Abstract

With increasing global competition in service sectors, innovative technologies have radically changed the tourism industry, and to be successful innovative products/services must have clear, significant points of difference that are related to needs in the market place. Furthermore, changes in consumer perceptions that emanate from an innovation are central to its effective product and service design. Although for most of us space travel is still a faraway dream, it is in fact a future probability that will increasingly attract travellers who seek new vacation experiences, and as a result, sustain academic interest. Thus, in initiating space tourism for the purposes of recreation, leisure and knowledge enhancement, a preliminary estimation of potential global demand characteristics that are specific to consumer innovators for space travel needs to be undertaken prior to promotion of research and development. In this context, this paper investigates both consumer attitudes towards space travel by analysing the components of motivated consumer innovativeness and the interest that potential consumers have in developing space tourism technology innovations within Taiwan. Consumer innovativeness is complex and comprised four innovativeness types, namely, social, functional, hedonic and cognitive. As product/service innovation development has been relatively unexplored in the mature industry of tourism, many business managers would welcome an understanding of which vacation travellers are most likely to be the earliest buyers of such an exciting new product. With data collected from a sample of 354 Taiwanese, this research uses mediated regression to examine the influence of the four types of consumer innovativeness on consumer's attitudes and acceptance of a space tourism technology innovation, and the mediating role perceived novelty plays in the relationship. The findings indicate that only hedonic and social innovativeness are associated with improved consumer attitude and that novelty partially mediates the relationship for those two types of consumer innovativeness. The implications for theory and practice are discussed. Limitations and directions for future research are also addressed.