INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Coopetition in Tourism Destinations: A Bibliometric Mapping of an

Emerging Research Domain

Mohamed Amine Haddar

LAMIDED Laboratory

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000079

Received: 23 December 2025; Accepted: 29 December 2025; Published: 06 January 2026

ABSTRACT

Despite tourism destinations being recognized as ideal contexts for coopetition due to their structural

interdependence and network characteristics, coopetition research in tourism remains severely underexplored,

representing only 5.6% of total coopetition scholarship. This study provides a comprehensive scientometric

analysis to map the intellectual structure, identify key contributors, and reveal emerging trends in this nascent

field. Using Web of Science and Scopus data spanning 1996-2025, we analyzed 157 publications employing

CiteSpace software to generate co-citation networks, keyword co-occurrence patterns, and cluster analysis. The

analysis reveals significant geographic concentration, with 43.7% of research originating from European

institutions and 28.5% from the Americas. Four distinct intellectual communities emerge: conceptualization and

operationalization studies, trust and network governance mechanisms, strategic applications and performance

outcomes, and entrepreneurial cognition. The field demonstrates evolution from basic definitions toward

multidimensional constructs encompassing managerial, strategic, behavioral, and contextual dimensions, yet

exhibits structural fragmentation with minimal international collaboration. Tourism research predominantly

treats coopetition as an explanatory variable for strategic advantages rather than investigating its formation

mechanisms, contrasting with broader coopetition literature. Critical gaps include absence of intra-organizational

coopetition studies, limited cross-destination comparative research, and narrow focus on specific tourism types.

This research advances tourism coopetition scholarship by documenting disciplinary knowledge flows through

dual-map overlay analysis, quantifying structural fragmentation that impedes knowledge accumulation, and

establishing temporal evolution patterns across consolidation and acceleration phases, thereby providing

actionable priorities for destination managers and researchers seeking to bridge theoretical development with

practical implementation.

Keywords: Coopetition, tourism destination, inter-organizational networks, bibliometric analysis, co-citation

INTRODUCTION

Tourism destinations represent complex systems characterized by high levels of interdependence,

complementarity, and simultaneous competition and cooperation among stakeholders (Chim-Miki et al., 2025).

Hotels compete for guests while simultaneously collaborating to promote the destination; restaurants strive for

customers yet jointly participate in culinary tourism initiatives; attractions contend for visitor attention while

cooperating to create integrated tourism packages. This paradoxical dynamic defines coopetition, a strategic

behavior increasingly recognized as fundamental to destination competitiveness (Gernsheimer et al., 2024).

The concept of coopetition, introduced by Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996), challenges traditional

competitive/cooperative paradigms by recognizing that organizations can derive mutual benefits from strategic

collaboration with competitors (Bengtsson et al., 2016). While initially developed within game theory and

applied to manufacturing sectors, coopetition has found particular resonance in service industries characterized

by network structures and complementary offerings (Meena et al., 2024). Tourism destinations epitomize such

contexts: they function as inter-organizational networks where public and private actors must coordinate to

deliver the integrated product tourists consume, yet simultaneously compete for visitor spending, investment,

and recognition (Chim-Miki et al., 2020).

www.ijltemas.in

Page 873

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Despite tourism destinations being theoretically identified as ideal contexts for coopetition networks, due to

their high presence of SMEs, complementary product structures, centralized destination management

organizations, shared goals, co-location dynamics, and dual external-internal competition pressures (Chim-Miki

et al., 2024), academic research on tourism coopetition remains remarkably limited (Zhang et al., 2023). A

preliminary literature review revealed that from 284 coopetition papers published in Scopus and Web of Science

databases between 1996 and 2015, only 15 (5.6%) focused on tourism applications (Chim-Miki & Batista-

Canino, 2017). This striking disparity raises fundamental questions: Why has coopetition theory, so relevant to

tourism's structural characteristics, received such limited scholarly attention in this domain? What intellectual

foundations exist? What theoretical perspectives dominate? What critical gaps constrain knowledge

advancement?

The nascent state of tourism coopetition research creates both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, the

limited corpus makes comprehensive synthesis difficult and theoretical consolidation elusive. On the other hand,

it signals an emerging research frontier with significant potential for theoretical contribution and practical

impact. Understanding how knowledge in this domain has evolved, which conceptual frameworks guide inquiry,

and where research efforts concentrate becomes essential for advancing both scholarship and practice.

This study addresses these imperatives through comprehensive scientometric analysis of coopetition research,

with particular focus on tourism applications. We employ CiteSpace methodology to examine: publication trends

and research evolution over time; collaborative networks among authors, institutions, and countries; intellectual

structure through co-citation analysis; thematic clusters and conceptual frameworks; and temporal dynamics

revealing shifting research priorities. Our analysis synthesizes both general coopetition literature and tourism-

specific applications to clarify how coopetition theory has been conceptualized, operationalized, and applied

within destination contexts.

