Creative Tourism on Islands: A Review of the Literature

Abstract

In the last two decades, creative tourism has evolved as a burgeoning field, encompassing a wide range of concepts and practices, in different places around the world. From the very beginning, however, creative tourism has aimed to contribute to sustainable development and increased community wellbeing, as an alternative to mass cultural tourism. With this review article, our main objective is to identify and analyze a body of literature that specifically addresses creative tourism in islands, contributing to fill a gap in the knowledge since no reviews with this focus have yet been undertaken. Our aim is to provide a critical overview of creative tourism experiences at island destinations worldwide, addressing the plurality of empirical contexts and methodological approaches found in academic research. This review highlights the key trends in creative tourism, pointing out two distinct approaches: creative tourism in urban contexts, based on creative events, “cultural clusters” or Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), versus community-focused small-scale tourism experiences in rural contexts. This paper also provides an opportunity to assess the evolution of sustainable creative tourism approaches in islands.

1. Introduction

The emergence of the concept of creative tourism was contemporaneous with the identification of the ‘experience economy’, and many analysts have likened creative tourism to experiential tourism [1]. However, the features of creative tourism make it more than a simple tourism experience, since it involves a more active role for both tourists and hosts through the transfer and development of creative knowledge and skills in the course of shared and co-created activities, which are inherent to the unique features of the destination. According to Richards [1], one of the major differences between creative tourism and cultural tourism is that creative tourists seek to expand not just their knowledge of the places they visit but also their own creative skills.

One of the earliest formulations of creative tourism, by Richards and Raymond (2000), defined it as “tourism which offers visitors the opportunity to develop their creative potential through active participation in courses and learning experiences which are characteristic of the holiday destination where they are undertaken” [2]. In 2006, UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network adopted the following definition: “Creative tourism is travel directed toward an engaged and authentic experience, with participative learning in the arts, heritage, or special character of a place, and it provides a connection with those who reside in this place and create this living culture” [3]. This connective, or relational, dimension of the experience between hosts and visitors is another distinctive feature of creative tourism, going beyond mere economic transactions and emphasizing (co-)production (making and doing) rather than just consumption [1].

Building upon recent trends in cultural tourism, intangible cultural heritage and creative resources (are becoming increasingly relevant in creative tourism, bridging past and contemporary (and future) society and everyday life. Creative resources include the usual elements of the creative industries as well as the ability to apply innovation and creative thinking to traditional tourism, cultural or social resources [1]. According to the OECD report Tourism and the Creative Economy (2014), as new links between creative industries and tourism emerge, accompanied by new technologies, creative tourism keeps expanding [4] (p. 7). New routes fostered by these links include the development of innovative contents in creative tourism experiences, as well as an increasing involvement of creative sectors in the production, consumption and distribution of these experiences [4] (pp. 13, 16), [5].

As Smith points out [6] (p. 145), creative tourism has seen a twofold development in different parts of the world; it is either based “on the traditional practices of indigenous communities” or it is “connected to more contemporary experiential industries”. Similarly, Richards argues that earlier creative tourism concepts were mostly based on “learning experiences related to traditional areas of culture and creativity”, while more recent ones, boosted by the creative economy, are rather “based on the integration of tourism and creative industries as a whole, engaging not only consumers but also producers, policy makers and knowledge institutions” [4] (p. 16). From this perspective, collaboration with creative industries holds the potential for value creation in multiple ways, including the development of other creative contents and concepts that can reach new target groups; new possibilities to interactively engage with audiences and/or to facilitate co-creation (for instance, through mobile apps, booking systems or user-generated creative content); the formation of new business models; the improvement of marketing strategies; the mobilization of wider networks, platforms and clusters; or the stimulation of new partnerships [4] (pp. 16–17).

More recently, in their book A Research Agenda for Creative Tourism, Duxbury and Richards [7] (pp. 2–4) have identified four overlaying phases in the conceptual evolution of creative tourism, all still “strongly evident today” (see

Table 1. The development phases of creative tourism.

Stage	Approximate Start Date	Forms	Focus
Creative tourism 1.0	2000	Learning activities and workshops	Production-focused
Creative tourism 2.0	2005	(a) Destination-based creative experiences	Macro consumption-related perspective
		(b) Community-based tourism	Community-development thinking
Creative tourism 3.0	2010	Links to the creative economy	More passive forms of creative consumption
Creative tourism 4.0	2015	Relational networks and co-creation of experiences	Micro consumption-related perspective blending into prosumption

Source: Own elaboration, based on Richards, 2018, and Duxbury and Richards, 2019 [5,7].

).

These new trends in creative tourism follow new overall trends in tourism. On the one hand, tourism’s conventional distinctions between ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’, or ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’, have been rapidly eroding, giving way to more dispersed networks of individuals and organizations involved in the co-creation of tourism experiences. On the other hand, tourism is being increasingly displaced from its conventional spaces—such as hotels, common tourist attractions or entertainment centers—towards more dispersed, diverse, everyday spaces and localities. Thus, tourist experiences (and places) are becoming less controlled by the usual tourism supply chains and are becoming more co-created and negotiated by multiple and dispersed actors and elements, which are “linked by new technology and dependent on disembedded trust” [1].

The way creative tourism has been evolving in each different place depends on a wide range of factors, including “the style of tourism development, the economic climate, the presence of political will and local cultural factors”, as well as the predominance of top-down- or bottom-up-driven initiatives and the support of the public sector [5]. Hence, nowadays, creative tourism no longer corresponds to a single definition but rather to a cumulative set of intertwined concepts, reflected in a wide range of practices, applied to a broad range of contexts [7] (pp. 5–6). Or, as Richards puts it: “In the definition of creative tourism, the only constant is change. In essence, creative tourism consists of a bundle of dynamic creative relationships between people, places and ideas, through which lives can be improved and injected with new potential” [8] (p. 10).

This work has been carried out in the context of the project CREATOUR AZORES, which is coordinated by the Azores Tourism Observatory in partnership with the Gaspar Frutuoso Foundation of the University of the Azores and the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra (CES). This is an integrated research-and-application project that aims to develop, implement and foster creative tourism experiences in the Azores Islands, thereby enriching the tourism experiences of both visitors and communities while promoting cultural vitality and sustainability and allowing artistic and creative activities to play a driving role in socio-economic development. By gathering knowledge and outlining the key trends, benefits, and risks across different case studies, we hope this article contributes to inform the development of sustainable creative tourism activities, not only in the archipelago of the Azores but also in other island contexts.

We also hope that our analysis will contribute to the resolution of the three overarching challenges identified in Duxbury and Richards’ Research Agenda for Creative Tourism [7] (pp. 5–7): (1) to develop a more integrated framework/conceptual model on creative tourism, drawing upon (multiple) prevailing definitions and diverse sets of practices; (2) to “more explicitly acknowledge and critique the temporal, conceptual and geographic contexts in which the research and conceptualization in the field has progressed” by “re-conceiving and critically examining creative tourism trajectories and their impacts” and by “critically revisiting earlier works in light of situations and challenges today”; and (3) “to link creative tourism to the major challenges facing our societies and the planet” by re-directing creative tourism towards a more intercultural and holistic sustainable development perspective.

Brief Methodological Note

The main objective of this paper is to identify and analyze the body of literature that specifically addresses creative tourism in islands worldwide, providing a critical overview on the multiple empirical contexts and research approaches found in our review of the literature. This comprehensive review examines references to islands found across the main body of creative tourism literature, e.g., [4,5,7,9,10]—a thorough list of references can be found on the Creative Tourism Network website [11]. Further references on this subject were researched on Google and Google Scholar. While our main focus has been on published materials, such as scientific articles, book chapters, and reports, we have also included some unpublished conference papers and talks on creative tourism, mostly found through Academia or Research Gate. This qualitative review first involved a selection of papers, among more than seventy identified in our search. Besides having a focus on islands, the key criterion for inclusion was that of having an explicit mention to creative tourism (either as keyword, or in the main text). Papers with a focus on creative industries in the context of cultural tourism on islands were also addressed in our review. The selected papers (more than fifty) were then thoroughly read by the authors and synthesized according to a previously defined analytic grid. Our analysis is presented according to the geographic location of the case studies and empirical accounts, per continent.

This paper discusses and builds upon the concept of creative tourism and analyses the current panorama of creative tourism approaches on islands. Therefore, in order to better contextualize our subject, our review of the literature also includes more general references to creative tourism and the diversity of island contexts worldwide. There is, however, a growing body of literature addressing other correlated issues on tourism, cultural heritage, and sustainability in islands, which is beyond the scope of this article as it does not specifically address creative tourism. This is one of the constraints of this review. Most of the references discussed here are in English, with a few exceptions in French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. We also came across articles in other languages, particularly from Asia (Japanese, Korean, etc., some of which only provided abstracts in English), but most were either not accessible through the research platforms at our disposal or were written in languages unfamiliar to the authors, therefore being beyond the scope of this review. This is another constraint of this article.

