DissLiteratur/storage/8S9UZDJN/.zotero-ft-cache

Progress in IS
Timothy Jung M. Claudia tom Dieck Editors
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
Empowering Human, Place and Business

Progress in IS

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10440

Timothy Jung • M. Claudia tom Dieck
Editors
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
Empowering Human, Place and Business
123

Editors Timothy Jung Faculty of Business and Law Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester UK

M. Claudia tom Dieck Faculty of Business and Law Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester UK

ISSN 2196-8705 Progress in IS ISBN 978-3-319-64026-6 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3

ISSN 2196-8713 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-319-64027-3 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947444

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, speciﬁcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microﬁlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

International Augmented and Virtual Reality Scientiﬁc Committee
Danielle Allen, Manchester Metropolitan University Mario Ascencao, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences Ella Cranmer, Manchester Metropolitan University Dario tom Dieck, Manchester Metropolitan University M. Claudia tom Dieck, Manchester Metropolitan University Alice Gräupl, Manchester Metropolitan University Dai-In Han, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences Ana Javornik, University of Newcastle Timothy Jung, Manchester Metropolitan University Mahdokht Kalantari, Wayne State University Cynthia Mejia, University of Central Florida Joe Pine, Strategic Horizons Philipp A. Rauschnabel, University of Michigan Edwin Torres, University of Central Florida Pasi Tuominen, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences
v

Preface

Organised by the Creative Augmented and Virtual Reality Hub at Manchester Metropolitan University, the 3rd International Conference on Augmented and Virtual Reality took place on the 23rd of February 2017 and brought together leading researchers and industry professionals from the area of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). The conference theme of “Empowering human, place and business” invited speakers from various disciplines to share their experiences of these new and exciting technologies.
Paper presented focused on the areas of AR and VR in tourism, business, marketing & storytelling, health & defence, retail & fashion and design & development. We hope that this edited book will serve as a valuable source for future research and inform businesses about latest developments in the areas of AR and VR.

Manchester, UK

Dr. Timothy Jung Dr. M. Claudia tom Dieck

vii

Contents
Part I Augmented and Virtual Reality in Tourism Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism Applications in Urban Heritage Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Dai-In Han and Timothy Jung How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality? . . . . . . . . 21 Eleanor E. Cranmer, M. Claudia tom Dieck and Timothy Jung An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology in the Tourism Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Jessica Saoud and Timothy Jung Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product and Service Consumers: Some Empirical Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Azizul Hassan, Erdogan Ekiz, Sumesh S. Dadwal and Geoff Lancaster Augmented Reality: Providing a Different Dimension for Museum Visitors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Larissa Neuburger and Roman Egger Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending and Blending of Museum Objects and Virtual Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Ronald Haynes Virtual Reality as a Travel Promotional Tool: Insights from a Consumer Travel Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Alex Gibson and Mary O’Rawe The Impact of Augmented Reality (AR) Technology on Tourist Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Ruhet Genç
ix

x

Contents

Part II Augmented and Virtual Reality in Retail and Fashion
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Physical and Online Retailing: A Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Francesca Bonetti, Gary Warnaby and Lee Quinn
Technological Innovations Transforming the Consumer Retail Experience: A Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Natasha Moorhouse, M. Claudia tom Dieck and Timothy Jung
Measuring Consumer Engagement in the Brain to Online Interactive Shopping Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Meera Dulabh, Delia Vazquez, Daniella Ryding and Alex Casson

Part III Augmented and Virtual Reality in Business, Marketing and Storytelling
Augmented Reality Smart Glasses: Deﬁnition, Concepts and Impact on Firm Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Young K. Ro, Alexander Brem and Philipp A. Rauschnabel
The Sensorama Revisited: Evaluating the Application of Multisensory Input on the Sense of Presence in 360-Degree Immersive Film in Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Sarah Jones and Steve Dawkins
Directions for Studying User Experience with Augmented Reality in Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Ana Javornik
A Conceptual Uses & Gratiﬁcation Framework on the Use of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Philipp A. Rauschnabel
Exploring the Early Adopters of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses: The Case of Microsoft HoloLens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Mahdokht Kalantari and Philipp Rauschnabel
Functional, Hedonic or Social? Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Virtual Reality Rollercoaster Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Timothy Jung, M. Claudia tom Dieck, Philipp Rauschnabel, Mario Ascenção, Pasi Tuominen and Teemu Moilanen
Urban Encounters Reloaded: Towards a Descriptive Account of Augmented Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Patrick T. Allen, Ava Fatah gen. Shieck and David Robison

Contents

xi

Part IV Augmented and Virtual Reality in Healthcare and Defence
Blending the Best of the Real with the Best of the Virtual: Mixed Reality Case Studies in Healthcare and Defence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Robert J. Stone
How Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality is Being Used to Support People Living with Dementia—Design Challenges and Future Directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Jason Hayhurst