Theoretical Framework: Coopetition In Tourism Destinations

The Coopetition Paradigm: Conceptual Foundations and Evolution

The term “coopetition” emerged in academic discourse through Brandenburger and Nalebuff's (1996) seminal

work Co-opetition: A Revolutionary Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation, which introduced a

game-theoretic perspective on business strategy. These authors argued that business relationships cannot be

reduced to zero-sum competitive dynamics or purely collaborative arrangements. Instead, organizations engage

in simultaneous cooperation to create value and competition to appropriate it, a paradoxical but strategically

rational behavior that characterizes modern market structures (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014; Corbo et al., 2023).

Over the two decades following its introduction, coopetition evolved from a simple definitional construct of

cooperating and competing simultaneously toward a sophisticated multidimensional framework encompassing

motivations, processes, governance mechanisms, and outcomes (Bengtsson et al., 2020). Contemporary

scholarship recognizes coopetition as occurring at multiple levels: intra-organizational, inter-organizational, and

inter-individual (Meena et al., 2023). This multilevel perspective acknowledges that coopetition manifests

differently depending on organizational boundaries, power dynamics, and institutional contexts (Klimas et al.,

2022).

Two conceptual streams characterize coopetition literature (Chim-Miki et al., 2024). The first emphasizes

process dynamics, the mechanisms through which organizations balance cooperation and competition, manage

inherent tensions, and navigate the “coopetition paradox” of simultaneously creating and claiming value

(Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016). This stream focuses on governance structures, trust-building mechanisms,

conflict resolution processes, and boundary management strategies that enable sustainable coopetitive

relationships (Della Corte & Sciarelli, 2012). The second stream prioritizes outcomes, the competitive

advantages, innovations, performance improvements, and value creation resulting from coopetition strategies

(Crick and Crick, 2019). These scholars examine how coopetition enables resource pooling, knowledge sharing,

risk mitigation, and market expansion that individual organizations could not achieve independently. Both

www.ijltemas.in

Page 874

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

streams share fundamental recognition that coopetition represents a paradigm shift beyond traditional strategic

frameworks (P Chiambaretto, M Bengtsson, AS Fernandez, MH Näsholm).

Tourism Destinations as Natural Coopetition Contexts

Tourism destinations embody organizational and institutional characteristics that make them paradigmatic

contexts for coopetition behavior (Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017; Czakon & Czernek, 2016). Many

structural features establish tourism as an ideal domain for coopetition research and practice. First, pervasive

SME presence with network dependency. Tourism industries worldwide are dominated by small and medium

enterprises, independent hotels, family-owned restaurants, local tour operators, artisan shops, that individually

lack market power but collectively constitute the destination product (Maracajá et al., 2024). These SMEs derive

superior returns through network participation, leveraging collective marketing, shared infrastructure, and

coordinated service delivery that individual firms cannot provide (Czakon & Czernek, 2025). Second, extreme

product complementarity and interdependence. Tourists consume destinations as integrated experiences

combining accommodation, dining, attractions, transportation, and services from multiple providers (Cortese et

al., 2021). A hotel's success depends on restaurant quality, attraction appeal, and transportation accessibility

provided by competitors and complementors. This radical interdependence means individual firm performance

correlates strongly with collective destination performance, creating powerful incentives for cooperative

behavior despite competitive interests (Della Corte & Aria, 2016).

Third, institutionalized destination management structures. Most tourism destinations operate formal

governance mechanisms, destination management organizations (DMOs), tourism boards that coordinate private

sector activities and align public policy with industry needs (Messori, 2022). These institutions provide

organizational infrastructure for coopetition: neutral convening spaces, shared information systems, collective

marketing budgets, and conflict resolution mechanisms that reduce transaction costs and enable sustained

collaboration among competitors (Czakon & Czernek, 2021).

Fourth, resource sharing imperatives. Tourism destinations often develop around shared natural or cultural

resources, beaches, mountains, heritage sites, cultural traditions, that no single entity controls but all depend

upon (Mariani, 2016). Managing these commons requires collective governance, coordinated conservation

efforts, and equitable access agreements, institutionalizing cooperation even among direct competitors.

Additionally, shared infrastructure and collective reputation as public goods further entrench cooperative

interdependence (Kirillova et al., 2020).

These characteristics position tourism destinations not merely as contexts where coopetition occasionally occurs,

but as organizational fields where coopetition constitutes the fundamental operational logic. Understanding

destination competitiveness requires moving beyond firm-level competitive strategy toward network-level

coopetition strategy (Chim-Miki et al., 2024).

