ‘place’, are naturally part of the tourism experience. It is both a place and cultural experience and one of meaningful consumption, conferring ‘authenticity’, all factors present in the right half of the cloud.
On the left half, we find stronger references to the ‘community’, who experiences ‘impacts’, ‘effects’ or ‘implications’, reflected in ‘money’, ‘benefits’, eventually regulated through ‘government’ intervention, but also ‘problems’, an item that is somehow more marginal and connects the two spheres of the cloud, possibly affecting both sides. Additionally, the word ‘friend’ connects the two spheres, but interestingly, at a more central position.
According to the articles occurrence and the emerging themes, we see that the souvenirs study has been quite consistent. However, a deeper and more systematic analysis is needed regarding the main research themes, addressed by distinct authors and articles so far, as facilitated by the program’s clustering algorithm.
MAPPING KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS: CLUSTER FORMATION
For the cluster formation process, the software considered 8,460 bibliographic references present in our sample of 282 articles. VoSViewer highlighted about 86 studies with two or more co-citations, dividing them into 6 thematic groups. Cluster 1 comprises the largest number of studies, about 24, while the remaining clusters 2 with 17, cluster 3 with 18, cluster 4 with 13, and clusters 5 and 6 with 7 studies each. The next steps concern cluster analysis through a systemic review.
This process allows a deeper state-of-the-art understanding of the academic souvenir research through data mapping, which shows a certain pattern of groups of articles (Figure 6), whose content is further analyzed for additional identification of common content. This exercise additionally permits relevant themes identification for future research.
Figure 6: Co-Citation Map Source: VoSViewer
The content that determines each cluster and its network, reveals some consolidation in the field of research under analysis. After the cluster identification the content was analyzed, in order to its formation. This evaluating process of the possible thematic clusters helps us to explain and classify their graphical arrangement (Figure 6). For each identified cluster, a title was assigned, based on the terms of the most important documents of each cluster (Chen et al., 2010). Additionally, the studies with the most co-citations from each cluster were selected, creating a ‘top 5’ most representative of each thematic group (Table 3).
Table 3: The Six Main Thematic Research Clusters
Source: adapted from VOSViewer
Note: Quantitative: Psychometric and experimental methodologies; Qualitative: case studies and phenomenological studies and Conceptual: theoretical studies.
After an in-depth content analysis of each cluster pertaining articles, it is possible to improve our understanding of the patterns that the software has generated for the analyzed studies. Based on this exploratory process and its interpretation, the following names are suggested for each cluster: cluster 1 - The authenticity of souvenirs; cluster 2 - The shopping of souvenirs; 3 – the symbolic value of the souvenir object; cluster 4 - Souvenirs purchase Satisfaction; cluster 5 - Destination image; and cluster 6 - Tourist experience. One important difference between the clusters is related to the type of research approach used. To better understand the proposed clusters, we summarize the main contributions and ideas of the top 5 most cited papers.
Regarding cluster 1 – Authenticity – the studies mostly focus on what makes a souvenir authentic and on the role of performance/ interaction. The relevance of performance is initially proposed by MacCannell’s (1973) sociological approach to authenticity, suggesting that tourists tend to look for the destination “backstage” and the private life of the hosts, because they believe there resides the authenticity they long for. Cohen (1988) discussed the validity of the concept of authenticity suggesting the use of a more plastic concept understanding, which he named emergent authenticity. For the author, souvenirs present themselves as examples of culture commodification revealing how authenticity in modern times has a ‘looser’ meaning because it is a product of the performance and host-guest interaction.
Littrell et al., (1993) attempted to understand what influences authentic handicraft souvenir consumption, concluding that age, travel experience and tourism type (but not gender), are relevant. Torabian & Arai (2016) found that tourists prefer souvenirs crafted by local artisans from local materials, at a fair price. Authors of both papers agree with Cohen (1988) that both tourists and souvenir retailers are “active creators of meaning” and ‘authenticity’ lies in “the eye of the beholder”.
The role of the seller in authenticity performance was further researched by Trinh et al., (2014) paper on the case of Vietnamese souvenir retailers. They concluded that retailers understood that storytelling was more important for the tourists’ ‘authentic experience’ than the origin of the souvenirs or their materials.