Part V Augmented and Virtual Reality Design & Development
Testing the Potential of Combining Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy with Different Virtual Reality Displays—Oculus Rift and oCtAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Aleksandra Landowska, Sam Royle, Peter Eachus and David Roberts
Telethrone Reconstructed; Ongoing Testing Toward a More Natural Situated Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 John O’Hare, Allen J. Fairchild, Robin Wolff and David J. Roberts
A Survey of Drone use for Entertainment and AVR (Augmented and Virtual Reality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Si Jung Kim, Yunhwan Jeong, Sujin Park, Kihyun Ryu and Gyuhwan Oh
Augmented Reality for Mobile Devices: Textual Annotation of Outdoor Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Slimane Larabi

Part VI Augmented and Virtual Reality in Industry
Augmenting Reality in Museums with Interactive Virtual Models . . . . . 365 Theodore Koterwas, Jessica Suess, Scott Billings, Andrew Haith and Andrew Lamb
The Augmented Worker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Martin McDonnell
Digital Representation of Seokguram Temple UNESCO World Heritage Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Jin ho Park and Sangheon Kim

Part I
Augmented and Virtual Reality in Tourism

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism Applications in Urban Heritage Tourism
Dai-In Han and Timothy Jung
Abstract While research for the employment of information and communication technology in urban tourism settings has been conducted for many years, studies to apply Augmented Reality (AR) to enhance the tourist experience have emerged in recent years. This paper aims to investigate tourist requirements for the development of mobile AR tourism applications in the urban heritage tourism context. Qualitative research incorporating two research stages were conducted in Dublin. The ﬁrst stage included 26 pre-experience interviews with international tourists to explore tourist requirements, while the second stage was conducted in form of 5 focus groups including a total of 49 participants. The data was analysed through thematic analysis to compare and contrast research outcomes. The ﬁndings suggest that tourists would consider using mobile AR tourism applications, if meaningfully designed. Therefore, the user interface should be designed intuitively, while content was regarded the dominant factor for tourism purposes. The study outlines tourist requirements for mobile AR tourism applications, contrasting them to themes in mobile computing identiﬁed in preceding studies to conﬁrm previously identiﬁed requirements and explore newly emerging elements and tourist perceptions that have developed in alignment with modern technology. Limitations and recommendations for further research are provided.
Á Á Keywords Mobile augmented reality Urban heritage tourism Tourist requireÁ ments Dublin

D.-I. Han (&) Academy of Hotel and Facility Management, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, Netherlands e-mail: han.d@nhtv.nl
T. Jung Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK e-mail: t.jung@mmu.ac.uk

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

3

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_1

4
1 Introduction

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

As short trips to urban destinations have been increasing in popularity (Gospodini 2004), maintaining the inﬂow of tourists especially for heritage sites has become a challenge for a number of destinations. In alignment with technological developments, the implementation of ICTs in the tourism industry was argued to support the sustainability of urban heritage sites and increase their competitiveness in the global market. As a result, it is crucial to investigate how modern technology can be implemented meaningfully to enhance the tourist experience. Augmented Reality (AR) has become an area of interest for tourism, as it is able to overlay digital information in the immediate environment. This makes it an ideal tool to provide information in unknown locations if it can be developed meaningfully. Although research and public interest in AR for wearable devices has increased signiﬁcantly (Siluk 2015), it is crucial to clearly understand requirements for current mobile AR-ready handsets before investigating forthcoming technology. While a number of studies to implement AR in tourism have been conducted, initial research has largely focused on functionalities (Fritz et al. 2005; Reitmayr and Schmalstieg 2003), while recent studies are shifting towards enhancing the tourist experience (Jung et al. 2015; Leue et al. 2015). Nonetheless, studies exploring requirements of AR applications from a tourist perspective are still limited. Therefore, this study will investigate tourist requirements for mobile AR tourism applications in the context of urban heritage tourism to design beneﬁcial applications for tourists and encourage repeated use.

2 Deﬁnition of Augmented Reality
Augmented Reality (AR) has been researched and implemented in various industries such as gaming and retail and has gained increasing interest in the tourism industry in recent years (Nicas 2016). While many attempts have been made to provide a common deﬁnition, it was argued that AR is still regarded a developing technology, and therefore has not yet reached its full potential. As a result, the deﬁnition of AR has undergone a number of modiﬁcations depending on the context or method of implementation (Van Krevelen and Poelman 2010). Nonetheless, Stone et al. (2009) formulated base criteria to be included in AR that have been universally accepted. AR should therefore include a conjunction between the virtual and real environment, be able to interact with the immediate surrounding and register and connect real and virtual objects. Building on this concept, Rouse (2015) deﬁned AR as the integration of digital information with live video on the user’s environment in real time. Tourism has long been argued to be one of the logical adaptors of AR due to its ability to share and exchange location-based information in the immediate surrounding (Pang et al. 2006). Klubnikin (2016) in addition claimed that tourism applications were already the 7th most downloaded type of mobile apps, which could greatly facilitate the early adoption of AR-type applications in this industry.