In the following sections, this article will first go through the diversity of island destinations around the world where creative tourism is taking place (and where academic research has been undertaken). We then discuss the main trends and models being implemented in island contexts in different countries and continents worldwide. Finally, this paper highlights the key findings resulting from this literature review and proposes possible sustainable directions for the development of creative tourism.

2. Diversity of Island Contexts

Perhaps the only common feature that all islands share is the condition of being “pieces of land permanently surrounded by water, with a land area of at least 0.1 km²” [12] (p. 87), [13] (p. 189). Other than that, their differences may be anchored in a wide range of factors: remoteness, or location along the coast of the mainland; jurisdictional status; population; land area; physical and climatic characteristics; cultural identity; economic bases; infrastructure and logistics; tourism development policies; and governance models, among others [13,14,15].

Despite such differences, however, there seems to be an overall agreement that most island destinations, especially small islands, face particular challenges due to their isolation and are more vulnerable than mainland territories in terms of social, economic and environmental problems [15,16]. Multiple factors act as barriers to their development, such as isolation, limited resources, weak economies, poor accessibility, inadequate infrastructure, and dependency on external forces [14] (p. 106). Thus, below-average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as well as higher cost of living are common in island societies [17] (p. 61). In this context, many islands increasingly rely on tourism as a key (or main) source of export earnings.

In terms of geography, Baldacchino [12] sets a key distinction between ‘warm’ and ‘cold water’ island destinations, arguing that “most warm water islands have levels of tourism penetration and infrastructure that are many times higher” than those of cold water ones. From his perspective, tourism in warm water islands tends to be focused on “sun, sea and sand”, while tourism in cold-water island locations is focused on “harsh, pristine and fragile natural environments, characterized by wide open spaces”, tending to be a more sustainable, exceptional, and expensive form of island tourism, centered on “ice, isolation, and indigenous people”. Most cold water islands, he argues, are scarcely populated and characterized by wide open spaces, with difficult access and limited tourism infrastructure. In cold water environments, open water is not appealing and the temperature may even be life-threatening. These are generally reachable only by small-scale vessels or planes, and the absence of economies of scale keeps tourist numbers low, impacted by the “double-punch” of cost and distance. The good news is that in most of these locations, tourism is still a low-impact industry with a relatively high revenue that is locally retained. In addition, with the exception of Iceland, cold water island destinations are not sovereign states themselves but rather subnational island jurisdictions.

The panorama is quite different when it comes to warm water islands, many of which are sovereign states or microstates where governments have encouraged the development of tourism, “often seeking to lure foreign investment and identifiable brands” [12] (p. 190). As an example, the Caribbean islands are the most tourism-branded and penetrated region in the world, with a shorefront that is “controlled or owned by hospitality interests or expatriates” (idem). Here, tourism puts additional pressure on public infrastructures, and on the environment. This is why some warm water islands (such as the Seychelles, St. Barths, or the Galápagos Islands—in spite of the differences, these island contexts still share some similarities with cold water island destinations, including their isolation, unusual terrestrial and marine wildlife and scenery, unique geologic and atmospheric features, and ample opportunity for adventure holidays and cultural experiences inherent to place) are increasingly trying to escape the trend toward mass market tourism and beginning to emulate the sustainable tourism approaches of cold water islands [12] (p. 193).

For tourism, the maintenance of environmental values at a high level is essential, and this is even more relevant in the case of island tourism, which needs to be well-planned given the exceptionality and fragility of most island environments [15] (p. 161). Following this line of thought, several researchers argue that there is a need for strategies and policy measures to help develop island tourism sustainably. Here, creative tourism, if planned and developed properly, represents an opportunity for a win-win situation for local residents, fostering sustainable development [14] (p. 106). For instance, creative tourism can help combat seasonality by opening up possibilities of creating new destinations and new products based on the exploration and discovery of the intrinsic value of the local culture of a landscape and a community. It is “fundamentally important in optimizing tangible and intangible heritage destinations and has a positive impact on safeguarding culture and the authenticity of places because of the value and interest shown by tourists in the practices and traditions of resident communities” [18] (p. 170).

Creative tourism is also more sustainable than cultural tourism based on consumption alone because it goes beyond the simple experience of ready-made products, providing “an opportunity to experience co-creation with other visitors, resident communities, and managers/promoters”. Moreover, since creative tourists are interested in cultural diversity, they can help to increase the cultural value of the destination and help local communities to appreciate the everyday aspects of their culture [18] (p. 170).

This does not mean that all forms of creative tourism are necessarily more sustainable than conventional cultural tourism. In fact, as Ilincic [19] (pp. 101–102) notes, in many destinations, “the growing adoption of creative development strategies (…) has been criticized as a form of virulent ‘fast policy’ solution influenced by academia and policy makers”. Moreover, since “creative tourism relies heavily on the everyday life of a destination and its intangible cultural resources”, this selling of everyday life experiences in the marketplace can lead to their commodification. Another risk is the homogenization of creative tourism experiences worldwide (idem).

By examining the panorama of creative tourism developments on islands, one of the purposes of this literature review is precisely to identify which creative tourism directions can lead to sustainable tourism development in different island contexts and communities. Building upon Richards and Wilson’s [9] comparative systematization, from culture-led towards creativity-led development strategies in tourism (

Table 2. Contexts of creativity in tourism.

	Cultural Tourism	Creative Spectacles	Creative Spaces	Creative Tourism
Timescale	Past and present	Present	Present and future	Past, present and future
Cultural context	High culture, popular	Arts, Performance, festivity	Arts, Architecture, design	Creative process
Mode of consumption	Product focus	Performance focus	Atmosphere	Experience co-makership
Learning orientation	Passive	Passive	Interactive	Active skill development
Intervention	Economic (and cultural) development	Economic and cultural development	Cultural, social and economic development	Realizing creative potential + sustainable development (environmental, cultural, social and economic)

Source: Own elaboration, based on Richards and Wilson, 2007 [9] (p. 258).

), we suggest that the best model for creative tourism “intervention” in island contexts should be one that encompasses all dimensions of sustainable development (combining the economic, social and environmental dimensions), in line with the goals set in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015) [20] while, at the same time, keeping future generations in mind. It is important to note that this attempt to bridge creative tourism with sustainable tourism is not a common one, and even less so when it comes to islands. On the one hand, creative tourism literature tends to emphasize the economic and social benefits of cultural and creative tourism. On the other hand, literature on environmentally sustainable tourism on islands often leaves out more cultural and social related aspects. Table 2 reflects our view by characterising cultural tourism as a type of intervention which also contributes to “cultural” development (not just “economic”), and creative tourism as a type of intervention which can not only contribute to “realizing creative potential” but also sustainable development, in which all dimensions are taken into account (the economic, social, environmental, and also the cultural one—usually forgotten in most SDGs’ agendas).

Further ahead in this paper, we will come back to this issue, arguing for the need of more holistic and integrated approaches in which natural and cultural, material and immaterial heritage interconnect—bridging the concepts of creative tourism, cultural landscapes, and sustainable development.

We begin our review of the literature by identifying and analyzing the diversity of islands where creative tourism is taking place. As mentioned before, this review only includes a set of selected references that specifically address creative tourism or creative industries and tourism in island contexts (most of these are oceanic island locations, but we have also included a lake island (Prince Edward County, in Lake Ontario, Canada) and the River Mekong islands of Koh Trong and Koh Pdao (in Cambodia). The territory of Macau was also considered since it is a former island that later became a peninsula). Most of the references found and discussed here are relatively recent—many produced within the last five years.

In terms of typology, the island locations in these references include island states (e.g., Tasmania, Taiwan); small island developing states (SIDS) [21] (p. 5), such as Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago (a dual-island Caribbean nation), Cape Verde (an archipelagic nation), and Guinea-Bissau, Timor-Leste, and São Tome and Principe (these last three are also least developed countries); as well as a diverse range of other islands which are under the jurisdiction of sovereign nations around the world—also called subnational island jurisdictions, or SNIJs [22] (p. 11). Some are close to the mainland, while others are far.