Cluster 2 – Shopping – compiles a group of research papers that focus on purchase intentions, expanding on some propositions from the previous cluster, mostly using a quantitative methodological approach. Kim & Littrell (2001) tested the correlation between purchase intentions with sociodemographic characteristics, attitude to culture, and attitude to souvenirs, concluding that aesthetics, uniqueness, and portability were relevant determinants of purchase intention.
This was corroborated by Hu & Yu (2007) segmentation of souvenir consumers into 3 different purchase categories (enthusiasts, shopping lovers, and indifferent shoppers), adding ‘cultural expression’ and ‘learning about the souvenirs’ history’ as important selling points. In their study case, Li & Cai (2008) added ‘appropriateness as a gift’ as a considerable preference determinant in purchase intention, and both Wilkins (2011) and Xu & McGehee (2012) stressed gender differences in consumption behavior. Wilkins’ (2011) mixed methods research stressed how souvenir consumption is closely related to gifting to others (as proposed by Li & Cai, 2008), so retailers should consider they are not selling souvenirs only to tourists (as memorabilia), but ultimately also to “another” end consumer.
As for the third cluster –Symbolic Value– Gordon’s (1986) seminal paper may serve as a frame for its main contributions. For Gordon (1986), souvenir consumption is an opportunity to claim a ‘new experience’ as much as a proof of having been “there”, shaping individual and group identity, and going far beyond a tourism experience, occurring in different rites of passage within an individuals’ life. The study of souvenirs is, in this light, a chance to better understand symbolic meanings in modern culture and society. Morgan & Prichard (2005) discussed the relationship between identity, culture, and materiality, arguing that in post-modernity, material objects, such as souvenirs, provide pleasure, safety, and refuge, a function that the very consumers are aware of and make use of accordingly.
As Littrell (1990) suggested, souvenirs are doors to non-ordinary experiences, to the extraordinary in others’ ordinary lives. It expands one’s worldview as much as it expresses creativity and aesthetic preferences. Despite the role of the tourist’s profile, store attributes, or the retailer’s profile, the souvenirs’ quality and attractivity, Swanson (2004) concludes that souvenirs purchase is motivated by their capacity to trigger travel experiences memories, hence all attributes which enhance that capacity are desirable. As objects with the ability to “enchant” people’s lives, they allow communication between the material and self in a humanizing cohabitation that allows for identity building and reinforcement (Haldrup, 2017).
The fourth cluster – Satisfaction- addresses marketing-related issues concerning satisfaction determinants with souvenir shopping. Turner & Reisinger (2001) identified, in this context, the role of several attributes (cost, shop presentation, and product display) in enhancing souvenirs shopping satisfaction among tourists.
Reisinger & Turner (2002) further specified the ideal attributes for Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii and highlighted the importance of adapting product attributes to the tourists’ culture. Oviedo-García et al., (2016), in their Seville case study, found similar additional factors that influenced souvenirs shopping satisfaction, namely internal attraction, service differentiation, service provision, and external attraction.
Tosun et al., (2007) also suggests a relation between shopping satisfaction and culture identified in a case study (Turkey), centered on the host or destination’s culture and the importance of managing expectations and interactions between tourists and local culture. This finding is reinforced by Murphy et al., (2011), who revealed the relation between tourist shopping experience and satisfaction, in the context of local small towns and villages.
Cluster 5 – Destination image – addresses how souvenirs can contribute to destination image formation, including studies on brochures (Beerli & Martín, 2004) or digital destination promotion (Choi et al., 2007). For instance, Gartner (1989) proposed a model for destination image attributes assessment, where liquor consumption is highlighted as a relevant factor. Similarly, Swanson & Horridge (2006) analyzed the role of travel motivation, souvenir, and store attributes for the type of souvenirs purchased, highlighting the importance of travel motivation, Kaur et al., (2016) found that souvenirs were among the most dominant attributes which mark Indian destinations’ positioning.
