二、 請閱讀以下文章，並回答問題： ※請以中文作答 Weidenfeld, A, Williams, A. & Butler, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer and innovation among attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 604-626.

Abstract:This study examines knowledge transfers amongst attractions in Cornwall, England, paying attention to the significance of spatial clustering and product similarity. It is based on in-depth interviews with tourist attraction managers and key informants in two contrasting
spatial clusters. The findings demonstrate that spatial proximity, product similarity and market similarity generally facilitate knowledge transfers and innovation spillovers, at the local and the
regional scales. They also show that the influences of product similarity and spatial proximity are closely related, although this is scale specific. The paper makes a contribution to the literature by studying knowledge transfer and innovations in the relatively neglected attractions sector, exploring the sources, mechanisms, and outcomes of knowledge transfer, and providing insights into the complexities of product similarity and spatial proximity/clustering.

INTRODUCTION

　Knowledge transfer is vital to innovation, and for competitiveness. This is increasingly recognised in research in hospitality, but less so in other tourism sectors (Claver-Corte´s, Molina-Azorı´n, &Pereira-Moliner, 2006; Hallin & Marnburg, 2008; Jacob, Tintore,Guilo, Bravo, & Julet, 2003; Orfila-Sintes, Crespi-Cladera, & Martinezl-Ros, 2005; Siguaw, Enz, & Namasivayam, 2000; Yang,2007). There is an emerging literature but much it is conceptual
rather than empirical (Brackenbury, 2006;Cooper,2006; Decelle, 2006; Hjalager, 2002; Keller, 2006, 2006a; Nordin & Svensson, 2005; Poon, 1993; Scheidegger, 2006; Weiermair, 2006).
Specifically, there is little evidence about whether tacit knowledge transfer is facilitated by conditions of spatial proximity or product similarity, and the ways in which these are inter-related, and shape innovation. This research gap is perhaps unsurprising because the
processes of knowledge

circulation are intangible, often covert, sometimes of questionable legality (Henry & Pinch, 2000). Researchers have commented on the role of spatial clustering and spatial proximity in enhancing knowledge transfer and innovations in tourism (Bathelt, Malmberg, &Maskell, 2004; Hall, 2005, 2005a; Jackson, 2006; Jackson&Murphy,2006; Nordin, 2003; Novelli, Schmitz, & Spencer, 2006; Sørensen,2007), although detailed empirical studies remain relatively limited.

　The relationship between tourism product similarity and the transfer of knowledge and innovations between tourism firms has largely been ignored, as has the inter-relationship between spatial proximity and product similarity, and the way in which such relationships are
spatially scaled within and beyond clusters. This research lacuna is particularly notable in the attractions sector, the focus of this paper. It is acknowledged that the links between knowledge transfer and innovation are contingent on both firm-level and external economic environment factors. Firms have varying capacities for knowledge absorption and the adaptation of such knowledge into innovation, depending on such considerations as the resources, learning environment, organizational features, and business strategies of the firm (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003). The configuration of the external economic environment, in terms of
business culture, policy framework, and associational activity is also important (Howells, 2000). In the remainder of the paper, some of the key theoretical issues are outlined, followed by a discussion of the methodology, the empirical findings and finally, a consideration of the implications for the development of both theory and policy.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND INNOVATION IN TOURISM

　Knowledge transfer involves ‘‘. . .a variety of flows, within firms, between firms, between producers and consumers, and between private sector and public sector organisations, which are facilitated by and contribute to the blurred boundaries of firms’’ (Hudson, 2005, p.
76). Transfer can be understood in terms of Rogers’ (1995) theory of innovations diffusion, which explains how a new idea is communicated through particular channels over time (Cooper, 2006).Explicit knowledge is transferable and codified, for example, in forms, documents, and electronic databases. It represents the knowledge capital of an organization independent of its workers (Cooper, 2006). By contrast, tacit knowledge is not easily visible
and expressible, but is highly personal, hard to formalise and difficult to codify. It is passed between individuals through various forms of learning experiences, that necessarily involve knowledge translations (Cooper, 2006; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

　Knowledge transfer is a key element in the innovation process. Firms actively seek to manage knowledge flows and application, involving identifying knowledge resources, capturing tacit and explicit knowledge and codifying tacit knowledge for redistribution within or between or
organisations (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge transfers occur at both the micro-level of the firm, and at the inter- and extra-organisational levels, or macro level. At the micro-level,
tacit knowledge is created ‘‘in-house’’ within organisations,involving various forms of individualised and collective learning (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003). Tacit knowledge can be
transferred face to face within organisations, but the conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge facilitates redistribution (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). At the macro-level, tacit knowledge is transferred in various ways such as labour spillovers, and observation of rivals,
while explicit knowledge may be acquired from suppliers in the form of technology. Given that explicit knowledge is generally considered easier for competitors to imitate, tacit knowledge is increasingly seen as a key to competitiveness (Malmberg & Maskell, 2002).

　Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are complementary and to some degree are mutually transformable (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) in four ways; First, tacit to tacit transfers through socialisation, where ideas are discussed and exchanged. The second way is tacit to explicit, or externalisation, for example, through ‘brainstorming’at team meetings and the use of developers. Third is explicit to explicit, transferring knowledge from one explicit form, such as a
paper document, to another form such as a data base, and fourth is explicit to tacit, or internalisation, by generating new ideas from written documents or learning by doing, for example, applying procedures in a manual(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The ways in
which codified and tacit knowledge are sourced, transferred and combined are critical in innovation, along with entrepreneurs (Schumpeter, 1934; Te Velde, 2004). Shaw (2004) identifies two types of business managers. The first are ‘classic or business-oriented
entrepreneurs’ (‘innovators’ or ‘leaders’), who are more innovative, quick to spot new trends, develop new products, and processes (Keller, 2006a). The second are ‘lifestyle
entrepreneurs’, passive entrepreneurs’ or ‘laggards’,motivated by life-style and non-economic motives such as independence, with fewer incentives to innovate (Ioannides and
Petersen, 2003).

　Knowledge transfers in tourism often have a sequential order. Knowledge sources
include external suppliers and internal sources such as staff or senior managers (Cooper, 2006). At the beginning of the process, tacit and/or explicit knowledge (internal or external to the firm) is transferred within and between tacit and explicit forms (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A continuous and dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge is facilitated by the socialisation process and defined as the spiral process of knowledge creation, whereby each individual person acquires tacit knowledge directly from others through the facilitation process of socialisation—learning by observation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This adds to the stocks
of knowledge in a firm, that are a reservoir of tacit and explicit knowledge among staff and managers. This potentially can be transformed and adapted as innovations, including being ‘captured’in new technologies: this is, however, a complex process which is
dependent on both the absorption and the adaptative capacity of a firm.