Moreover, even within these typologies, there are other factors contributing to further diversity among island contexts. For instance, the SIDS found among our references can be regrouped into four sub-groups according to their level of development (the economic and social performance of SIDS is based on the consideration of the World Bank (WB) classification of economies by gross national income (GNI) per capita and of the Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of the United Nations Development Programme) [23] (p. 4): (1) High Income (WB) and High/Very High HDI (Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, French Polynesia); Upper Middle Income (WB) and High HDI (Mauritius); Upper or Lower Middle Income (WB) and Medium HDI (Cape Verde); Lower Middle or Low Income (WB) and Low HDI (Guinea-Bissau, São Tome and Principe, Timor-Leste).

Another indicator which might be worth considering in future comparative analyses of creative tourism in island contexts is the Tourism Penetration Index (or TPI, calculated as the number of stay-over tourists, times the average length of stay, plus excursionists, divided by the host population times 365) proposed by McElroy [24] (p. 233), which ranges from ‘low-density’ emerging destinations, including growing ‘intermediate islands’, to more ‘high-density’ areas. TPI seems to be a more rigorous indicator than the most common measure of the socio-cultural impact of tourism, which is the ratio of visitors to the local population.

3. Panorama of Creative Tourism Approaches on Islands

Geographically speaking, what first stands out in this range of references is the uneven distribution of publications across continents. In a recent text, Richards [5] emphasized the role of Europe as the “cradle” of creative tourism, with “the longest history of development and probably the greatest diversity of styles”. However, when we go through the literature on creative tourism on islands, it is Asia, not Europe, that emerges as the most prolific continent in terms of academic production on this subject. Europe appears in second place, followed by North America (including the Caribbean), Oceania, and finally by Africa.

3.1. Africa

In the context of this less developed region, creative tourism on African islands and archipelagos seems to be in line with the ‘slow’ trend, “hampered by the same challenges as the development of tourism in general” prevailing in the continent [5]. Nevertheless, as Cardoso et al. [25] point out, there are already diverse creativity and innovation-led initiatives taking place, namely addressing creative economy and creative industries, in countries such as Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and São Tome and Principe. Here, the interplay between creative industries and environmentally responsible tourism, cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and local communities is seen as a key in anchoring and catalyzing sustainable development.

Community-based solidary tourism or gastronomic festivals in Cape Verde, ecotourism practices and products in Guinea-Bissau, and diverse creative tourism services and experiences in São Tome and Principe are increasingly combining nature, local knowledge, and local production with culture and creativity through sustainable and responsible tourism frameworks [25], opening up the path for similar approaches elsewhere in Africa.

Further research and case studies also worth mentioning in relation to island destinations in this continent, even if creative tourism is not explicitly referred, are Naidoo and Sharpley’s [26] work on agritourism and community well-being in Mauritius and Pollice et al.’s [27] accounts on ‘Placetelling’ and sustainable tourism in Cape Verde.

3.2. Oceania

Our literature review did not identify many new references addressing creative tourism on islands in this continent. Two of them [28,29] have already been briefly discussed by Richards [5]. Raymond’s account draws on a concrete example of developing creative tourism experiences/workshops to help craft producers in the small city of Nelson (north coast of New Zealand’s South Island) through the “sustainable business” frame of Creative Tourism New Zealand (CNTZ) [28]. This is a useful article, as the author describes a set of practical challenges and limitations of his business model, including issues such as budget, target audiences, tutors, and marketing strategies.

The reference to the city of Wellington in New Zealand (North Island) is another well-known case study in creative tourism literature [4]. Wellington’s positioning as New Zealand’s “Creative Capital” has been a deliberate strategy developed by the local government with its policy of strengthening creative industries and creative hubs and clusters in partnership with several arts and cultural organizations. The city, also known as “Wellywood”, has been particularly successful in developing the film and festival sectors to revitalize the city and encourage economic growth, while boosting tourism through film-based attractions and tourist experiences (e.g., film-related public art and studio tours) [4] (pp. 19, 155–163).

The creative tourism approach presented in Lehman and Reiser’s research [29] is rather different, being based on the role of an iconic private sector cultural entity in Tasmania—the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA)—as a provider of creative tourism experiences. The article demonstrates how MONA has, itself, become a ‘destination’/corporate brand, playing a key role in wider place-branding strategies, in close articulation with governmental stakeholders. The authors suggest that private museums (such as MONA) are more flexible and easily adjustable to market forces than public museums and, therefore, more able to shape their “product” offering according to market needs [29] (p. 21). Hence, they contend that MONA’s case study goes beyond a concept of ‘creative tourism’, implying that “visitors must make or learn about something”, based instead on the concept of “co-creation by immersion” in the events and exhibitions and being “surrounded by creativity” [29] (pp. 29–30). The case of MONA, therefore, expands the notion of creative tourism as an immersive art experience (with the help of interactive technologies/devices).

Following this line of thought, but without explicitly mentioning creative tourism, Bieldt [30] examines the role of creative industries in shaping new models of “museum consumption” and “museum experience” at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (in Wellington). According to Bieldt, the interrelationships between the visitor, the market, and the newly entrepreneurial museum have brought about a type of “new museum” in which a central goal of management is to achieve the “museum experience”. The role of creative industries in promoting cultural production and consumption often turns “museum visitors” into “museum consumers”—in this “entrepreneurial paradigm (…) museums seek to create new expectations for museum consumers and then fulfil the created desire for information, entertainment, recreation and social interaction” [30] (p. 3). This museum promotes itself as “renowned for being bicultural, scholarly, innovative, and fun” while aiming to provide visitors with “a stimulating, inspiring experience” [30] (p. 5).

Finally, with a focus on cultural festivals, including the Kangaroo Island Art Feast in Australia, and without referring directly to creative tourism, George [31] highlights the importance of regional festivals (of music, food, and art) for community cohesion, regional identity, fiscal viability, and people’s experience of art and culture and reveals how these events contribute to more complex understandings of “place identity”. Narratives about these events produced by residents, artists, and visitors are often heterogeneous (and sometimes conflicting), constructing multiple (and more or less dynamic) versions of rurality. The author argues in favor of the coexistence and coordination of similar festivals taking place in small regions rather than their competition among each other.

Yet another potential direction for creative tourism in this continent, even if not explicitly referred to by Lovelock et al. [32], is the transition from commercial fishers to tourism entrepreneurs providing “wildlife tourism experiences”. This is a growing trend among islanders in the communities of Stewart Island and Chatham Island (New Zealand) in response to the decline of traditional fishing activities.

3.3. North America

In the Americas, all the references to creative tourism found in our review are situated in North America. There is an emphasis on islands under the sovereignty of Canada, particularly the Island of Newfoundland [14], the Magdalene Islands, and Prince Edward Island (on the North Atlantic Coast), Southern Bay Baffin Island and Shediac Bay Island (in the Artic Ocean) [33], and the Lake Ontario island of Prince Edward County [34,35].

In Canada, the National Tourism Marketing Organization (Canadian Tourism Commission) [33] seems to be a key driver institution in disseminating creative tourism initiatives and branding them (as part of a wider national strategy). An example is the publication “Signature Experiences Collection”, focused on selling travel experiences designed and delivered by qualified Canadian tourism businesses and aligned with Canada’s tourism brand, which includes three islands—Southern Bay Baffin Island, Shediac Bay Island, and Prince Edward Island.

Another Canadian example, located in Quebec, the Magdalene Islands archipelago (Îles de la Madeleine), has been certified since 2018 as a Creative Friendly Destination by the Creative Tourism Network. In 2015, the archipelago had already received the prize for Best Creative Tourism Awards Strategy, in recognition of the quality, originality, and innovative nature of an experiential tourism pilot project. This project aimed at new approaches to the development of tourist experiences in arts, crafts, and culinary companies, as well as a detailed planning of all the resources (materials, human, financial, etc.) necessary for these experiences. It involved two museums, a workshop-museum (“économusée”) and an agri-food experience, as well as three arts and crafts workshops. This concept of “économusée” might deserve further exploration within the field of creative tourism. It has been widely encouraged in Canada, particularly in Quebec, and it is basically another word for artisans’ workshops, showcasing their work (know-how and products) in their own workplace/atelier. It combines both an ‘econo’mic and a ‘museo’logic dimension, allowing artisans in fine crafts or agri-food sectors to interact with the general public. Through these workshops/artisans-at-work experiences, the cultural and pedagogical relevance of preserving intangible heritage (by sharing traditional knowledge and craft-making skills) is intertwined with the importance of profitability and efficiency of artisans’ small businesses/enterprises (by means of ‘fee-based guided visits’ and/or by selling their ‘live’-made products on the premises). There is an international network of économusées which both supports and ‘certifies’ the quality and authenticity of their members, while simultaneously promoting them as distinctive tourist offerings (http://economusees.com). The primary focus of creative tourism in the Madeleine Islands lies in the distinctive potential of the destination through innovation, emotional appeal, personal impact, and close contact with the local population. The official website promoting this tourist destination [36] highlights several factors contributing to this recognition and increased competitiveness in the area: the unique culture in this destination, based on strong identity and insular DNA; a highly involved, collaborative, and hospitable population; a vibrant creative atmosphere that encourages the presence of artists and artisans (native or foreign); an inclusive destination management model; and a wide range of creative experiences, including soap creation workshops, pottery classes, blown glass introductory courses, cooking classes, photography workshops, and candle-making workshops, among others.