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

5

3 AR Applications in Urban Heritage Tourism

Early studies of AR in tourism have largely focused on the functionalities and technical aspects, such as GPS-based AR technology to overlay information in the tourists’ immediate environment (Feiner et al. 1997; Rekimoto 1997). Some of the implemented examples of AR in the tourism industry include the ‘GUIDE’ project by Grossmann et al. (2001) as well as developments by Davies et al. (2005), both of which are mobile AR systems providing location-based information. Since then, a number of researchers argued that AR was able to greatly beneﬁt the tourism industry if it was meaningfully implemented (Hariharan et al. 2005). Subsequent studies attempted to expand on this idea by not only providing location-based information, but developing an application that could serve as a computerised tourist guide which tourists could interact with (Höllerer and Feiner 2004; Pang et al. 2006). In the urban heritage context, AR was seen as a potential tool to overcome the physical boundary of heritage attractions. Since AR is using the digital space to provide additional value, it was argued to support the sustainability of heritage sites. Pang et al. (2006) developed a case of an urban tourist guide application in Vienna, which was able to guide tourists to points of interest (POI) using GPS coordinates. Pang et al. (2006) expanded on the original idea of GPS-based AR, but included social functionalities that enabled the user to generate and share information with peers. In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted exploring the enhancement of the tourist experience using AR through handheld as well as wearable devices (Chung et al. 2015; Jung et al. 2015; Leue et al. 2015). Particularly in the urban heritage environment, AR has been studied to enhance the museum experience by reinterpreting the tourist product (Damala et al. 2008). In this regard, a number of studies have been conducted to examine the acceptance of tourists using handheld as well as wearable devices in the urban heritage context (Jung and Leue 2015). It was found that tourists generally had a positive response on the use of AR for the enhancement of the urban heritage tourism experience. Challenges were noted for AR applications in the outdoor environment, such as in the application ‘Paris, Then and Now’, in which tourists are able to ‘time-travel’ and experience sights of Paris how it used to be 100 years ago, for 2000 spots around the city. Uncontrollable external factors, such as changing weather conditions and people in the immediate surrounding would provide issues in the interaction. Fritz et al. (2005) argued that the tourism industry required continuous development and implementation of technology in order to attract visitors and stay competitive in the global market. However, regarding mobile AR applications, it was pointed out that AR systems still required improvement to create meaningful tourist experiences (Lee et al. 2015; tom Dieck and Jung 2015). Nonetheless, as mobile technology is being developed rapidly, it is crucial to understand tourist requirements in order to utilise functionalities such as AR in a meaningful way to encourage repeated use.

6
4 User Requirements in Mobile Computing

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

Since identiﬁcation of requirements for AR applications in the literature was limited, the mobile computing context was regarded to provide the closest indication of requirements that could be aligned with mobile AR applications. The requirements created a knowledge base for the design of interview questions and were contrasted to primary research outcomes. This could determine which requirements were still valid and identify emerging requirements for mobile AR applications in the urban heritage tourism context. ‘Simplicity’ referring to the user interface (UI) was repeatedly noted in the literature as a key requirement (Dantas et al. 2009; Gebauer et al. 2010; Gafni 2008; Karahasanović et al. 2009; Ngai and Gunasekaran 2007; Pulli et al. 2007). It was argued that the UI should be easy to navigate and understandable for anyone. Required information should be promptly accessible and relevant to the user (Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Herskovic et al. 2011; Kenteris et al. 2009; Wang and Liao 2007).
Therefore, content should be ‘context-aware’ to provide relevant information instantly (Dantas et al. 2009; Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Gebauer et al. 2010; Herskovic et al. 2011; Karahasanović et al. 2009). This would avoid the overload of information, as large amounts of irrelevant content was believed to result in a slow down of the software (Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Gafni 2008; Gebauer et al. 2010; Kenteris et al. 2009; Pulli et al. 2007; Wang and Liao 2007). In contrast, ‘personalised content’ was largely expected of mobile applications to access information efﬁciently (An et al. 2008; Gafni 2008; Herskovic et al. 2011; Karahasanović et al. 2009; Kenteris et al. 2009; Swallows et al. 2007; Wang and Liao 2007). Future applications should be accessible regardless of time and place, as users were increasingly mobile (Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Gebauer et al. 2010; Herskovic et al. 2011; Kenteris et al. 2009; Wang and Liao 2007). ‘Privacy’ was furthermore regarded as a key requirement that would continue to be relevant for future applications (Dantas et al. 2009; Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Gafni 2008; Herskovic et al. 2011; Karahasanović et al. 2009). ‘Social functions’ were revealed to be increasingly signiﬁcant, as a large number of users were using social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis (An et al. 2008; Herskovic et al. 2011; Karahasanović et al. 2009). A number of studies additionally outlined reliability issues of mobile applications, which were largely performance-based, but could also be determined by the provision of reliable and trustworthy information (Dantas et al. 2009; Dinh et al. 2013; Herskovic et al. 2011; Kenteris et al. 2009; Wang and Liao 2007). Table 1 shows the identiﬁed user requirements in the mobile computing context.