The final cluster (6) – Tourism Experience – is influenced by both Cohen’s (1979) ‘center’ and ‘center-out-there’ concepts that relate agency with context-framed values and experiences, and Wang’s (1999) proposition that a souvenir’s authenticity revolves around not so much the object or its components but lies in the tourists’ subjective object experience. Authenticity is understood as something that is built by and among tourists and by those who interact with the toured object, being a matter of communication, storytelling, and sharing memories. These reflections relate to Sims’ (2009) research which proposes that local food consumption is key for the tourists’ perception of authentic, and sustainable tourism experiences. Kong & Chang’s (2016) souvenir consumption experience research adds a perspective on the central role of travel motivation conditioning souvenir shopping experiences. In this context, Güzel’s (2014) paper on tour experiences highlights the role of experience dimensions (escapism, entertainment and esthetics) impacting tourists’ emotional arousal and consequently on satisfaction and future behavioral intentions, although not focusing on souvenir purchase, but revealing important experience dimensions and outcomes.
The clusters reveal the specificity and extent of the different approaches and themes that have influenced souvenir studies, providing evidence of its complexity and diversity that requires further attention. Hence, in the next point, an expected future research agenda is presented and detailed.
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Future agenda awareness is fundamental for guiding innovative empirical work, since it highlights the most interesting and potentially impactful directions of future research efforts, being essential for the development of a differentiated, comprehensive and cohesive research agenda. Hence, an in-depth content analysis of the mentioned articles collected on the Scopus/WoS Database, as presented in the last three years (2019-2021), enabled the formulation of a recent literature-based research agenda. This process consisted in reading the articles in their entirety, highlighting the main content in the conclusion sections.
We then compared the information and arrived at a set of five most frequently addressed pillars, which help form a future research agenda. Thus, based on the gaps and recommendations suggested by the authors, a new agenda for souvenir research in tourism is proposed. Content-analysis allows for an organization of future souvenirs research into five general research pillars, collected from a sample of 105 articles, namely (1) Food consumption trends, (2) Impacts, (3) Souvenir consumption and value in context, (4) Destination experience, and (5) Technology impact – see Figure 7. The main research pillars and their theoretical and practical implications are discussed below.
Figure 7: Souvenirs Studies Future Research
Food consumption trends – this pillar highlights research on foodies’ motivations to determine food consumption, experience values, and the relationship between emotions and well-being (Chang et al., 2020). Here, the study of participants’ past travel experiences impacts on online food souvenir purchases and future travel-intentions may be of interest (Huang et al., 2020). Additionally, changes in consumption trends in the medium and long term shall receive increased attention, namely, alternatives to significantly reduce impacts on travelers’ carbon footprints (Kitamura et al., 2020).
Impacts – future studies on souvenirs are likely to analyze the main impacts of souvenir consumption, in diverse dimensions. In terms of environmental impact, studies are expected to focus on low carbon emission products and services. More studies on gastronomic souvenirs’ sociocultural and economic functions that affect the sustainability of local tourism are also expected. Some researchers underline the need to better understand the effect of branded gastronomic souvenirs on destination awareness and image, also revolving around ethical values (Pizzichini, et al., 2020).
Additionally, studies that assess the social, cultural, and economic damage from tourists’ natural souvenir gathering are suggested. There are few studies on the assessment of whether sustainable tourist behavior is moderated by country of origin. Upcoming multidisciplinary research should also help deepen our understanding of whether specific markets play a significant role in regional economic development and if there are significant differences among regional markets (Ansari et al., 2019; Fusté-Forné, 2019), and the role of urban land teleconnections regarding impacts on distant rural areas (Lee et al., 2019).
Within the economic and social sustainability dimensions, studies are expected to establish the extent to which the labor market of souvenir production and tourism sales provide adequate livelihoods and contributes to poverty alleviation in interior rural areas, especially concerning job quality, as defined by SDG8, and gender equality (Dahles et al., 2020).
Souvenir consumption and value in context – future studies on souvenirs should continue to focus on several dimensions of value to tourists (Paraskevaidis & Andriotis, 2015). Lin (2020) advocates a stronger emphasis on economic value, rather than on some other dimensions such as relational, symbolic or spiritual value. Lin also suggests that studies are also expected to assess the moderating effect of customer commitment and readiness for explaining the relationship between the souvenir’s perceived value and tourist satisfaction, on the one hand, and on the relationship between the souvenir’s perceived value and behaviors of customer loyalty, on the other.
