Technological development within tourism has enabled a change in consumer behavior, led to the emergence of new actors entering the sector along with widespread digitalization (Boksberger & Laesser, 2009; Laesser et al., 2009; Koukopoulos & Styliaras, 2013; Kubiak, 2014; Wernz et al., 2014). This, in turn, has resulted in new ways of designing businesses (Burger & Fuchs, 2005; d’Angella et al., 2010; Zach & Racherla, 2011; Zach, 2012; Krizaj et al., 2014). Beritelli and Schegg (2016), for instance, describe online booking systems, Yu (2016) points at e-tourism, Scheepens et al. (2016) refer to sustainability initiatives, and De Carlos et al. (2016) indicate how online booking systems introduce new actors in the tourism sector, as do Kathan et al. (2016), and Forgacs and Dimanche (2016) in relation to platform-based businesses. These new business designs reflect some ongoing changes to business models in the sector (Osterwalder et al., 2005; Zott et al., 2011) and suggest the possibility of structuring different ways to operate within tourism. A business model can be defined as a system of interdependent activities of a firm, its business partners, and the mechanisms that link these activities (Zott & Amit, 2010). In short, it is the way a firm operates its business. The increased variety of business model designs in the tourism sector (Martins et al., 2015) draws attention to how various business models may fit in different situations and for different purposes (Zott & Amit, 2013). Through configuration theory, it is possible to conceptually identify archetypes, or in other words, wellperforming business model configurations. The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop a business model typology in the tourism sector. The theoretical basis for deriving a typology of business models (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010) draws on a configuration approach, which takes into account contingency factors of digitalization as well as company location. In tourism research, the location of a firm is a central theme that focuses on topics such as accessibility and attractiveness of destinations (Henderson, 2006). The location as an external factor is thereby stressed more extensively for business models in tourism than in many other sectors. Digitalization has been shown to change the way tourism operates, including intermediation and peer-topeer (P2P) sharing. Gardiner and Scott (2018), for instance, discuss how digital innovation in tourism has changed the ways companies conduct their business. This paper aims to conceptually develop a business model typology in tourism. It focuses on digitalization and destination location as important contextual factors when developing the typology. The paper builds on prior research on business models and tourism research by adopting configuration theory to create a typology of business models in tourism businesses. Four business model archetypes are identified: (1) bricks and mortar business models, (2) digitalized destinations, (3) create-a-destination, and (4) intermediary business models. The typology contributes to the literature by identifying different types of business models in the tourism sector. The typology also helps to ground the business model concept theoretically, something that has been considered as missing in previous business model research. A Conceptual Development of a Business Model Typology in Tourism: the impact of digitalization and location Gabriel Linton and Christina Öberg

中文翻译：

---

旅游业商业模式类型的概念发展：数字化和位置的影响

旅游业中的技术发展改变了消费者行为，导致新参与者的出现以及广泛的数字化（Boksberger & Laesser，2009；Laesser 等，2009；Koukopoulos & Styliaras，2013；Kubiak，2014； Wernz 等人，2014 年）。这反过来又催生了设计企业的新方法（Burger & Fuchs，2005；d'Angella 等，2010；Zach & Racherla，2011；Zach，2012；Krizaj 等，2014）。例如，Beritelli 和 Schegg（2016 年）描述了在线预订系统，Yu（2016 年）指出电子旅游，Scheepens 等人。（2016 年）指的是可持续发展举措，De Carlos 等人。（2016 年）表明在线预订系统如何在旅游业中引入新的参与者，Kathan 等人也是如此。（2016 年）以及 Forgacs 和 Dimanche（2016 年）关于基于平台的业务。这些新的商业设计反映了该行业商业模式的一些持续变化（Osterwalder 等人，2005 年；Zott 等人，2011 年），并提出了在旅游业内构建不同运营方式的可能性。商业模式可以定义为一个公司、其商业伙伴的相互依存活动的系统，以及将这些活动联系起来的机制（Zott & Amit，2010 年）。简而言之，这是一家公司经营业务的方式。旅游业中商业模式设计的多样化（Martins 等，2015）引起了人们对各种商业模式如何适应不同情况和不同目的的关注（Zott & Amit，2013）。通过配置理论，可以在概念上识别原型，或者换句话说，可以识别性能良好的业务模型配置。本文的目的是从概念上发展旅游业的商业模式类型。推导出商业模式类型学的理论基础（Baden-Fuller & Morgan，2010）借鉴了一种配置方法，该方法考虑了数字化的偶然因素以及公司位置。在旅游研究中，公司的位置是一个中心主题，重点关注目的地的可达性和吸引力等主题（Henderson，2006 年）。因此，与许多其他部门相比，旅游业的商业模式更广泛地强调了作为外部因素的位置。数字化已被证明可以改变旅游业的运营方式，包括中介和点对点 (P2P) 共享。例如，Gardiner 和 Scott (2018)，讨论旅游业的数字创新如何改变公司开展业务的方式。本文旨在从概念上发展旅游业的商业模式类型。在开发类型学时，它将数字化和目的地位置作为重要的背景因素。本文以先前对商业模式和旅游研究的研究为基础，采用配置理论来创建旅游企业的商业模式类型。确定了四种商业模式原型：(1) 实体商业模式，(2) 数字化目的地，(3) 创建目的地，以及 (4) 中介商业模式。类型学通过确定旅游部门不同类型的商业模式为文献做出贡献。类型学还有助于在理论上奠定商业模式概念的基础，在以前的商业模式研究中被认为缺少的东西。旅游业商业模式类型的概念发展：数字化和位置的影响 Gabriel Linton 和 Christina Öberg