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

7

Table 1 User Requirements in the Mobile Computing Context

Requirement Simplicity
Relevant and updated information Speed
Safety and security (Privacy) Accessibility Social functions Personalisation
Power efﬁciency Context-awareness Reliability

Authors
Dantas et al. (2009), Gafni (2008), Gebauer et al. (2010), Karahasanović et al. (2009), Ngai and Gunasekaran (2007), Pulli et al. (2007)
Delagi (2010), Dinh et al. (2013), Gafni (2008), Herskovic et al. (2011), Kenteris et al. (2009), Wang and Liao (2007)
Delagi (2010), Dinh et al. (2013), Gafni (2008), Gebauer et al. (2010), Kenteris et al. (2009), Pulli et al. (2007), Wang and Liao (2007)
Dantas et al. (2009), Delagi (2010), Dinh et al. (2013), Gafni (2008), Karahasanović et al. (2009)
Delagi (2010), Dinh et al. (2013), Gebauer et al. (2010), Herskovic et al. (2011), Kenteris et al. (2009), Wang and Liao (2007) An et al. (2008), Herskovic et al. (2011), Karahasanović et al. (2009) An et al. (2008), Gafni (2008), Karahasanović et al. (2009), Kenteris et al. (2009), Herskovic et al. (2011), Swallows et al. (2007), Wang and Liao (2007)
Delagi (2010), Kenteris et al. (2009)
Dantas et al. (2009), Delagi (2010), Dinh et al. (2013), Gebauer et al. (2010), Herskovic et al. (2011), Karahasanović et al. (2009)
Dantas et al. (2009), Dinh et al. 2013, Herskovic et al. (2011), Kenteris et al. (2009), Wang and Liao (2007)

5 Methods
For the purpose of this study, Dublin was selected as research site representing an urban heritage tourism context. To identify tourist requirements, two separate qualitative research were conducted. The initial interviews were regarded as ‘pre-AR experience study’, while the second qualitative research was seen as ‘post-AR experience study’. Due to the limited research in this context at the time of study, an inductive research method was considered suitable for this research. According to Creswell (2007), qualitative data collection is the preferred research method to explore unknown areas. The research population was selected as international tourists visiting Dublin. Therefore, it was aimed to incorporate the main market segments according to the 2010 Annual Report of Failté Ireland in the sample, including tourists from France, Germany, Spain, USA and the UK. The ﬁrst research stage was conducted in two separate interview sessions including tourists from Ireland (n = 4), UK (n = 8), USA (n = 3), Germany (n = 4), France (n = 3) and Spain (n = 2) through a convenience sampling method. The research was conducted in two city center hotels in Dublin. The majority of research participants were female, while most interviewees were students and young professionals the age group of 22–30. As participants had limited knowledge of AR at the time of

8

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

study, three AR application samples were provided including text, image and video overlays as well as a GPS-based AR application sample. Nonetheless, it was crucial that participants had absolute freedom to answer the interview questions to their own discretion, as the aim of the ﬁrst research phase was the initial identiﬁcation of tourist requirements. All interviews were digitally recorded for transcribing and analysing purposes. Two pilot interviews were conducted prior to the data collection to assess the clarity and expected responses of interview questions. A total of 26 tourist interviews were conducted in February and April 2013, with interviews ranging from 15.30 min to 48.19 min. The ﬁrst research stage was designed in form of semi-structured interviews to identify tourist requirements and contrast them to user requirements identiﬁed in the literature of mobile computing to investigate whether newly emerging requirements were evident for mobile AR tourism applications in the urban heritage tourism context. Additionally, it aimed to establish an understanding of tourists’ user behavior of mobile tourism applications.
A second qualitative research was conducted in form of focus groups, as suggested by Adami (2005) and Halcomb and Andrew (2005). For the purpose of data completeness and trustworthiness of ﬁndings, it was suggested that conducting focus groups in addition to interviews was more inclusive compared to using the same data collection method for a second study (Lambert and Loiselle 2008; Plack 2006). After the initial investigation of tourist requirements, a mobile AR application demonstrator was developed based on the requirements identiﬁed in the tourist interviews. This allowed the investigation of tourist requirements in focus groups after experiencing a potential mobile AR tourism application in the urban heritage tourism context. A total of ﬁve focus groups were conducted with nine to ten participants per group from November 4–6, 2013. The semi-structured focus group questions were designed to encourage discussion among participants with regards to the mobile AR tourism application demonstrator and for the identiﬁcation of tourist requirements after the experience. Tourists from the young British market were selected as the target population for the focus groups, as a target market for mobile AR tourism applications was still largely undeﬁned and dependent on the context of implementation (Bulearca and Tamarjan 2010). The young market was considered suitable for the study purpose, as they were generally believed to have a high exposure to modern technology. Furthermore, as the aim was the investigation of tourist requirements, it was crucial that participants did not have to go through a learning process on how to interact with the mobile application, but could instead focus on application requirements. In addition, Bulearca and Tamarjan (2010) argued that consumers between 18 to 30 years would be the ﬁrst market to be targeted by AR applications. As a result, most focus group participants were from the population of the British young market and between 21 to 29 years old. Two application demonstrators were prepared. One was based on story-telling image enhancements inside of the General Post Ofﬁce (GPO) in Dublin, while another was prepared outdoors using GPS-based AR to project information on the immediate surrounding. Participants were equipped with three mobile devices and given ﬁfteen minutes to experience both applications before the focus groups were conducted. All focus groups were digitally recorded and lasted

