A Critical Approach to Destination Attractiveness Theory in the Context of Digital Nomadism: A Constructive Backflow Perspective

Öz

This study aims to reveal Türkiye’s perceived attractiveness for digital nomads within the framework of destination attractiveness theory. In this context, it questions the theory’s limitations while proposing the “Constructive Reverse Flow” approach as a response. A multiple qualitative design was employed, drawing on two data sources: (1) user evaluations of Türkiye on the Nomad List platform and (2) semi-structured interviews conducted with 19 digital nomads who had visited Türkiye. Using content analysis, eight main themes influencing the destination choices of digital nomads were identified: internet accessibility, cost of living, safety, social integration, transport infrastructure, climate, work opportunities, and cultural atmosphere. The findings indicate that traditional destination attractiveness theory has limited explanatory power in the face of this new type of tourist and that the experiences of digital nomads not only shape destination attractiveness but also contribute to the transformation of destinations. In this regard, the proposed “Constructive Reverse Flow” approach positions the experiences of digital nomads as a constructive feedback mechanism for destination planning processes. This study provides theoretical and practical contributions to the development of digital-nomad-friendly destination policies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital nomadism
• destination attractiveness
• constructive reverse flow
• tourism
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Akgiş İlhan, Ö. (2023). Uluslararası hareketlilikte yeni bir eğilim: Dijital göçebeler. In A. Güney (Ed.), STS: Bir disiplin olarak kimlik inşası (pp. 12-29). Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
2. Akgiş İlhan, Ö., Günay, S., Ateş, D., Yaşlı Şen, F., & Demir, Ö. (2024). An assessment of the role of safety in digital nomads’ destination selections. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 16(3), 355-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/whatt-03-2024-0043 google scholar
3. Akgün, A. C. (2024). Kültürel diplomasi bağlamında dijital göçebelerin Türkiye izlenimleri üzerine bir inceleme. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 11(2), 673-682. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1437918 google scholar
4. Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.002 google scholar
5. Baerenholdt, J. O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Performing tourist places. Ashgate. google scholar
6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. google scholar
7. Cook, D. (2023). What is a digital nomad? Definition and taxonomy in the era of mainstream remote work. World Leisure Journal, 65(2), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2023.2190608 google scholar
8. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage. google scholar