METHODS

Data Collection and Corpus Construction

This study adopts bibliometric analysis to systematically map the intellectual landscape of coopetition research

in tourism destinations. Bibliometric methods offer quantitative, replicable approaches for examining scholarly

output, identifying influential works, and detecting knowledge structures within research domains (Zupic &

Čater, 2015). Unlike narrative reviews relying on subjective selection, bibliometric techniques enable

comprehensive field mapping through citation analysis, co-authorship networks, and keyword patterns (White

& McCain, 1989).

We selected the Web of Science Core Collection as our primary data source due to its comprehensive coverage,

rigorous quality standards, and structured metadata that facilitates robust bibliometric computation. The search

strategy employed two keywords, “coopet*” and “touris*”, queried across all fields to capture the full spectrum

of coopetition-tourism scholarship, including variations such as coopetition, co-opetition, cooperation-

competition, tourism, tourist, and touristic.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 875

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Table 1 documents our data collection protocol. The initial search yielded 159 documents. We implemented

quality control by excluding non-research materials (review materials) and verifying thematic relevance through

title and abstract screening. This refinement process produced a final corpus of 157 articles, providing a reliable

foundation for subsequent analysis.

Database

Web of Science Core Collection

"coopet*" AND "touris*" (All Fields)

Search Query

Initial Results

Exclusions

159

Non-relevent materials

157

Final Corpus

Table 1: Data Collection Protocol

The refined dataset was analyzed using CiteSpace, a specialized bibliometric visualization software that

transforms bibliographic records into interpretable network structures (Chen, 2013). CiteSpace excels at

revealing temporal dynamics, identifying emerging themes, and detecting influential contributions through

sophisticated citation algorithms, making it particularly suited for examining nascent research domains like

tourism coopetition.

Disciplinary Knowledge Flows

Journal dual-map overlay analysis provides a macro-level perspective on interdisciplinary knowledge circulation

(Chen, 2012). Figure 1 visualizes the disciplinary foundations of tourism coopetition research, with citing

journals positioned on the left and cited journals on the right. Colored citation arcs trace knowledge pathways

between fields.

The

overlay

reveals

tourism

coopetition

scholarship

draws

primarily

from

two

disciplinary

streams: “economics/economic/political” and “psychology/education/social”. These citing domains direct

knowledge flows toward “economics/economic/political” and “economics/economic/political” clusters on the

cited side. This pattern indicates tourism coopetition research synthesizes economic strategic frameworks with

behavioral and social perspectives, reflecting the field's dual focus on competitive dynamics and collaborative

relationships. The cross-disciplinary citation structure underscores tourism coopetition as an integrative domain

bridging strategic management, organizational behavior, and economic geography.

Figure 1: Dual-map overlay of disciplinary knowledge flows

www.ijltemas.in

Page 876

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Publication and Citation Trends

Figure 2 illustrates the temporal evolution of tourism coopetition research through publication volume and

cumulative citations. The field exhibits a distinctly emerging character, with sporadic early contributions (1996,

2004) followed by sustained growth beginning in 2010. Publication output accelerated markedly after 2015,

reaching peaks of 24 articles in 2021 and 18 in 2022.

The cumulative citation curve (blue line) demonstrates exponential growth, rising from near-zero before 2010

to approximately 600 citations by 2025. This trajectory reveals increasing scholarly attention and knowledge

accumulation, though the field remains nascent compared to mature research domains. The steepening citation

curve after 2018 suggests tourism coopetition scholarship has achieved critical mass, with foundational works

now being widely recognized and integrated into subsequent research.

The gap between recent publication peaks (2021-2022) and citation accumulation indicates a natural citation lag,

recent articles have not yet accrued substantial citations. Nevertheless, the sustained publication growth and

accelerating citation rates signal tourism coopetition's emergence from peripheral curiosity to recognized

research priority within tourism and strategic management scholarship.

Figure 2: Annual publication output and cumulative citations (1996-2025)

Co-authorship Networks

Co-authorship analysis reveals the collaborative structure underpinning tourism coopetition research (Katz &

Martin, 1997). Figure 3 displays a network of 136 authors, represented by nodes, connected through 121

collaborative links, with a density of 0.0132, meaning only 1.32% of potential connections are actualized. This

indicates highly fragmented collaboration patterns typical of nascent research domains.

The network's high modularity (0.9016) confirms distinct, isolated research communities. Four collaborative

clusters of five or more authors emerge, representing localized research teams with intensive internal cooperation

but minimal cross-cluster integration. The largest cluster demonstrates the most sustained collaborative output,

while the three smaller clusters indicate emerging partnerships.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 877

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

This fragmented structure reveals a critical limitation: tourism coopetition lacks the interconnected collaborative

infrastructure necessary for cumulative knowledge building. The absence of bridge connections between clusters

prevents knowledge transfer across research communities, contributing to theoretical fragmentation. Unlike

mature fields with dense, overlapping collaborations, tourism coopetition scholars operate largely within isolated

silos, constraining field coherence and paradigmatic development.