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

9

an average of 25 min. The interview and focus group data was analysed using thematic analysis, which was argued to be one of the most commonly utilised analysis methods of qualitative studies (Boyatzis, 1998). After identifying themes from the literature, they were compared and contrasted to the requirements from the initial tourist interviews to provide an updated list of themes, which was used to develop the mobile AR application demonstrator. In the subsequent ‘post-AR experience study’, themes were conﬁrmed and modiﬁed after tourists experienced the demonstrator and analysed by contrasting them to requirements identiﬁed in the tourist interviews.

6 Findings and Discussion
The semi-structured interviews and focus groups were designed to identify tourist requirements for mobile AR tourism applications in the context of urban heritage tourism. The following will discuss themes that emerged as tourist requirements from the interviews and focus groups by contrasting them to the literature. Overall, a large number of user requirements that were identiﬁed in the literature in the context of mobile computing were still signiﬁcant for today’s mobile applications. As a majority of them was applicable for mobile devices in general and not context speciﬁc, they reoccurred in the primary research of this study.

6.1 Simplicity
In the tourist interviews, it was found that designing a simple user interface in mobile AR tourism applications was crucial, as a large number of consumers had never been in touch with AR functions. To encourage fast adoption, it was revealed that a ‘step by step’ guide could be useful that would guide the tourist through the initial interaction with the application. However, it was pointed out that interaction with future mobile applications required to be increasingly natural to reduce the need for a learning process. While ‘Ease of use’ was largely discussed in the literature as a crucial theme (Choi and Lee 2012; Dantas et al. 2009; Gafni 2008; Gebauer et al. 2010; Pulli et al. 2007), tourist interviews as well as focus groups showed that ‘simplicity’ and ‘ease of use’ were largely expected in mobile applications. The focus group ﬁndings further revealed a shift in the wording of ‘simplicity’ to ‘intuitive’, arguing that natural interaction was key in future mobile applications. Schinke et al. (2010) recommended in this regard that intuitive design would facilitate the rapid adoption by users. Choi and Lee (2012) similarly argued that applications that did not require a learning process would encourage repeated use. This could speciﬁcally be achieved for mobile AR applications, as they were based on currently used handheld mobile devices. Similar adoption rates are expected after a wide adoption of wearable computing, as consumers would already

10

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

be familiar with utilising such devices on a daily basis. Morrison et al. (2011)
further revealed that using mobile AR applications had to be non-disturbing for the user as well as for people in close vicinity, which was conﬁrmed in the tourist interviews. It was found that using AR to project information in the immediate surrounding disclosed practical issues that will be further discussed in ‘Privacy and Security’.

6.2 Information Filter
‘Personalisation’ was previously identiﬁed as a crucial user requirement in mobile computing (Huang and Bian 2009; Xu et al. 2008) and conﬁrmed in the tourist interviews as well as focus groups, as participants argued that tourists were not all interested in the same content. In order to avoid information overload and provide relevant information for the user, being able to ﬁlter and tailor the information according to the tourist’s needs was regarded crucial. Limiting augmented information was previously revealed to have been discussed in motor vehicles, as it was debated how much information would be suitable for drivers to avoid distraction (van Krevelen and Poelman 2010). Alternatively, Marimon et al. (2010) proposed a user interface that would project additional information on request, while keeping the initial content to a minimum. With regards to content type, focus group participants argued that one of the most important content to provide in mobile AR tourism applications in the urban environment was information on public transportation. While current tourism applications are able to offer this type of information, it was not yet mentioned in the literature. However, it can be seen that public transportation is increasingly important, as current map-based applications are able to include information on public transportation options to reach certain POIs. However, it needs to be acknowledged that focus group participants were from the British young market. Therefore, the need for information on public transportation might have been more dominant compared to other market segments that would have more disposable income available on their travels.

6.3 Social Function
A social aspect was regarded an increasingly expected feature in mobile applications. Not only for tourism applications, but also for gaming, social elements are believed to encourage repeated use and enjoyment while using mobile applications. Roberts (2013) therefore suggested linking tourism applications to established social media platforms that would enable users to share and comment on peer-generated content, which was conﬁrmed in the tourist interviews. It was argued that tourists were using social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis, and therefore being able to access them through the tourist application

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

11

would greatly enhance convenience and encourage its use. In contrast to the ﬁndings from the literature (Dantas et al. 2009; Gafni 2008), primary research particularly from focus groups revealed that privacy concerns in this regard were not considered a key requirement anymore. Focus groups participants argued that using social media to share content had gotten people used to publicise private information. Furthermore, it was revealed that sharing and seeing peer-generated content would be beneﬁcial for potential visitors that were looking for ﬁrst-hand information, which could also encourage positive word-of-mouth for the tourist attraction and destination. The interviews ﬁndings revealed that reviews and ratings by other tourists were highly valued before visiting a destination, conﬁrming literature outcomes (Johnson et al. 2012). Gretzel and Yoo (2008) investigated the impact of reviews and ratings on the buying decision and suggested that it would greatly facilitate the decision making process of tourists, particularly for single travelers and women. While interview participants argued that their own research was equally important, many interviewees nonetheless suggested including a functionality to review and comment on tourist attractions. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2012) argued that users were often inﬂuenced by peer reviews not only for tourism products, but also for tangible products. Therefore, Gretzel and Yoo (2008) recommended including such functionalities in mobile tourism applications in order to encourage user engagement with the application.