9. Crouch, D., & Desforges, L. (2003). The sensuous in the tourist encounter: introduction: The power of the body in tourist studies. Tourist Studies, 3(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797603040528 google scholar
10. Crouch, G. I. (2010). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776 google scholar
11. Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, 20(1), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00102-2 google scholar
12. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. google scholar
13. Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303100402 google scholar
14. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x google scholar
15. Erkasap, A. (2025). Yeni bir işgücü ve yeni bir yaşam tarzı olarak dijital göçebelik [Doctoral dissertation, Maltepe University]. google scholar
16. European Commission. (2022). Digital nomads in Europe: Opportunities and challenges for local economies. Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. google scholar
17. Feihan, S., Olga, G., Xumei, M., & Chongliang, Y. (2023). The effect of agglomeration strategy on rural resilience from the perspective of homestay tourism operators. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 67, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2022-1094266 google scholar
18. Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination attractiveness based on supply and demand evaluations: An analytical framework. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506286714 google scholar
19. Gaspar, S., & Hannonen, O. (2025). Macrolevel geoarbitrage and digital nomad policymaking in Portugal. Tourism Geographies, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2025.2598624 google scholar
20. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., 191–215). google scholar
21. Günay, S., & Akgiş İlhan, Ö. (2024). Conclusion: Exploring the intersection of digital nomadism and tourism in a postmodern world. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 16(3), 410-415. https://doi.org/10.1108/whatt-03-2024-0066 google scholar
22. Hannonen, O. (2020). In search of a digital nomad: Defining the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z google scholar
23. Hannonen, O. (2022). Toward an understanding of digital nomadic mobilities. Transfers 12, no. 3: 115–126. https://doi.org/10.3167/trans.2022.120310 google scholar
24. Holleran, M. (2022). Pandemics and geoarbitrage: Digital nomadism before and after COVID-19. City, 26(5–6), 831–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2022.2124713 google scholar
25. Hermann, I., & Paris, C. M. (2020). Digital nomadism: The nexus of remote working and travel mobility. Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00188-w google scholar
26. Kodaş, B., & Aksoy, Z. (2022). Understanding of tourists’ memorable local food experiences: A netnography study. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, (66), 379-396. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-1009689 google scholar
27. Kresic, D., & Prebezac, D. (2011). Index of destination attractiveness as a tool for destination attractiveness assessment. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 59(4), 497–517. https://hrcak.srce.hr/75744 google scholar
28. Mancinelli, F. (2020). Digital nomads: freedom, responsibility and the neoliberal order. Inf Technol Tourism 22, 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00174-2 google scholar
29. Mancinelli, F., & Germann Molz, J. (2024). Moving with and against the state: digital nomads and frictional mobility regimes. Mobilities, 19(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2209825 google scholar
30. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Beltz. google scholar
31. MBO Partners. (2023). The State of Independence in America 2023: Digital Nomads. https://www.mbopartners.com/state-of-independence/digital-nomads/ google scholar
32. Nash, C., Jarrahi, M. H., Sutherland, W., & Phillips, G. (2018). Digital nomads beyond the buzzword: Defining digital nomadic work and use of digital technologies. In G. Chowdhury, J. McLeod, V. Gillet, & P. Willett (Eds.), Transforming digital worlds (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10766). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78105-1_25 google scholar
33. Nomad List. (2024). Top cities for digital nomads. Retrieved August 11, 2025, from https://nomadlist.com/ google scholar
34. Nomads.com. (2025). Turkey. Retrieved August 10, 2025, from https://nomads.com/turkey google scholar
35. Orel, M. (2021). Life is better in flip flops: Digital nomads and their transformational travels to Thailand. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2019-0229 google scholar
36. Ödemiş, M. (2025). The impact of smart tourism applications in destinations on destination brand equity and competitiveness: The case of Istanbul. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 15(1), 120-133. Sciendo. https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2025-0009 google scholar
37. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage. google scholar
38. Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2004). Progress in qualitative research in tourism: Epistemology, ontology and methodology. In L. Goodson & J. Phillimore (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (pp. 3-29). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203642986 google scholar
39. Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504263029 google scholar
40. Reichenberger, I. (2018). Digital nomads–a quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(3), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098 google scholar
41. Richards, G. (2015). The new global nomads: Youth travel in a globalizing world. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1075724 google scholar
42. Richmond, S., & Cornelius, T. (2022). Dimensions of destination attractiveness in Cape Coast. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 11(2), 135–148. Sciendo. https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2021-0013 google scholar
43. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. CABI. google scholar
44. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage. google scholar
45. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. google scholar
46. Sevin, H. E. (2014). Understanding cities through city brands: City branding as a social and semantic network. Cities, 38, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.01.003 google scholar
47. Sökmen, S., & Bendenay Çapa, A. (2024). What should the travel industry do as the world becomes more of an office? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 16(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-03-2024-0048 google scholar
48. Stylidis, D. (2020). Residents’ destination image: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 228–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2019-0191 google scholar
49. Tasci, A. D. A., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507299569 google scholar
50. Thompson, B. Y. (2018). Digital nomads employment in the online gig economy. Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation, (1). https://doi.org/10.12893/gjcpi.2018.1.11 google scholar
51. Thompson, B. Y. (2021). Digital nomads living on the margins: Remote-working laptop entrepreneurs in the gig economy. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781800715455 google scholar
52. Woldoff, R., & Litchfield, R. C. (2021). Digital nomads: In search of freedom, community, and meaningful work in the new economy. Oxford Üniversite Press. google scholar
53. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage. google scholar