Figure 3: Co-authorship collaboration network

Geographic Distribution and International Collaboration

Country-level analysis reveals the geographic concentration of tourism coopetition research and patterns of

international collaboration. Figure 4 displays the country co-authorship network comprising 50 countries

connected through 79 collaborative links, with a network density of 0.0645. This relatively low density indicates

limited international collaboration, with only 6.45% of potential cross-country connections realized.

The network exhibits high modularity (0.9016), confirming geographically clustered research communities with

minimal intercontinental collaboration. Central positioning of Spain, China, Poland, USA, and Brazil suggests

these nations serve as collaborative hubs, though the dispersed peripheral nodes indicate many countries

contribute in isolation without sustained international partnerships.

Table 2 identifies the most productive countries in tourism coopetition research. China leads with 25

publications, followed by Brazil (19), USA (18), and Poland (18). European nations demonstrate strong

representation, with Spain (17), England (16), Italy (15), and Portugal (13) collectively accounting for substantial

output. This geographic concentration reveals a predominantly Euro-Asian research landscape, with notable

contributions from Brazil.

Collectively, the top three countries (China, Brazil, and USA) produce 39.5% of total publications, while the top

ten account for approximately 60% of research output. This concentration, combined with the network's

fragmented structure, indicates tourism coopetition research remains geographically constrained, lacking the

global collaborative infrastructure characteristic of mature international research domains.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 878

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Figure 4: Country collaboration network

Rank

Country Publications

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

China

25

19

18

17

16

15

13

10

7

Brazil

USA

Poland

Spain

England

Italy

Portugal

Canada

Austria

Table 2: Top 10 most productive countries in tourism coopetition research

Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis

Keyword co-occurrence analysis reveals thematic priorities and conceptual foundations within tourism

coopetition research. By examining which terms scholars use together, we identify the field's intellectual focus

and emerging research directions (Chen, 2012).

www.ijltemas.in

Page 879

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Table 3 presents the most frequently occurring keywords in the corpus. “Cooperation” dominates with 47

occurrences, followed by “coopetition” (36) and “innovation” (34), indicating the field's core conceptual terrain.

“Networks” (34) and “competition” (33) appear with similar frequency, reflecting coopetition's fundamental

paradox of simultaneous competitive and cooperative dynamics. “Performance” (28) emerges as a prominent

outcome variable, suggesting scholarly interest in coopetition's strategic implications.

The presence of “tourism” alongside domain-specific terms like “strategy” (18), “destinations” (16), and

“management” (16) confirms the field's tourism-specific focus while revealing its strategic management

foundations. “Co-opetition” (15) as a variant spelling indicates terminological diversity that may fragment

literature searches and impede knowledge consolidation.

Frequency

Keyword

47

36

34

33

28

20

Cooperation

Coopetition

Innovation

Networks

Competition

Performance

Tourism

18

16

15

Strategy

Destinations

Management

Co-opetition

Table 3: Most frequently occurring keywords

Intellectual Structure: Co-Citation Cluster Analysis

Co-citation analysis identifies foundational works and intellectual communities within research area by

examining which authors are cited together (Chen, 2012). When two authors frequently appear in the same

reference lists, they likely address related concepts, share theoretical perspectives, or investigate similar

phenomena. CiteSpace's clustering algorithm groups co-cited authors into thematic communities, revealing the

field's conceptual architecture (Rossetto et al., 2018).

Figure 5 visualizes the author co-citation network for tourism coopetition research, comprising 296 nodes and

1,028 links. The network's modularity (Q=0.7563) indicates well-differentiated thematic clusters, while the

weighted mean silhouette (S=0.882) confirms strong internal cluster coherence. Four distinct intellectual

communities emerge, each representing a specialized research stream within tourism coopetition scholarship.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 880

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

Figure 5: Author co-citation network with thematic clusters

- Cluster 1: Conceptualizing and operationalizing tourism coopetition

The largest cluster addresses a fundamental challenge in tourism coopetition research: how to theoretically define

and empirically measure a phenomenon that is simultaneously competitive and collaborative. What unifies this

intellectual community is the preoccupation with construct validity and measurement precision in contexts where

traditional competitive/cooperative dichotomies fail. Anchored by foundational works on coopetition model

development and behavioral measurement scales (Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2018; Czakon et al., 2020), this

community addresses definitional precision and construct operationalization. Key contributions examine

platform coopetition in tourism industries (Bilbil, 2019) and preliminary conceptual models specific to

destination contexts. This cluster's prominence reflects ongoing theoretical consolidation efforts as scholars work

to adapt general coopetition frameworks to tourism's distinctive characteristics, high SME density, product

complementarity, and destination-level interdependence.