6.4 Privacy and Security
‘Privacy’ has long been argued to remain a key requirement in the literature (Dantas et al. 2009; Delagi 2010; Dinh et al. 2013; Herskovic et al. 2011; Karahasanović et al. 2009; Mallat et al. 2009). However, tourist interview and focus group outcomes showed contradicting ﬁndings. The majority of participants in the interviews and focus groups argued that secure systems and procedures were established by companies and trustworthy. Therefore, tourists generally did not have any concerns regarding data privacy. While privacy was still argued to be important, it was not considered a key requirement for mobile AR tourism applications. Nonetheless, tourists argued that for the purpose of mobile transactions, privacy was seen to be necessary for secure payments. While studies conducted a few years ago still regarded privacy as a key requirement (Zoellner et al. 2009), online information transparency and peer-generated content has since been widely adopted. However, with the development of wearable technology, privacy issues seemed to be at the forefront of discussion once more (Mallat et al. 2009). Therefore, Carmigniani et al. (2011) suggested designing AR interactions in a way that would not violate other people’s privacy in the immediate surrounding. While privacy concerns seemed to be decreasing, mobile AR applications on handheld devices posed a practicality issue during the interaction. After focus group participants experienced the mobile AR tourism application demonstrator, it was pointed out that a key concern was ‘security’ while using the mobile device outdoors in uncontrolled environments.

12

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

The impracticality of pointing the device camera at certain POIs for an extended period of time to access information was believed to induce risks of theft. As an alternative solution, focus group participants suggested designing the application in a way that would allow storing of information without having to continue holding the device at a designated angle.

6.5 Navigation
With regards to in-app navigation systems, tourist interview and focus group outcomes suggested a map-based navigation system similar to Google Maps. As tourists were familiar with using Google Maps (Shi et al. 2010), it was argued that navigation in unknown environments was a key requirement for tourism applications. While applications such as TripAdvisor that would provide reviews and ratings of tourist attractions were optional, tourist interviewees revealed that maps were among the mostly used applications for tourists, as people were constantly requiring way-ﬁnding assistance to POIs. In this regard, focus group participants claimed that a map-based functionality was an expected requirement for any future tourism applications involving new technology such as AR. The beneﬁt of map-based applications was revealed to be the possibility to pinpoint the user’s location and provide clear way-ﬁnding instructions. However, similar to literature ﬁndings (Gafni 2008), tourists argued that information on such map-based applications should be personalised and provide an information ﬁltering option to avoid information overload while being guided.

6.6 Language
Interview and focus group participants were increasingly concerned about the convenience for international tourists. Therefore, including language functionalities in future mobile applications were regarded a key beneﬁt for a large number of tourists. These could be developed in form of translating functions to instantly translate signs, words and phrases, or through offering the application in various languages. Focus group participants argued that international travel was becoming more affordable. As a result, future applications should be usable for a wider demographic market. While language options were mentioned in the literature before (Gannes 2013; Marimon et al. 2010; Schinke et al. 2010), they were not discussed to a great extent. However, primary research outcomes revealed that there is an increasing need to investigate the implementation of multiple language options in future mobile tourism applications. In this regard, tourist interviewees suggested a translating option as the most convenient language function for international tourists, as it would not require downloading or carrying a separate dictionary. Instead, phrases and words could be tailored to a speciﬁc tourism context or

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

13

interest. Applications such as ‘Word Lens’ that can instantly translate languages were being developed for Google Glass (Gannes 2013). However, such functions are still limited and require further investigation to be meaningfully adopted in daily life. Nonetheless, it could revolutionise the way people interact with their surroundings, particularly for tourism purposes.