On the rural island destination of Newfoundland, the French Shore Historical Society (FSHS)—a volunteer-based non-profit institution—intends to preserve, interpret, and protect the cultural resources linked to the historic French Shore while developing new creative tourism products through local craft traditions [14]. Since 2010, a group of fishermen’s wives in the community (assisted by a participatory action researcher) have embroidered a long tapestry that documents the region’s heritage and have been organizing workshops where the local Bayeux stitch technique is taught to tourists/visitors. Other creative activities, available at the French Shore Interpretation Centre (FSIC), include bread making in an original French bread oven, photography, canvas mat making, general art and painting, community guided tours, and archaeological excavations. With regards to this case study, Hull and Sassenberg’s article highlights the need for proper planning and development of creative tourism activities, emphasizing the role of the public sector (namely the Canadian federal and provincial governments) in providing the necessary assistance and funding. This research also brings forth some of the local limitations and issues that need to be taken into consideration in order to improve local creative tourism experiences, such as the need for permanently employed staff; the improvement of road infrastructures; proper workshop/exhibit spaces; appropriate staff training, etc.

Prince Edward County (PEC), in Lake Ontario, is another rural community that has been capitalizing on its unique quality of place (including natural and cultural resources) and investing in the revitalization of local development by means of creative economy and tourism measures [34,35]. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, Stolarick et al. [34] examine Prince Edward County’s development strategy, focused on enhancing the overall economic development and the desirability of the region as a tourist destination by means of creative economy activities, including gastronomy, enology, culture and heritage, and visual arts. The authors contend that along with tourists, creative workers can also be attracted as new permanent residents to locations that provide a heightened sense of quality of place. However, in order to attract new creative class residents to the region, fostering lasting advantages and a more sustainable economic outcome, local development strategies must also focus on other fundamental aspects of “regional quality of life amenities”, such as quality of education, healthcare, and infrastructures within the community [34] (p. 251). On the other hand, Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Institute for Rural Development’s report [35] addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the growth of the region’s knowledge-intensive creative rural economy. For instance, it highlights the importance of training and retaining youth as well as attending to the needs of an ageing population.

In another context, Burke [37] addresses the cultural industries and creative clusters around Carnival in Trinidad and Tobago (in the Caribbean), although not through a creative tourism lens. The author analyses the typology of creative clusters, comparing the advantages and disadvantages between the bottom-up cluster framework, linked to Anglo-Saxon communities, and the top-down cluster framework, typically adopted by the French cultural lineage. By examining the efficacy of creative clusters for Caribbean states, Burke claims that their potential value for SIDS lies on a more “targeted, holistic and manageable approach” to creative sectors, through a “local ecosystem strategy” able to catalyze communities.

We also came across another reference to Cape Breton Island [38]. However, although the article is focused on culinary tourism, referring to “authentic” tourism experiences in the context of a sustainable community approach, the concept of creative tourism, mentioned as such, is absent.

3.4. Europe

In the European continent, there is one overall aspect that stands out—with the exception of the UK (and Scotland, in particular), most references address Southern European island contexts, in countries such as Croatia, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Moreover, all of these islands, sites of creative tourism case studies are subnational jurisdictions (or SNIJs).

One of the earliest references is the island of Crete (Greece), included in Greg Richards’ text on textile-related cultural tourism in peripheral regions [39], along with two other non-island regions (Alto Minho in Portugal, and Lapland in Finland). Crete’s case was part of the EUROTEX project, funded by the Regional Directorate General of the European Commission, with the aim to “stimulate increased purchasing of local textile handicrafts by tourists” in order to boost the economy in disadvantaged areas of Europe [39] (p. 323). Based on a 1998 two-phase questionnaire survey of tourists, this study shows how craft industries in peripheral regions often have to compete with souvenirs, goods, and services imported from other regions.

In Crete, in the mountain village of Anogia, for instance, at one stage, every house had a loom, but these are no longer being used on a large scale today. Recently, some local individual entrepreneurs have begun to develop “experiences” for tourism consumption, including shops with looms in the window where tourists can see cloth being woven [39] (p. 326). However, the problem is that most local shops sell “hand-made” items and “factory-made” cloth side-by-side, without making a clear distinction between the two. Therefore, as Richards notes, unless local production is stimulated (and distinctively marketed), instead of consuming “typical” cultural products of the region they are visiting, tourists end up buying “cheap imports”, which causes “economic leakages and loss of local employment opportunities” [39] (p. 324). This means that if the skills of local textile artists are not capitalized–either by developing high-quality products or by producing new designs using traditional methods—local textile production will end up dying, unable to compete with imported textiles. Hence, the development of mass tourism can paradoxically lead “to the undermining of local production, by sucking in imports” and indirectly cause “rural out-migration” [39] (p. 326).

According to the article, a second phase of surveys of visitors to Crete was carried out in hotels in Rethymnon and at the Monastery of Aghia Irini (“where local young women are trained in textile skills every year”) [39] (p. 329). This research also refers to other stakeholders in Crete involved in the project, such as the largest hotel chain in Greece (Grecotel); local travel agents and foreign tour operators—who promote and organize tours “where visitors get an interactive and living experience that encourages them to purchase the products they see being made”; or the Greek National Tourism Offices, which distribute a (re-edited) brochure on “Textile Routes” in most European capitals, as well as at international exhibitions [39] (pp. 329, 336). It would be interesting to have a more recent account of these developments to see if (and how) they have accompanied evolving trends in the creative tourism field, such as the co-creation dimension.

In Croatia, we came across two very distinct creative tourism case studies, both in the Adriatic Sea. The first one, on Pašman Island—a rural destination close to the mainland—looks at a resort development driven by international consultants (Dream Resorts Factory), with inputs from local residents and policy makers (National Government) [14] (p. 106). According to Hull and Sassenberg, the purpose of the regional masterplan (financed by the government) is to fit Pašman Resort “into the marketing strategy of the country and make it the epitome of the Mediterranean as it once was” by building four “traditional theme-based villages” that provide recreational opportunities and “create authentic and traditional experiences for visitors”. This resort’s creative tourism approach intends to involve visitors in the everyday life of the locals by offering “theme based ‘edutainment’ experiences”, such as to “adopt a piece of land, and ensure its sustainability, together with a Croatian farmer/ranger” (build bird houses, beetle boxes, etc.); “make your own olive oil”; participate in “traditional harvesting” and in a local “festival with traditional Mediterranean folklore and food” [14] (pp. 104–105).

From a different perspective, the second case study on Kvarner Bay Islands (Krk, Cres, Losinj and Rab) is based on a supply-side approach, involving local suppliers of tourism products and experiences and local tourism authorities (through surveys, interviews, and focus groups, followed by situational and scenario analysis) [38]. Aiming to help “reposition Kvarner as a creative tourism destination”, this study proposes the development of a large number of creative tourism activities, including workshops in the fields of gastronomy, art, music, sculpture, entertainment, recreation and sports, and agriculture [40] (p. 512). In this paper, creative tourism is considered a source of development and competitiveness for the Kvarner destination by differentiating and increasing the quality of its tourism offer through innovation and by reducing seasonality [38] (pp. 507, 514). The study also recognizes the importance of linking the creative tourism experiences offered by the different individual “micro-destinations of the Kvarner region” under an integrated approach promoted by an umbrella creative tourism destination/regional brand [40] (pp. 513–514).

In Italy, the case of Sicily is included in two different research articles. Scrofani and Leone’s article [41] combines a literature review with field research based on local creative tourism events. This research addresses both endogenous events, directly emanating from activities and resources rooted in the territory (e.g., the ChocoBarocco di Modica—a gastronomic event based on chocolate made according to traditional techniques, already in its thirteenth edition; the Cous Cous Festival, in San Vito Lo Capo; and the Taormina Film Festival), and exogenous events, generated elsewhere but eventually involving local actors and artists at a later stage (e.g., Ursino Buskers—circus and performative arts festival—in Catania, or the annual International Book Festival (TaoLibri) in Taormina).