- Cluster 2: Trust, networks, and destination coopetition dynamics

Cluster 2 emphasizes relational mechanisms enabling coopetition within tourism networks. Central works

investigate trust-building processes in Polish tourism networks (Czakon & Czernek, 2016), synthesize tourism

coopetition literature to establish research agendas (Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017), and apply coopetition

perspectives to destination-level analysis. This intellectual community prioritizes understanding how competing

tourism firms overcome trust barriers, manage knowledge sharing risks, and sustain collaborative relationships

despite competitive tensions. The cluster's focus on network governance and relational dynamics reflects tourism

destinations' inherent interdependence structures.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 881

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

- Cluster 3: Coopetition strategies and performance outcomes

The third cluster examines strategic applications and performance implications of coopetition in tourism

contexts. Research within this community investigates organizational resilience through coopetition during crisis

periods (Czakon & Czernek, 2025), alliance orientations and financial performance effects, and competitive

strategies among small tourism firms like ski resorts (Mota et al., 2025). This outcome-oriented perspective

addresses managerial concerns: Does coopetition enhance competitiveness? Under what conditions? What

organizational capabilities enable effective coopetitive strategies? The cluster's recent temporal focus suggests

growing interest in evidence-based coopetition management.

- Cluster 4: Competitive Orientation and industry experience in tourism coopetition

Cluster 4 explores how entrepreneurial orientation, market experience, and competitive mindsets shape

coopetition engagement. It investigates why some tourism actors embrace coopetition while others resist despite

structural incentives, directing attention toward psychological and behavioral factors underlying strategic choice.

The cluster's intellectual coherence derives from micro-foundational analysis: examining individual manager

cognition, firm-level strategic orientation, and entrepreneurial experience as determinants of coopetition

adoption. Crick and Crick (2022) research challenges conventional wisdom by demonstrating that strong

competitor orientation enables rather than inhibits collaboration, as sophisticated entrepreneurs develop

cognitive schemas accommodating paradoxical simultaneous competition and cooperation. The unifying insight

is that coopetition effectiveness depends not only on network structures or institutional mechanisms but

fundamentally on actors' cognitive capacity to navigate strategic paradoxes without forcing binary

competitive/cooperative choices.

Temporal Evolution of Research Clusters

Timeline visualization (Figure 6) offers chronological perspective on how intellectual communities have

emerged and evolved within tourism coopetition scholarship. By mapping clusters along a temporal axis, we

trace the field's conceptual development from foundational works to contemporary research frontiers.

Figure 6: Timeline visualization of co-citation clusters

www.ijltemas.in

Page 882

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

The timeline reveals distinct phases in tourism coopetition's intellectual evolution. The earliest emerging Cluster

is Cluster 2, spanning 2005-2015 with peak activity around 2010. This pioneering work established relational

foundations, investigating how competing firms build trust and sustain collaboration despite competitive

tensions. Its early positioning reflects foundational efforts demonstrating coopetition's relevance to destination

contexts.

Cluster 1 shows sustained activity from 2010-2020, concentrated during 2015-2018. This extended span

indicates ongoing theoretical refinement as scholars adapted general coopetition frameworks to tourism's

distinctive characteristics, high SME density, product complementarity, destination interdependence. Cluster 4

emerged more recently, concentrated between 2018-2022. This reflects growing attention to micro-level factors,

managerial cognition, entrepreneurial orientation, prior experience, that enable coopetition adoption. Its recent

emergence suggests field maturation: foundational concepts established; research now investigates

implementation factors. The third cluster represents the most contemporary stream, dominating 2020-2025. This

latest wave addresses outcome-focused concerns: performance effects, competitive advantages, crisis resilience.

Its positioning at the field's leading edge indicates transition from theoretical exploration toward evidence-based

management applications.

This trajectory, from relational foundations through conceptual refinement toward behavioral and performance

orientations, mirrors typical domain maturation. All four clusters remain active, suggesting tourism coopetition

continues developing simultaneously across multiple intellectual fronts rather than progressing linearly through

discrete phases.

Citation Burst Authors and Research Hotspots

Table 4 identifies authors whose work experienced sustained citation surges, revealing tourism coopetition's

intellectual trajectory. Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino (2017) demonstrated the strongest burst during 2020-

2022, marking the period when tourism coopetition gained recognition as a distinct destination management

framework. Della Corte and Aria (2016) burst spanning from 2017 to 2021 provided foundational contributions

linking coopetition strategies to sustainable competitive advantage in destinations. Concurrently, Czernek et al.