Future research may explore the perceived value preferences when souvenirs are offered by retailers or purchased by consumers, especially in places such as museums, heritage sites, events and festivals (Shtudiner et al., 2019). The focus on the relationship between authenticity, tourism destination image and souvenir consumption is still foreseen as relevant in future studies (Torabian & Arai, 2016), especially the relationship between perceived authenticity and tourists’ souvenir-purchase (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Also, more detailed research on other variables for a more complete model of relationships between authenticity experiences in tourism and tourist identity is called for (Lin & Lee, 2020; Deng et al., 2021). Regarding identity, research on the use of souvenirs as a form of expression and communication to others about self and on how the intended messages reach their audience (Kuhn, 2020) is called for, which may well connect to the increasing research in creativity and co-creation in cultural tourism (Carvalho et al., 2021; Duxbury et al., 2019). Finally, studies on pilgrims’ motivational drivers when consuming souvenirs, (Dimitrovski et al., 2021), and differences between national and international tourists’ souvenir consumption when visiting local markets (Pranee et al., 2020), may be relevant in analyzing the multiple values of souvenirs to diverse travelers.
Destination Experience - there is still room for the development of studies that relate the tourist experience with souvenir consumption in a destination. According to Chang et al., (2020), more cross-cultural comparison studies on customer satisfaction and loyalty are needed also in this domain. Kugapi & Höckert (2020) suggest that future research should better explore the relationship between people, souvenirs, and places. Specifically, they convincingly explain how satisfaction or loyalty with marketing channels are expected to be updated over time based on on-site experiences and the perceived value of souvenirs purchased at a destination (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Also, studies that analyze gastronomic souvenir consumption as part of tourists’ vacation experience, from their perspective, shall attract future attention (Melewar and Skinner, 2020). Tsai & Chen (2019) propose that in future research three central dimensions of a destination, namely its thematic object, entertainment, and cost, will be amongst the most explored factors to explain the influence of tourist preferences and choice, also regarding souvenir shopping.
Still, within the marketing sphere, studies are expected to assess the influence of the tourist experience on the success of Pay- what-you-want (PWYW) pricing at a destination. This innovative pricing mechanism, possibly applicable to souvenir pricing, can be studied in different marketing contexts to determine its suitability (Sharma & Nayak, 2020). Studies are also expected to assess the perceived supply quality using different indicators (services, infrastructure, accessibility, etc.), since a change in any of these affects the overall destinations’ perceived supply (Orgaz-Agüera & Moral-Cuadra, 2022).
Further research is also essential to explain whether cultural, social, and economic differences affect the quantity and kind of natural souvenirs acquired among visitors (Fabian, 2020). Finally, Kitamura et al., (2020) point out the importance of assessing the connection of other tourism-related sectors, such as sports, medical, and health tourism, with souvenir purchases. Based on Setthachotsombut & Sua-iam’s (2020) research, it is important to strengthen knowledge throughout the tourism value chain, from accommodation network-building, over travel and transportation, spas and health services, entertainment, and restaurant, general stores, and, last but not least, souvenirs tourism services. The same could be said about tourism services, such as transport and communication (Preko et al., 2020).
Technology impact – According to Tsai & Chen (2019) and Heljakka & Räikkönen, (2021), it is necessary to study new tourism services or management attributes, particularly those not included in most conceptual frameworks, such as technical applications and gamification activities, like Virtual Reality. The distribution and consumption of 3D printed items and the implications of such processes in terms of conservation and the consumption of tourist objects and spaces will likely be the focus of extensive study in the near future (Anastasiadou & Vettese, 2021).
This study revealed a set of topics regarding souvenirs in tourism studies relevant for the development of new studies in this field. The knowledge generated shows methodologies and results obtained from several previous studies, with high levels of indexation. The analyzed studies were developed taking into account the domains of heritage, commerce, authenticity and
consumption. Although there are several studies on the role of souvenirs in tourism, there are very few studies that analyze the scope, nature and pattern of existing research production in order to provide a consistent base of knowledge to guide the development of new studies. The research results reveal the most predominant trends in souvenir research. We believe that with a better knowledge of the past, it is possible to build a more consistent, original and promising future around this subject by avoiding or repeating certain research designs, and by integrating less considered constructs and variables, building on and adding to the previously obtained results. This study provides a source of knowledge consolidated by previous studies, with the intention of proposing and stimulating future research on souvenirs in tourism.