The authors conclude that over the years, the repetition of these events has reinforced their “territorial imprinting”, fostering a sense of place that becomes rooted in the collective memory of the inhabitants and tourists. According to the authors, those actors who contribute to the organization and production of each event play a decisive role in the “territorial imprinting” (radicamento del senso del luogo, in the original) of the event and its perception among tourists and, above all, the local population. In the case of endogenous events, locally-based actors are fundamental). At the same time, it also contributes to develop “territorial identity innovation/transformation”, as a more fluid and dynamic concept of place identity emerges, through the continuous modifications of the social, cultural, and economic relations between local communities and external visitors/tourists [41] (p. 131). With regards to the challenges and risks that often accompany these events, the authors note some past problems due to insufficient hotel and accommodation facilities in a small fishing town (during the Cous Cous Festival), which brought changes to the economic basis of the community with the construction of new private buildings to accommodate tourists, as well as the use of local houses for tourism rentals. Moreover, they call attention to the risk of over-emphasizing the promotion and sale of products in eno-gastronomic events with a commercial dimension that overpowers the local culture and arts. Commodification often takes over in these situations, when it is the expression/celebration of local culture/art that should be privileged—along with the (co-)creation of original activities and products and tourist experiences [41].

Using a different methodology—an online survey questionnaire administered to foreign and domestic tourists—Giaccone et al. [42] studied the preferences of tourists in terms of different types of creative experiences in Sicily. The aim of the researchers was to analyze tourists’ preferences toward different typologies of creative tourism in order to create package deals adjusted to demand. The results show tourists’ preferences for mixed packages where there is at least one creative experience.

In the highly-touristed Balearic island of Ibiza, Spain, in 2016, an appeal was launched to the whole community to participate and present projects within the realm of creative tourism, under the motto “Sé creativo, transforma el turismo” (Be creative, transform tourism), through the Ibiza Creativa platform [43], as a mechanism for the development of local creative tourism. However, because there was a great lack of knowledge of the concept on the island, a dissemination plan was developed, along with workshops and informative sessions as well as training sessions and specific support for entrepreneurs. With a strategy based on authenticity, creativity, sustainability, and the premise that it is the local people who bring life to the intangible heritage of the island, this program supported the structuring of experiences and tourism products through specialized consultants who helped improve the quality of the initiative. As a result, Ibiza was distinguished as a Creative Friendly Destination [44]. The island acknowledges the artists who lived (or live) there as a source of inspiration for its creative atmosphere, in addition to capitalizing on its UNESCO-listed heritage and exploring the tradition it already has in some sectors, such as fashion accessories and gastronomy. In addition, it promotes major events that are already international references for experiential tourism (Bloop Festival, Eivissa Jazz, Eivissa Medieval) as well as gastronomic events that explore traditional local cuisine and include the participation of chefs of international renown. There is a great focus on multisensory experiences linked to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle, as well as to multiple activities of contact with tradition and ancestral customs, prizing diversity, eclecticism, and creative dynamics.

With regards to Scotland, there is a reference to creative tourism events taking place on the island of South Uist in Scotland, such as a week-long music school promoted by the Gaelic Arts Agency since 1996 [45,46]. As Richards notes, “events can work in major cities or in the smallest settlements”, and while attention is often focused on their economic effects, “their ability to stimulate cultural and creative development can be just as important”. The objectives of Ceolas include: to provide opportunities for high-quality tuition in the Gaelic arts and a memorable cultural tourism experience; to encourage community celebration of the indigenous Gaelic arts and culture of the area; to raise local awareness of the socio-economic development potential of the arts as well as their educational and cultural value; to promote the Gaelic arts as a unique and vital cornerstone of Scottish cultural identity; and to stimulate community confidence and prompt new ideas and new local developments. As a result, Richards emphasizes how the festival (already beyond its 20th edition) has “increased pride in local culture among residents and raised social cohesion”. The Ceolas week-long program includes a wide range of social events (such as house ceilidhs), concerts, and activities and attracts around 2000 and 3500 participants each year, almost as many as the total population of the island (4000), filling all the available beds in South Uist. Participants include tutors from Cape Breton, in Canada, and many other members of the Gaelic diaspora [46].

Further research on Scotland’s creative island economy addresses design innovation in the textiles sector of the Shetland archipelago [47]. McHattie et al. point out the cultural significance and value of the textiles sector beyond its economic contribution, namely through its articulation with tourism [47] (p. 41). However, the paper makes no explicit reference to creative tourism.

In Portugal, in the context of creative tourism approaches to wind mills, including networks and festivals—bridging natural and cultural, as well as tangible and intangible, heritage (such as local narratives and millers’ biographies)—there is a brief mention of the Arrochela’s Mill, on the island of Graciosa (in the Archipelago of the Azores), which was adapted to Rural Tourism and is used for the accommodation of tourists [48]. Another case worth mentioning is the Frade Mill (Monk’s Mill) on Pico Island, which is now the property of the Regional Government of the Azores and is part of the Protected Landscape for Vineyard Cultivation, classified as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 2004 [48].

These are examples of how creative tourism, particularly in rural island contexts, can productively integrate both material and immaterial heritage manifestations as well as more holistic place-based and cultural landscape approaches—in which quality (rather than quantity), sensorial aspects, and environmental sustainability are also taken into account [48] (p. 21). Contributing to a broader understanding of the subjectivities that involve creative tourism, Cardoso de Mello contends that more than the consumption of the landscape, the lodging, and the diverse attractions, it is the “exchange of affections” between tourists and residents that favors the appreciation of the region [48] (p. 21). She also emphasizes how in this case study, communities themselves are taking the lead in creative tourism management in their territories. As a result, the solidarity network that is established between mills, along with their use for the collective benefit of all, strengthens the local creative and sustainable economy.

Although without specifically addressing creative tourism, other authors also highlight similar holistic perspectives in other island contexts and (natural and cultural) landscapes, bearing in mind both tangible and intangible heritage and local communities, namely through ecomuseums (e.g., on the Island of Skye, Scotland [49]; or on the North Aegean island of Lesvos [50]). Pavlis [50] (p. 135), for instance, emphasizes the potential of ecomuseums as “laboratories of sustainable development”, “aimed at local communities and managed by them, aiming at the interpretation, protection, utilization, and promotion of natural and cultural assets of a place, and at the economic revival of marginal regions through the combined development of small-scale tourism, local manufacturing, and primary production sectors”.

An additional reference to Malta (the archipelago which is also an SIDS) is briefly addressed in the OECD report [4] (p. 56), given the island state’s “attempt to measure the economic contribution of tourism to the creative economy”, included in its “creative industries strategy”. The research on Malta “was based on establishing the expenditure on different elements of culture and creativity by residents and tourists” (idem).

3.5. Asia

In one of the world’s most densely populated areas, the majority of creative tourism approaches on Asian islands seem to follow the overall trend in this continent—with most creative tourism developments “undertaken in a relatively top-down fashion” [46], and mainly in urban contexts (e.g., creative districts/creative clusters/industries). However, a few bottom-up (community-based) initiatives, as well as some creative tourism initiatives in rural contexts, have also been identified (e.g., in Thailand and Indonesia).

In this review, we provide a brief account of the key features of creative tourism on Asian islands, organized by country. These include SIDS (such as Singapore or Timor-Leste) and island states (e.g., Taiwan) as well as multiple subnational island jurisdictions (SNIJs) in Thailand (Phuket, Koh Samed, and Koh Chang Islands); Malaysia (Penang); Cambodia (Koh Trong and Koh Pdao); Indonesia (Lesser Sunda Islands, Bali); China (e.g., Macau); Japan (Hokkaido and Setouchi Islands); and Iran (Kish).

In Taiwan, which is referred to most often, creative tourism is explicitly mentioned in all references. In terms of content, most of these studies foreground tourists’ perspectives on creative experiences taking place in urban areas (including formerly derelict places and regenerated areas). Based on a face-to-face questionnaire survey, Lee [51] examined the relationship between creative experiences (in painting handmade oriental parasol umbrellas in Meinong) and the revisit intentions of tourists. The results indicate that visitors who experience a higher “sense of achievement”, “unique learning”, and “interaction with instructors” in their creative activities are more likely to visit the place again. The study also suggests that “there is a need for future research to construct a creative tourism experience and behaviour model in creative tourism” [51] (p. 2929).