(2017) burst (2017-2021) established trust-building mechanisms as critical enablers of tourism network

coopetition, demonstrating how third-party legitimization facilitates competitor collaboration.

Recent bursts signal theoretical maturation. Czakon and Czernek's work (2016) (2019-2021) reflects attention

to governance mechanisms, while Crick and Crick's research (2020) (2022-2025) indicates emerging focus on

marketing performance and competitive intelligence within coopetitive frameworks. Two critical junctures

emerge: 2017-2021 represents consolidation when foundational scholars established theoretical legitimacy

through empirical work on trust and network governance; 2020-2022 marks acceleration toward operational

dimensions including co-marketing, value co-creation, and crisis resilience, likely catalyzed by COVID-19's

impact on tourism collaboration patterns.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 883

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

References

Year

Strength Begin

End

1996 - 2025

Fyall A

2012

4.06

3.46

5.12

6.05

5.5

2014

2016

2017

2019

2020

2022

2017

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

▂

Kylänen M

2012

2011

2014

2016

2015

2014

2018

2016

2017

2020

2017

2016

2019

2021

2020

2019

2022

2021

2022

2025

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂

▂

4.19

3.46

5.52

3.68

5.24

4.11

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂

▂

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂

▂

Czakon W

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂▂

▂

Chim-Miki

AF

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂

▂

Crick JM

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃

▃

Table 4: Top authors with strongest citation bursts

Research Implications

This scientometric analysis reveals tourism coopetition as rapidly maturing yet structurally fragmented, with

four distinct intellectual communities operating largely in isolation and limiting cumulative knowledge building.

To advance theoretical coherence and practical impact, we identify three critical priorities. First, theoretical

integration through multi-level frameworks connecting destination governance, inter-organizational networks,

and firm-level strategies via case studies examining how DMO mechanisms foster coopetition; temporal

dynamics research tracking coopetitive relationship evolution across destination lifecycles; and paradox

management studies investigating tension navigation mechanisms, temporal separation, spatial differentiation,

organizational ambidexterity, that sustain productive coopetition. Second, pivoting from problem documentation

toward solution design requires comparative institutional analysis testing whether Polish network mechanisms

www.ijltemas.in

Page 884

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

(third-party legitimization, reputation) operate across Anglo-Saxon, European, and emerging market contexts;

intervention studies evaluating DMO-facilitated coopetition versus organic coopetition emergence and digital

platforms as enablers; crisis coopetition research examining which COVID-19-induced practices persisted post-

crisis; and validated performance instruments measuring coopetition intensity and outcomes at network and

destination levels. Third, addressing structural limitations necessitates further collaborations testing Western

framework portability across the 60% geographic concentration in top ten countries. Formal research consortia

overcoming the 1.32% co-authorship density through coordinated agendas and shared instruments; and bridging

research-practice gaps via implementation studies, participatory designs positioning managers as co-researchers,

and policy experimentation frameworks. The field presents significant opportunity for theoretical contribution

and practical impact, requiring deliberate consolidation efforts and sustained focus on actionable knowledge

generation.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we aimed to advance the intellectual structure of the coopetition in tourism destinations field by

studying past works and evaluating the most critical and influential papers, authors, institutions, and countries

over nearly three decades. We began by extracting comprehensive information from Web of Science and Scopus,

which showed marked acceleration in publication output in recent years, indicating growing scholarly interest

in coopetition dynamics within tourism contexts. The next step was to perform co-citation cluster analysis,

keyword co-occurrence examination, and citation burst analysis, which allowed us to identify four distinct

research streams. From this analysis, we developed a comprehensive overview of the tourism coopetition domain

and its intellectual architecture, revealing how the field has evolved from basic definitional work toward

sophisticated multidimensional frameworks encompassing managerial, strategic, behavioral, and contextual

dimensions, with critical junctures during consolidation and acceleration phases when the field gained theoretical

legitimacy and shifted toward operational applications.

Despite growing scholarly attention to tourism coopetition, significant gaps and challenges remain. Our analysis

revealed minimal collaboration among researchers and strong geographic concentration in European and

American institutions, which limits the generalizability of current theoretical frameworks. The absence of dense

international research networks further demonstrates the field's fragmented nature. Moreover, the predominant

treatment of coopetition as an explanatory variable rather than dependent variable suggests an urgent need to

shift from benefit documentation toward understanding formation mechanisms and sustainability conditions

across diverse institutional contexts. Our study provides a valuable baseline and navigation tool for researchers

to investigate deeply into tourism coopetition. For example, researchers can examine how vertical and horizontal

coopetition dimensions interact simultaneously in destination networks, explore coopetition dynamics in Global