Practical
This study is important for the tourism business sector, allowing its stakeholders to better understand the physical (e.g., material and appearance) and psychological (e.g., meaning and representativeness) souvenirs attributes, as well as their empirically proven capacity to influence the attitudes and behaviors of tourists during their visit to a destination, potentially enhancing destination and service experiences and leading to increased purchase as well as loyalty. On the other hand, this study reveals to tourism companies the importance of authenticity and the heritage and intrinsic value of the souvenirs for consumers. The investment in particular and characteristic souvenirs and souvenir provision contexts (experiencescapes), perceived as authentic and addressing relevant consumer trends (e.g. ecological values, sustainability concerns, co-creation opportunities), can be a way for the sector to increase its revenue and generate competitive advantages in its market segment. The investment of businesses in diversified, however heritage and community-based, souvenir provision can in fact help redefine business models in order to better satisfy tourist expectations, with more personalized shopping experiences and according to their profile.
CONCLUSION
This paper reviews 282 articles on the subject of souvenir studies from the 1970s until 2021, highlighting the main topics, authors, journals, methodology used and most common keywords. One of its main contributions, however, lies in the presented co-citation metric that allowed the formation and analysis of five main research cluster themes, namely, Authenticity, Shopping, Symbolic Value, Satisfaction, Destination Image, and Tourist Experience. Each of these clusters presented a specific research interest and identifiable influencing authors.
The other key contribution is provided by a systematic in-depth analysis that helped to create a Future Research Agenda on souvenirs based on researchers’ suggestions and classifiable in five general research pillars – Food Consumption Trends, Impacts, Souvenirs Consumption and Value in Context, Destination Experience, and Technology Impact. The here-presented debate may lead to the conclusion that souvenir studies will continue to thrive in the future, being especially promising in multidisciplinary research frameworks, given the different themes, value perspectives and methodological approaches found in recent years and the pertinent suggestions made, based on the recognition of need for deeper and new insights.
This review delivers an up-to-date systematic synopsis of previous research on souvenir studies that are relevant to find a) the state of the art in the souvenir industry, b) identify current research trends, and c) most important future research fields and avenues.
Regarding the limitations of this study, it was not drawn a complete and full mapping of the scientific production on souvenirs due to the fact that the VOSViewer only allows the mapping of the WoS and Scopus databases. Hence, it is impossible to generalize the results obtained to every paper published in last 50 years. Furthermore, the databases consulted are limited to the assignment of keywords for the article search parameters, which may condition the results obtained.
In future studies, it would be important to broaden the sample of studies analyzed by including thesis and other studies indexed in other databases since the use of a combination of bibliographic analysis methodologies may improve the results.
REFERENCES
Park in Indonesia. Sustainability, 11(6).https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061789
using the network workbench tool. Scientometrics, 83(3), 863–876.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0149-0
15(3), 741-750.https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2017.15.049
65-83.https://doi.org/10.59072/rper.vi56.161
ownership and authenticity. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(2), 200-214.https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1763411
E., & Pashkevich, A. (eds) E -CuL-Tours: Enhancing Networks in Heritage Tourism. (189-205). Roma: tab edizioni.
28(2), 16–20.https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758902800205
org/10.1016/s0160-7383(00)00076-1
Reserve for Giant Pandas in China. Environmental Management, 42(6), 1017-1025.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9214-3
12(18).https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187624
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(3), 499-524.https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-05-2015-0074
Sustainability, 12(6), 2219, https://doi:10.3390/su12062219
17(2), 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008x.2015.1115242
market. Journal of vacation Marketing, 10(4), 320-332.https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670401000404
market to the United States. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 201-212.https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750104000211
value. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(4), 545-564.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-02-2019-0027.
identity. International Journal of Event and Festival Management , 11(3), 357-373.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-12-2019-0061
33(1), 3-11.https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759403300101
and trip typologies. Journal of Vacation marketing, 10(4), 308-319.https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670401000403
opportunities–An application to senior tourism research. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 370-382.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.006
ranong province. Nida Development Journal, 58(1), 103-122.
for museum apps. Electronic Commerce Research, 15(1), 5-24.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9174-7
42(4), 372-380.
87 –102.https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.595
Perspectives, 30, 208-219.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.02.010
5–30.https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080600985150
33(2), 427–430.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.05.003
Issues in Tourism, 22(17), 2056–2081.https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1417359
Please cite this article as:
Hospitality Management 29(2), 249-264, https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10