Chen and Chou’s study [52], also based on a questionnaire survey, is focused on the tourism experiences sought by Generation Y visitors (born between 1977 and 1994) at the Taiwan Pier-2 Art Center, a creativity quarter for design and contemporary art developed in an abandoned dockside warehouse in the southern port city of Kaohsiung. The article explores possible answers to questions such as what do these tourists want, what do they perceive, and what do they enjoy in the context of creative tourism. The authors suggest that the concept of “perceived coolness” (related to the “hedonic facets of experience, such as a pleasurable lifestyle and fun instead of utilitarian facets”) is at the core of any tourist experience for this cohort, which is also concerned about co-creation involving visitor interaction with others. In this approach to creative tourism, there is an emphasis on the consumption process “through images, identity, lifestyles, atmosphere, narratives, creativity, and media” for tourists to experience [52] (p. 126).

Further research with a focus on the tourist’s perspectives (a demand approach) on creative experiences in Taiwan, but through qualitative-based approaches, is found in two other articles [53,54]. The first study [53] develops a model to better understand what makes creative tourism creative in the eyes of the tourists, through in-depth interviews with tourists and observations at four “Creative Life Industry” businesses, including a leisure farm, a story house where children can listen to stories, a pottery-making museum, and a wooden furniture museum, both with workshops. This paper innovates by highlighting the importance of the “consciousness/awareness” of creative tourists that differentiates them from other tourists seeking other types of experiences, and by focusing on everyday creativity, including the experiential and existential dimensions of creativity. The study identifies four types of consciousness/awareness that play an important role in creative experiences, namely self-, social-, cultural-, and environmental-related consciousness/awareness [53] (pp. 168, 165–166).

Further addressing “Creative Life Industry” sites in Taiwan, the second study [54] explores the interactions of creative tourists with their surrounding socio-material factors, using Q-methodology and in-depth interviews. The aim of the authors is to uncover which factors are most important for tourists when participating in creative activities. The authors contend that creativity is generated through the interactions of tourists with the tutor, the activity, or the environment—aspects which are usually understudied. As a result, they identify three types of tourists: (1) “relaxers”—who put a great emphasis on the environment/local culture and seek to relax and have fun; (2) “sensation-seekers”—who pursue experiential feelings and place emphasis on tutor-related issues; and (3) “existential-type” tourists—who are always looking for new and interesting activities and who place an emphasis on the characteristics of the activity and what they gain from it in terms of their own knowledge and creative development [54] (pp. 983–985).

Still in Taiwan, Wu et al. (2017) [55], through a literature review and a few semi-structured interviews conducted in the neighborhood around Zhengxing Street, discuss the variation within communities and the processes induced by specific forms of creative tourism and creative class attraction. Finally, there is also a report on Taiwan’s Creative Hubs [56], more focused on mapping creative cultural industries and offering suggestions on their future improvement. In this report, five different types of creative hubs are identified and described: lifestyle-oriented; arts-based; knowledge-based; brand-forward; and imaginative power. Ten representative cases across the country are covered, including creative street blocks, art villages, maker spaces, incubators, and cultural and creative parks. Their operating entities (governmental, semi-governmental, private companies, and non-government organizations), as well as their locations (Taiwan’s North/Central/South/East), are also taken into account [56] (pp. 5, 8).

In the context of Bali, Indonesia, Blapp and Mitas’ study [57] on creative tourism is focused on community-based tourism in rural areas, driven by Community-Based Tourism Association Bali (CoBTA), a non-profit and non-governmental organization, through a literature review and a micro-ethnographic approach involving participant observations and expert interviews. This paper, which examines current offers and the future potential of creative tourism in five Balinese villages, identifies both benefits (such as the diversification of the destination offer) and risks (such as the serial reproduction of creative experiences or the commodification of everyday life). Local creative tourism activities include 3-h cooking classes; 5-h “Bali Daily Life Tours”, including the coconut oil process and the Balinese lunch; workshops for woodcarvers; the dance and Gamelan practices of local groups; or rice-field trekking, including farming activities, among others. The authors draw attention to some barriers found in these creative tourism activities, such as the initial shyness or reluctancy of locals (in their interaction with tourists); language barriers; limitations to sharing everyday life, namely privacy, gender roles, and traditions; purely commercial interactions, which may be meaningful for locals but not seen as meaningful to tourists; or unawareness of the creative tourism concept by tourism committee members in the villages.

In another article, these authors argue that in order to develop creative tourism in rural areas and prevent commodification, the concept of authenticity must be critically considered. Going through the literature on creative and community-based tourism, they analyze how different theories of authenticity (objective, constructive, and existential authenticity) have been applied and propose a theory of authenticity applicable to creative tourism development in rural areas [58] (p. 29). According to this perspective, the everyday life of locals in back regions is seen as authentic, but this authenticity is changeable, as it incorporates local cultural change over time (including tourism-induced change). Thus, these authors claim that it may be more useful to speak of authenticities, varying according to regional, temporal, and cultural contexts, and ontological positions. For instance, the meaning of authenticity may differ between locals and tourists, as well as among tourists [58] (pp. 37–38).

From another perspective (that of the travel provider Wanderlust Indonesia), Indah and Hanifa [59] present a case that bridges creative tourism with responsible travel in its tour packages. Sutawa’s [60] case study of Bali’s Village Tourism highlights the role of community empowerment in fostering sustainable development and in reacting to the pressure and negative impact of tourism on local culture. However, this paper makes no direct mention of creative tourism, despite the curious fact that in Indonesia (which has Bali as its leading destination), the “Ministry of Tourism and Culture” recently became the “Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy” [60] (p. 419). Another case study of three Balinese communities [61] puts an emphasis on the impact of tourism-driven development on the well-being of local artists, but also without any reference to the concept of creative tourism.

The references to island creative tourism in Thailand found in our literature review address the following locations: Phuket (in the Andaman Sea) and Koh Samed and Koh Chang Islands (in the Gulf of Thailand). The Panitcharernkit paper [62] intends to assess cultural tourism resources in the Sino-Portuguese historical areas of Phuket in order to study their management and contribute to further develop creative tourism with a sustainable basis there. Through a mixed-method approach (including in-depth interviews and a survey questionnaire), this study underlines the importance of creative tourism in promoting this location and its historical buildings while proposing several culturally-based creative tourism activities involving both tourists and locals (such as homestays in historical buildings or cooking classes offered to tourists by locals). However, the paper also identifies, as a local limitation, the need to “convince” current residents (namely migrants) in the area to cooperate in the process of sustainable tourism development, namely by opening up the buildings where they live to offer creative tourism experiences [62] (p. 308).

The Sungsuwan approach to creative tourism in Koh Samed (2018), in the Rayong region, brings up the sustainability issue by looking for alternatives to diversify and restore tourism attractions in the area. Local creative tourism activities include interaction with monks and alms offering at the beach; catching baby squid using the local technique and cooking them with a traditional local recipe; local-way-of-life tours in tri-wheel trucks; Dhama talk and basic meditation, among others [63] (pp. 110–111). This study involved a mixed-method methodology (combining in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and a survey questionnaire with tourists—although the sample size, as well as the date of implementation are not specified). The results highlight how creative tourism is seen as an important source of innovation and added value but also identify important local limitations, such as the local policies, accidents and incidents, and the tourist’s perception of the island as being only a beach destination. An inconsistent policy of the public and private sectors is also seen as a barrier to the development of sustainable creative tourism.

Similarly, Saiphan et al. [64], using materials from field studies, present further examples of creative and responsible community-based tourism activities in the context of the “Creative Tourism Thailand” project, launched by the Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (DASTA), which include Koh Chang Island and related areas (part of the Mu Ko Chang Marine National Park). The methodology implies two main research steps, namely the development of a creative tourism model for each of the designated areas of DASTA as well as the development of a creative tourism network. In the Koh Chang Islands, this study proposes the development of two creative tourism activities—fishing using traditional tools and a gastronomy experience based on the local dish “Kanom Ya Na”—as a driver of sustainability and a tool to develop tourism. However, it does not give any detailed description about the specific experiences and participation of tourists. The conclusions are that Koh Chang Island and the remaining designated areas have a great potential to develop creative tourism based on local culture, people, and lifestyles. The study also provides the following recommendations: (a) Attract appropriate investment and do marketing to promote creative tourism in each area; (b) promote community participation in creative tourism experiences as a key to sustainable tourism; and (c) promote sustainable tourism through types of creative tourism that meet the needs and preferences of new generations.