South tourism contexts beyond Western institutional frameworks, investigate how digital platforms and

technologies transform coopetitive possibilities, analyze DMO governance mechanisms that foster sustainable

coopetition intensity, and conduct longitudinal studies tracking coopetitive relationship evolution across

destination lifecycles. In our view, tourism coopetition is a maturing field that requires further research using

multi-level frameworks connecting destination governance, inter-organizational networks, and firm-level

strategies, comparative institutional approaches recognizing contextual particularities, and implementation-

focused designs generating actionable knowledge for destination managers. Through this article, we aimed to

contribute to the knowledge base of the tourism coopetition domain by providing the first comprehensive

scientometric mapping specifically focused on tourism destinations that clarifies the field's conceptual

architecture, reveals theoretical and geographical gaps, and establishes priorities for future inquiry toward

building truly competitive and collaborative destination ecosystems.

REFERENCES

1. Bem Maracajá, K. F., Chim-Miki, A. F., & Da Costa, R. A. (2024). Status Of Coopetition In Wine

Tourism Research: What? Who?How? Which? Tourism, 72(3). Https://Doi.Org/10.37741/T.72.3.3

2. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition-Quo Vadis? Past Accomplishments and Future

Challenges. In Industrial Marketing Management (Vol. 43, Numéros 2, Si, P. 180‑188). Elsevier Science

Inc. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2014.02.015

www.ijltemas.in

Page 885

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

3. Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L., & Nasholm, M. H. (2016). Coopetition Research

in Theory And Practice: Growing New Theoretical, Empirical, And Methodological Domains. In

Industrial

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2016.05.002

4. Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A Systematic Review of Research On Coopetition: Toward A

Multilevel Understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23‑39.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2016.05.003

Marketing

Management

(Vol.

57,

P.

4‑11).

Elsevier

Science

Inc.

5. Bengtsson, M., Raza-Ullah, T., & Srivastava, M. K. (2020). Looking Different Vs Thinking Differently:

Impact Of Tmt Diversity On Coopetition Capability. In Long Range Planning (Vol. 53, Numéros 1, Si).

Elsevier Sci Ltd. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Lrp.2018.11.001

6. Bilbil, E. T. (2019). Platform Coopetition In The Tourism Industry: Conflicts And Tensions Caused By

The Closure Of Booking.Com In Turkey. In Current Issues in Tourism (Vol. 22, Numéro 13, P.

1617‑1637).

Routledge

Journals,

Taylor

&

Francis

Ltd.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1461199

7. Chen, C. (2012). Predictive Effects of Structural Variation on Citation Counts. Journal Of the American

Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431‑449. Https://Doi.Org/10.1002/Asi.21694

8. Chen, C. (2013). Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. Springer

London. Https://Doi.Org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5128-9

9. Chim-Miki, A. F., Augusto Da Costa, R., & Volschenk, J. (2025). With A Little Help from My Region:

Coopetition in Regional Development and The Creation Of Tourism Social Value In Low-Density

Territories.

Tourism

And

Hospitality

Research,

14673584251395265.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/14673584251395265

10. Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2017). Tourism Coopetition: An Introduction to The Subject

and A Research Agenda. In International Business Review (Vol. 26, Numéro 6, P. 1208‑1217). Elsevier.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Ibusrev.2017.05.003

11. Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2018). Development Of a Tourism Coopetition Model: A

Preliminary Delphi Study. In Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (Vol. 37, P. 78‑88).

Elsevier Science Bv. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jhtm.2018.10.004

12. Chim-Miki, A. F., Da Costa, R. A., & Okumus, F. (2024). Investigating The Strategic Role of Business

Associations in Willingness Toward Tourism Coopetition. Current Issues in Tourism, 1‑18.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2333910

13. Chim-Miki, A. F., Medina-Brito, P., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2020). Integrated Management in

Tourism: The Role of Coopetition. In Tourism Planning & Development (Vol. 17, Numéro 2, P.

127‑146). Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd. Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1574888

14. Corbo, L., Kraus, S., Vlačić, B., Dabić, M., Caputo, A., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2023). Coopetition And

Innovation:

A

Review

and

Research

Agenda.

Technovation,

122,

102624.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Technovation.2022.102624

15. Cortese, D., Giacosa, E., & Cantino, V. (2021). Knowledge Sharing for Coopetition In Tourist

Destinations: The Difficult Path To The Network. In Review of Managerial Science (Vol. 15, Numéro

2, P. 275‑286). Springer Heidelberg. Https://Doi.Org/10.1007/S11846-018-0322-Z

16. Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2020). Coopetition And Covid-19: Collaborative Business-To-Business

Marketing Strategies in A Pandemic Crisis. In Industrial Marketing Management (Vol. 88, P. 206‑213).