6.7 Information Quality
Literature ﬁndings as well as primary research outcomes revealed that content was the most inﬂuential and beneﬁtting element in mobile tourism applications (Damala et al. 2008). Mobile AR tourism applications have been developed in various contexts that supported this view. Bruns et al. (2007) developed a mobile AR application in the museum context that would provide an interactive experience through the use of multimedia, while Huang et al. (2009) suggested a mobile AR application that would enable the virtual reconstruction of heritage sites in outdoor environments to provide an enhanced view of the past for the user. Zoellner et al. (2009) claimed that for such applications in the urban heritage context, it was crucial that the provided information was scientiﬁcally accurate in order to be beneﬁcial for tourists. Van Krevelen and Poelman (2010) agreed, saying that the quality and accessibility of information was the key determinant for the success of mobile AR applications. Olsson and Salo (2011) further added that content should be personalised and relevant for the user, while assuring a smooth interactive experience. Morrison et al. (2011) similarly stated that future AR applications needed to be developed in alignment to each speciﬁc context to be beneﬁcial for users. This would further facilitate the projection of information relevant to the user (van Krevelen and Poelman 2010). While content was considered key in the literature and by research participants, tourists noted that regularly maintaining the application to assure a smooth user experience was crucial to encourage regular use by tourists. This was particularly applicable for updating accessible content to project latest changes in the environment. Application maintenance was claimed to highly inﬂuence the user’s perception of the application and a lack of it could be detrimental for the adoption of new applications (Gafni 2008). It was revealed that the importance of AR as functionality in mobile tourism applications was secondary to its content, and therefore regarded merely a tool that would serve as content communicator in the application. Therefore, content quality was conﬁrmed to be the crucial determinant for mobile AR tourism applications. Nonetheless, it was pointed out that a suitable balance between content and function was necessary to provide a memorable user experience. Increasing the amount of available content was argued to pose a risk of exponentially increasing the size of the application. Therefore, to avoid long downloading times of the application, Internet access was revealed to be crucial.

14
6.8 Accessibility

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

The instant access of information has become increasingly important, as consumers have become more mobile, and therefore require information to be accessible independent of time and space (Dinh et al. 2013). However, tourist interview and focus groups participants claimed that Wi-Fi access in urban destinations was still too limited to be accessed anywhere at the tourists’ convenience. While urban heritage destinations such as Dublin provide a free Wi-Fi service accessible for tourists, it was argued that such would provide limited speeds and access points, and therefore could not be utilised meaningfully. Instead, some tourists revealed to buy roaming packages before the trip that would grant access to the Internet at their convenience. Focus group participants agreed claiming that limited Internet access was a major issue for the young tourist market, as instant access of information was frequently required during a trip. Tourist interview participants therefore suggested providing an ofﬂine option in tourism applications that would not depend on the Internet to access content. However, Papagiannakis et al. (2008) pointed out that an ofﬂine application design would ultimately increase the size of the application depending on the amount of available content. Furthermore, Munch (2010) argued that such options would increase the loading time and could result in performance issues for the application. Therefore, it was discouraged particularly for tourism applications, as content in tourism applications was regarded a crucial selling point. Additionally, it was emphasised that mobile AR tourism applications required a network connection to instantly provide relevant information. Papagiannakis et al. (2008) further claimed that access to a stable Internet connection was crucial for mobile AR applications, as it would inﬂuence the speed of the application. While tourists had a split opinion whether or not to pay for Internet access during their trip, all participants agreed that Internet access was crucial for tourists to instantly search for information. Hill et al. (2010) and Zoellner et al. (2009) therefore claimed that limited Wi-Fi access would result in a negative impact on user adoption of mobile AR applications. Nonetheless, both alternatives would require constant monitoring and updated content to assure a continuous user beneﬁt and enhanced user experience through the application.

7 Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations
The study was conducted in the context of urban heritage tourism, selecting Dublin as the research site. While wearable devices are increasingly studied and developed for the consumer market recently (Curtis 2015), this study was based on handheld mobile devices that were considered the mobile standard of the time of study. While it can be seen that industry and academics are increasingly shifting to investigate wearable devices for tourism purposes (Leue et al. 2015), it was regarded signiﬁcant to examine tourist requirements for mobile AR applications based on current

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

15

devices before moving to the wearable market. On the one hand, wearable devices were not yet widely implemented, limiting the adoption of potential users, on the other hand, tourist requirements identiﬁed in this study were largely of generic nature and therefore regarded transferable to wearable devices respectively. Furthermore, Curtis (2015) claimed that it was still unknown when wearable devices would be widely adopted to provide a platform for AR use cases. However, it was regarded to have high potential in the tourism industry, as wearable AR technology was able to replace the handheld screen, opening more opportunities for the tourism industry (Orland 2015). Adoption of wearable AR would not only depend on the content and interaction with the application as proposed in this study, but are expected to largely depend on social norms respectively, as studies in the area of ‘Fashnology’ indicate (Chuah et al. 2016; Rauschnabel et al. 2016). Nonetheless, it remains crucial that mobile AR tourism applications are able to enhance the tourist experience in a meaningful way to encourage repeated use. Therefore, the study outcomes are believed to add to the current knowledge of implementing AR in the urban heritage tourism context and valuable for further research in the area of mobile application development for tourism purposes.
The study revealed that ‘simplicity’, which was regarded a key requirement in the literature for many years, was reworded to ‘intuitive interaction’. In comparison, literature studying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) describes ‘simplicity’ as ‘perceived ease of use’, referring to the human-computer interaction (Davis 1989). According to the study outcomes, mobile AR applications should focus on a UI design that would enable tourists to interact with the application naturally without having to go through a learning process. While the TAM model further outlines the importance of ‘perceived usefulness’ (Venkatesh et al. 2012), research outcomes revealed in this regard that accessible content should be personalised and user-relevant to facilitate the access to required information and avoid information overload. It was expected that this would also positively inﬂuence application speed and performance. In addition, tourists largely expected implementing a social function in mobile AR tourism applications. Similar indications were noted in the TAM literature, suggesting that social and cultural factors inﬂuenced user’s acceptance of new technology (Lewis et al. 2003). As privacy was not regarded a key requirement any longer, sharing information was generally seen as beneﬁcial for tourism applications. In contrast, security issues were regarded a higher priority due to the impractical interaction with current mobile AR-ready handheld devices. While using AR applications was believed to potentially provide new opportunities such as for navigating purposes, regular maintenance of content was crucial to increase trustworthiness and encourage repeated use of the application. Particularly for new developments of AR applications, reliable and updated content was revealed being a key determinant of quality. Therefore, mobile AR tourism applications required being accessible independent of time and space. This demanded a stable and sufﬁcient Internet access to provide requested information instantly.