With regards to Cambodia, Channara et al. [65] investigate the characteristics and behaviors of creative tourists and provide policy guidelines for further development of creative tourism activities in Koh Trong and Koh Pdao (river islands in the Mekong). By using a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach (with a survey questionnaire, focus groups, in-depth interviews, and SWOT analysis), the study concludes that the keys to successful creative tourism are building quality of life, having long-term vision, developing an identity as well as an image, collaborating with the stakeholders, and using public space to host creative events. Recommended policies are as follows: (1) create new creative tourism activities; (2) marketing and public development; (3) community’s capacity building (communication skills and knowledge improvement); (4) improving local services and amenities; and (5) optional policy—product and activities innovation. This research approach to creative tourism is linked to community-based tourism (CBT), in line with The Ministry of Tourism of Cambodia guidelines.

The case of Japan’s Setouchi Islands (Naoshima, Teshima, Inujima, etc., located in the Seto Inland Sea) is already well-known in creative tourism literature [4], with a focus on creative placemaking through arts. In an island context with a declining (and ageing) population and an industrial past, the Setouchi Triennale was launched (and financially supported by the Fukutake Foundation) with the vision of turning Naoshima into a world-class island based on nature and culture, synergizing it with contemporary art to attract visitors for community revitalization. The Benesse Art Site Naoshima and the Setouchi International Art Festival provide lessons about collaboration between the creative industry and the tourism sector, demonstrating how contemporary art projects have changed the image of these islands to “islands of art” and created added value for tourism.

Local limitations had to be faced and surpassed, however. For instance, the promotion of citizen participation was indispensable, since the contemporary art museum and exhibitions were initially not well-received by the ageing population of the island, for whom art and tourism had no relationship with their daily life. Moreover, since the local government faced financial challenges, strengthening the relationship with private patronage was indispensable for building and running the art museum and commissioning artworks. Cooperation among communities and non-profit organizations was also key to engage and revitalize the community and to help bridge local age and cultural gaps [4] (pp. 132–133).

While the OECD study is based on secondary data, further research [66] involving participant observation and mixed-method fieldwork is rather focused on the perspective of the target community. This article addresses the true impact of art festivals, such as the Setouchi International Art Festival (SIAF), on low-density island communities, despite the success that this type of event may have in terms of audience participation and media promotion. The author argues that the SIAF is in danger of becoming merely an exercise in tourism-focused place branding, with shallow roots that do not intersect with community foundations. He suggests that there must be an inter- and cross-cultural connection between local residents and artists in a way that the result of the interventions embodies local culture and place, through more “relational” and “socially engaged art”. Qu [66] (p. 35) also calls for “further reflection and debate” to find out whether the problem lies in a “disconnection with the local reality”, or in the “conceptual model of the site-specific art festivals”.

In the case of the island of Hokkaido (Sea of Japan), a popular tourist destination, Bellow and Casalegno [67] call attention to the transformative potential of creative tourism, particularly in addressing indigenous happiness and well-being (of the Ainu people), by facing (and contributing to solve) current power imbalances between the Ainu and non-indigenous members of the community (Japanese majority). Through the lens of stakeholder theory, the authors contend that when thinking about local territory value creation, these issues shall be taken into account and suggest that creative tourism can provide new (and more balanced/inclusive and eco-oriented) value creation models [67] (p. 124). In their view, the most vulnerable populations shall be allowed to also play a key role in local tourism.

China is briefly considered in the study of Macau’s Albergue Art Space, in terms of its creative tourists’ motivational determinates, through a review of the literature and a survey questionnaire [68]. The findings reveal that the local heritage, the quality of service, and the participatory experience play a crucial role in the construction of creative tourism. Based on another survey study of tourists, this time to the historic center of Macau, Suntikul and Jachna [69] propose an extension of the concept of co-creation of tourism experiences so that it includes the actual physical tourism site, not merely as the setting of a service relation, but as a fundamental dimension of the tourism experience.

In the case of Singapore, a busy, densely populated, wealthy island state, all references found in our review of the literature tend to be focused on the development of creative industries [70,71] or on arts and creative placemaking [72] rather than on creative tourism per se. According to Ooi, the Singaporean government has been “pushing for the creative turn” for some years, with the goal of enlivening the cultural life of the city and presenting a more creative (and positive and trendy) image of Singapore (formerly perceived as a sterile “cultural desert”) [70] (pp. 241, 246). Therefore, the government (namely the National Arts Council) has been trying to create “sophisticated demand” for the arts, to secure as many “strategic events” as possible (by hosting international conferences, exhibitions, and events in the various creative industries), and to develop “creative towns” (where arts, culture, design, business, and technology are integrated within community planning and revitalization efforts) [70] (p. 244). Tourism (although not specifically creative tourism) plays a particularly important role in this new creative economy, according to an OECD report, the input–output analysis of the creative industries in Singapore showed that the tourism industry derived 2.4% of its inputs from the creative industries, and from hotels and restaurants almost 3% [4] (p. 56). Ooi [70] (p. 250) notes that local authorities want to signal to the world that Singapore has become “more open and tolerant”, despite the prevailing micro-management of creative expressions by the “soft authoritarian” regime (as well as the criminalization of homosexuality), “that may not bode well for cultivating a creative climate”.

Still in relation to Singapore, Ho [71] examines how the creative economy is closely tied to particular types of urban environment and how, in this wealthy island state, the policy to grow the creative industry has mainly focused on building infrastructure, manpower, and alliances. Trivic et al. [72], in their turn, investigate the impact of community arts and culture events on five local housing neighborhoods and their communities, emphasizing their potential to generate positive spatial, social, and participation results and build a stronger neighborhood arts ecology.

In Asia, furthermore, creative industries are also taking the leading role in island contexts in Malaysia—in the city of George Town, in Penang, as described in Khoo et al. [73]—and in Iran (case of the island of Kish), analyzed in Lafzi and Goede [74].

Finally, from the perspective of a creative periphery, Weaver [75] addresses the under-developed tourism of Timor-Leste as an opportunity to “build ‘from scratch’” an innovative and sustainable tourism sector that can become an example for other peripheral islands or to help recalibrate tourism in more-developed destinations. This article is based on the increasingly accepted premise of “peripherality as opportunity and strength” rather than just as threat and weakness.

4. Key Findings

This worldwide panorama allows us to highlight some overall trends and relevant issues in creative tourism in islands. To begin with, being an island, per se, does not seem to determine the type of creative tourism strategies that are chosen and developed. Instead, in different island contexts, creative tourism approaches seem to depend more on the geographic location of each island, generally reflecting the trends that prevail in the country and continent to which they belong.

The particularities and consequences of peripherality are seldom mentioned and are often related to the challenges that many non-island rural communities already face: the need for a stronger economy [34,39,50]; the issues raised by demographic realities (an ageing population and the need to retain youth/attract new residents) [35]; the interest in fostering local capacity building [14,60,65]; the need to improve local amenities/infrastructures [14,65]; the relevance of regional cooperation and/or regional destination frameworks [40].

When analyzing the diversity of creative tourism approaches in islands, a key distinction emerges between urban and rural contexts. Even if there is no single definition applicable to all national/regional contexts, the distinction between the urban and the rural tends to rest on the populational density and size of the locality and is usually also based on the assumption that urban areas provide a different way of life and a higher standard of living than are found in rural areas. An additional criterion that may be useful in setting this distinction is, among others, the percentage of the economically active population employed in agriculture [76]. As Bakas et al. [77] (p. 12) have argued, there is a need to consider “the countryside” or the “rural” as a place where the manifestation and articulation of a creative economy differ from the usual “creative script” based on cities. Still, as these authors note, contemporary perceptions of the “rural” are changing and complexifying, given the increased interconnectivity and different kinds of flows between places brought on by the dynamics of globalization. Our review of the literature on creative tourism in islands seems to confirm this idea. Dependent on whether an island area is predominantly urban or rural, there are distinct ways in which creative tourism tends to develop.

Urban creative tourism is usually more related to creative industry approaches (creative hubs/clusters/cities/districts), destination-based experiences and networks, placemaking (which is “the intentional creation of a sense of place for commercial purposes”, usually led by destination marketing organizations) [22] (p. 109) and creative spaces and/or events (including mass market initiatives). In urban island contexts, creative tourism often assumes these more passive dimensions (more “passive” learning orientations or modes of experiencing/consuming) [9] (p. 258), and co-creation, if present, is mostly technology-based (e.g., interactive websites, mobile phone apps and virtual environments [78]). Such is the trend in most Asian and European case studies (e.g., in Singapore, Taiwan, or Japan’s Setouchi Islands, or in Ibiza, Malta, or Sicily), as well as in some Australian [29,30] and North American contexts [37], particularly in island locations that are more touristic.

In several recent studies, there has been a thematic focus on the perspectives of creative tourists (a demand-side approach), particularly in Asia—with an emphasis on Taiwan [51,52,53,54], Thailand [63], Cambodia [65], or Macau, in China [68,69]—but also in other regional contexts, such as Sicily, in Europe [42]. Most of these studies use quantitative methods, namely survey questionnaires with tourists.