Elsevier Science Inc. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2020.05.016

17. Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2022). Coopetition And International Entrepreneurship: The Influence of A

Competitor Orientation. In International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research (Vol. 28,

Numéros 3, Si, P. 801‑828). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/Ijebr-06-2021-

0519

18. Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The Role of Trust-Building Mechanisms in Entering into Network

Coopetition: The Case Of Tourism Networks In Poland. In Industrial Marketing Management (Vol. 57,

P. 64‑74). Elsevier Science Inc. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2016.05.010

19. Czakon, W., & Czernek-Marszalek, K. (2021). Competitor Perceptions in Tourism Coopetition. In

Journal of Travel Research (Vol. 60, Numéro 2, P. 312‑335). Sage Publications Inc.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0047287519896011

www.ijltemas.in

Page 886

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025

20. Czakon, W., & Czernek-Marszałek, K. (2025). In Times of Fear Turn to Your Competitor: Developing

Organizational Resilience Through Coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 125, 339‑354.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2025.01.015

21. Czakon, W., Klimas, P., & Mariani, M. (2020). Behavioral Antecedents of Coopetition: A Synthesis and

Measurement Scale. In Long Range Planning (Vol. 53, Numéros 1, Si). Elsevier Sci Ltd.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Lrp.2019.03.001

22. Czernek, K., Czakon, W., & Marszalek, P. (2017). Trust And Formal Contracts: Complements or

Substitutes? A Study of Tourism Collaboration in Poland. In Journal of Destination Marketing &

Management

(Vol.

6,

Numéro

4,

P.

318‑326).

Elsevier

Science

Bv.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jdmm.2017.07.001

23. Della Corte, V., & Aria, M. (2016). Coopetition And Sustainable Competitive Advantage. The Case of

Tourist Destinations. In Tourism Management (Vol. 54, P. 524‑540). Elsevier Sci Ltd.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Tourman.2015.12.009

24. Gernsheimer, O., Kanbach, D. K., Gast, J., & Le Roy, F. (2024). Managing Paradoxical Tensions to

Initiate Coopetition Between Mnes: The Rise of Coopetition Formation Teams. Industrial Marketing

Management, 118, 148‑174. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2024.02.006

25. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What Is Research Collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1‑18.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

26. Kirillova, K., Park, J., Zhu, M., Dioko, L. (Don), & Zeng, G. (2020). Developing The Coopetitive

Destination Brand for The Greater Bay Area. In Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (Vol.

17). Elsevier. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jdmm.2020.100439

27. Klimas, P., Czakon, W., & Fredrich, V. (2022). Strategy Frames in Coopetition: An Examination of

Coopetition Entry Factors in High-Tech Firms. In European Management Journal (Vol. 40, Numéro 2,

P. 258‑272). Elsevier Sci Ltd. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Emj.2021.04.005

28. Mariani, M. M. (2016). Coordination In Inter-Network Co-Opetitition: Evidence from The Tourism

Sector. In Industrial Marketing Management (Vol. 53, P. 103‑123). Elsevier Science Inc.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Indmarman.2015.11.015

29. Meena, A., Dhir, S., & Sushil, S. (2023). A Review of Coopetition and Future Research Agenda. Journal

of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 118‑136. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/Jbim-09-2021-0414

30. Meena, A., Dhir, S., & Sushil, S. (2024). Coopetition, Strategy, And Business Performance in The Era

of Digital Transformation Using a Multi-Method Approach: Some Research Implications for Strategy

and Operations Management. International Journal of Production Economics, 270, 109068.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Ijpe.2023.109068

31. Messori, S. (2022). A Critical Note on Coopetition in Tourism and Hospitality Literature.

32. Mota, J., Chim-Miki, A. F., Moreira, A. C., & Costa, R. A. (2025). Alliance Orientation and Firm

Financial Performance: Industry-Specific and Crisis Effects. Implications For Coopetition Dynamics.

Journal Of Strategy and Management, 1‑19. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/Jsma-07-2024-0176

33. Rossetto, D. E., Bernardes, R. C., Borini, F. M., & Gattaz, C. C. (2018). Structure And Evolution of

Innovation Research in The Last 60 Years: Review and Future Trends in The Field of Business Through

the

Citations

and

Co-Citations

Analysis.

Scientometrics,

115(3),

1329‑1363.

Https://Doi.Org/10.1007/S11192-018-2709-7

34. Zhang, Y., Xia, M., & Liu, Y. (2023). The Causality and Antecedents of Tourism Small & Medium-

Sized Enterprises’ (Smes) Coopetition in Complex Institutional Contexts. Sustainability, 15(6), 5156.

Https://Doi.Org/10.3390/Su15065156

35. Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational

Research Methods, 18(3), 429‑472. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/1094428114562629

www.ijltemas.in

Page 887