Expected benefits from creative tourism in urban island contexts are mainly linked to fostering economic growth, innovation and value addition, urban revitalization, and place branding [4,29,63,70]. Its purposes often include diversifying the attractions available and attracting visitors to less touristic places (pulling them away from already overvisited sites), while also stimulating, and sometimes showcasing, urban regeneration processes (namely in derelict neighborhoods, post-industrial fringes, etc.) [51,52]. As to potential risks, these often relate to increased gentrification [4,55], the homogenization of creative tourism experiences [18,61], or over-commercialization, all of which may eventually lead to the loss of the creative atmosphere that attracted creative producers and visitors in the first place [4] (p. 84).

In rural island locations, on the other hand, creative tourism approaches tend to be focused on creative skill development and more community-based/oriented and usually involve co-presence of and active co-creation between visitors and locals (e.g., hands-on activities, workshops, and/or smaller-scale events), as well as place-making strategies [22] (pp. 112–113). It is important to notice that here we are taking into account the distinction between “placemaking” and “place-making”, as set in the 2019 Annual Report on Global Islands—in which, for instance, the single word spelling “placemaking” reflects a more top-down approach (widely used by urban planners and urban designers), while the spelling “place-making” is assigned to a bottom-up approach (driven instead by insiders, local individuals, or groups in the community) (idem). Indeed, most case studies in rural (and usually less touristic) island contexts, in all continents, point toward these approaches [14,25,28,34,49,57,64,75].

Island rurality, furthermore, seems to bring out a different set of concerns in creative tourism development, namely addressing issues of authenticity (or authenticities) [14,57,58], quality of place [34], place identity/sense of place [31,41], community participation [64], and capacity building/community empowerment [14,35,39,60,65]. Intended benefits from creative tourism for rural island communities include economic strengthening/revival [34,35,39,48]; higher destination differentiation/competitiveness [14,33,35,40,57]; fostered community cohesion [31,46,48]; increased pride in local culture among residents [14,46,47]; and reduced seasonality [14,40].

In terms of potential risks, the following are most mentioned: commodification of culture and everyday life [41,57,58], changes in the economic basis of communities [41], and serial reproduction of creative activities [57]. In several cases, rural (or community-based) creative tourism is also associated with other specific kinds of tourism, such as “solidary tourism" [25]; “responsible tourism” [25,59,64]; “agritourism” [26]; and “ecotourism” [25,67]. We believe that these wider connections could be further explored, expanding the current potential of creative tourism. In some specific case studies, this may require exploring further works in related fields, eventually going beyond the references that specifically address island contexts. For instance, if a rural island community is engaged in developing a creative tourism approach related to agricultural practices, its stakeholders may benefit from insights found in the adjacent field of agritourism—in which some recent innovations converge with creative and experiential tourism trends (e.g., by fostering interaction between hosts and guests through creative activities that help promote local products and artisan arts and crafts) [79,80]. This is just one example among many other possible concepts or connections (with ecotourism, religious tourism, slow tourism, etc.) also worth investigating.

A relevant aspect that emerges in multiple rural creative tourism approaches is the need for proper planning and development of creative tourism activities [14], which often requires more integrated approaches in articulation with broader local and regional development strategies [34,35,40]. In addition, some authors suggest that creative tourism, particularly in rural contexts, can productively integrate both material and immaterial heritage, through more holistic, place-based, and/or cultural landscape approaches [7,37,48]. In this line of thought, the role of economusées (as in the Magdalene Islands), ecomuseums (already mentioned in this paper) [49,50], as well as other local/community museums or relevant rural landscape elements—such as mills [48]—might deserve further attention in the development of creative tourism on islands.

In fact, since the focus of creative tourism has been increasingly turning to intangible cultural resources [4] (p. 51) and [7,10], a “step back” might be necessary, particularly in rural locations. Drawing on several examples addressed in this literature review, we firmly believe that rural creative tourism agents, particularly in island contexts, should (re)consider not only the connections between material and immaterial cultural dimensions but also how these interconnect with natural heritage places. While rural heritage has been, until very recently, “defined in very narrow terms”—that is considering only “buildings associated with agricultural activity”, and particularly with “minor rural heritage”, such as “wash-houses, mills or chapels”—new approaches are now emerging, which “include all the tangible and intangible elements that demonstrate the particular relationship that a given human community has established with a territory over time” [81] (p. 8). From this perspective, the concept of cultural landscapes, defined in UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention terms as cultural properties which represent “combined works of nature and of man” and are “illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal”, can be of particular interest as it bridges natural and cultural (tangible and intangible) heritage frameworks while shaping more holistic and sustainable rural creative tourism approaches [82] (p. 20).

Given the diversity of island contexts and creative tourism approaches in different geographical areas across the globe (as described in Section 2 and Section 3 of this paper), it is difficult to highlight good creative tourism practices that would suit all places. Instead, we rather suggest that creative tourism approaches shall be tailored according to the specificities of each local context (according to the stakeholders, amenities, resources, capabilities, limitations, and expectations of each place). A good practice that emerges as transversally relevant, if any, is perhaps that of an active (and inclusive) engagement of a wide set of local actors in the envisioning and collective development of the creative tourism approaches in each community. We hope to develop this issue further in future publications.

5. Final Considerations

In many island contexts (both urban and rural), the aim is to promote creative tourism in order to foster sustainable growth. However, a critical overview of the literature reveals that most of the time, creative tourism developments are focused on the economic sustainability of places, without paying equal attention to their social, cultural, and environmental sustainability. The concept of sustainability, in many of the papers, seems to be used still as some sort of ‘buzz’ word, lacking multi-dimensionality and long-term perspectives. In our view, only by becoming more sustainable in all these dimensions—economic, cultural, social, and environmental—can creative tourism be at the forefront of a cultural tourism that addresses current worldwide challenges.

This is even more relevant in peripheral and rural island contexts, which tend to be more vulnerable to economic, social, cultural and environmental problems/pressures. Nevertheless, peripherality can also be understood as both a strength and an opportunity, a chance to do things differently and better. As Scheyvens and Momsen [83] (pp. 491–492, 505–506) have argued, the potential of islands (particularly small islands/island states) “to chart their own paths in the global economy and provide self-determined futures for their people”, to set their own political, environmental, economic, social, cultural, and well-being agendas, and foster alternative mindsets should not be overlooked and cannot be overstated.

Indeed, the capacity to alter and adapt perspectives has become increasingly crucial in today’s world, and certainly in the tourism sector, given the enormous vulnerabilities and challenges that the sector is and will be facing as it grapples with the current COVID-19 pandemic situation. Perhaps it is still too early to say, but within the context of this new reality, peripherality, including many small island destinations, will most likely play an increasingly important role in sustainable tourism.

In sum, and in light of the CREATOUR AZORES Project, we would like to conclude by pointing out that creative tourism strengthens the competitive potential of small island tourist destinations, especially nature tourism destinations with fragile ecosystems. Indeed, while the natural resources of small islands become depleted when their natural capacity for regeneration is subjected to unsustainable tourism development, creativity is an inexhaustible, free resource that is the basis of this type of tourism experience. As such, creative tourism is naturally and readily available (1) to add worth and relevance to the value chain of cultural tourist experiences; (2) to satisfy the growing demand for fulfilling and memorable participatory experiences; (3) to expand, diversify, and enrich nature-based tourist experiences in combination with new technologies, such as virtual reality; (4) to diminish the negative effects of the current COVID-19 pandemic by attracting tourists for longer stays, especially during the ever-challenging low season; and (5) to differentiate a tourist destination from its competitors by increasing its competitiveness and stimulating the economy through both sustainable development and place-making, as well as networking and knowledge sharing between the local population and visiting creative tourists. As has been observed, creativity is not an end in itself but a means of developing differentiation, economic diversification, and authenticity [84].

Finally, in order to enhance the contribution of small-scale, community-based creative tourism to sustainable development on small islands that is based on economic, social, cultural, and environmental sustainability, it is essential to expand research in this area and to promote the dynamic exchange of ideas and strategies among creative tourism projects in such territories. Furthermore, to gain scale, it is also important to identify and promote benchmark case studies within an integrated, dynamic digital platform. As such, the multidisciplinary research team of the CREATOUR AZORES Project launches its work on behalf of the above-mentioned goals by publishing this literature review. In this context, we found no reference to the recent COVID-19 pandemic in the scientific publications on creative tourism that were consulted, evidencing the need for research in this area.