16

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

An Internet dependent mobile AR tourism application was argued to be more beneﬁcial for tourists, despite requiring an active and stable Internet connection, due to the instant provision of information. In addition, it would allow reducing the size of the application, which would positively impact on the speed and user interaction, providing an enhanced tourist experience.
This study has a number of limitations and recommendations for further research. While this research was designed in two stages including a pre- and post-experience study in form of interviews and focus groups, it needs to be acknowledged that both methods are of qualitative nature. Therefore, the study proposes a limitation to generalise its ﬁndings. Furthermore, interview participants had limited knowledge of AR at the time of study. Therefore, AR examples were provided to support the understanding of interviewees. Although it was attempted to ensure that participants had as much freedom as possible to answer questions, occasional explanations were required to assist the understanding of AR. Nonetheless, a second research stage was conducted to reduce this limitation. Finally, the limitation in the sample population needs to be acknowledged, as the majority of research participants were female and in the age group of 22–30. A more balanced sample could have provided a modiﬁed list of requirements particularly including various age groups.
The research outcomes suggest that tourists are increasingly expecting methods to access information instantly. While this study provides an indication of tourist requirements for mobile AR tourism applications in urban heritage tourism, further research is recommended for the implementation of information and communication technology for the enhancement of the tourist experience. Therefore, it is suggested that demographic segments are explored separately, as tourists are increasingly looking for a tailored tourist experience. Dublin was selected as the study context for this research. However, comparative studies investigating other urban heritage sites would provide an insight into the reliability of ﬁndings as well as potentially identify additional requirements. In particular, contrasting urban heritage sites in Europe to Asia could reveal new insights, as cultural differences are expected to inﬂuence the way tourists interact with their devices and their surroundings. As studies are increasingly conducted on the adoption and usefulness of wearable AR devices, further studies for user requirements using wearable devices are required. In this regard, it is recommended to investigate not only generic content and function requirements, but in alignment with consumer behavior in a variety of contexts. Although this study was based on handheld mobile devices, a trend towards exploring wearable computing for the consumer market could be observed. While wearable devices have not yet been widely adopted, it is believed that the awareness and adoption of AR will increase signiﬁcantly with the further development and utilisation of wearable technology.

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

17

References

Adami, M. F. (2005). The use of triangulation for completeness purposes. Nurse Researcher, 12 (4), 19–29.
An, Y., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2008). Development of an integrated product-service roadmap with QFD: A case study on mobile communications. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(5), 621–638.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development—Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bruns, E., Brombach, B., Zeidler, T., & Bimber, O. (2007). Enabling mobile phones to support large-scale museum guidance. Multimedia, IEEE, 14(2), 16–25.
Bulearca, M., & Tamarjan, D. (2010). Augmented reality: A sustainable marketing tool? Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(2/3), 237–252.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51(1), 341–377.
Choi, J. H., & Lee, H. J. (2012). Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: A structural model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(2), 129–142.
Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276–284.
Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behaviour, 50, 588–599.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among ﬁve approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Curtis, S. (2015). Has Google glass failed? The Telegraph. Retrieved November 2016, from http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11350810/Has-Google-Glass-failed.html.
Damala, A., Cubaud, P., Bationo, A., Houlier, P., & Marchal, I. (2008). Bridging the gap between the digital and the physical: Design and evaluation of a mobile augmented reality guide for the museum visit. Paper presented at the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, Athens, Greece.
Dantas, V. L. L., Marinho, F. G., da Costa, A. L., & Andrade, R. M. (2009). Testing requirements for mobile applications. Paper presented at the 24th International Symposium Computer and Information Sciences, Guzelyurt, Northern Cyprus.
Davies, N., Cheverst, K., Dix, A., & Hesse, A. (2005). Understanding the role of image recognition in mobile tour guides. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices & services, Salzburg, Austria.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319–340.
Delagi, G. (2010). Harnessing technology to advance the next-generation mobile user-experience. Paper presented at the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers (ISSCC), San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dinh, H. T., Lee, C., Niyato, D., & Wang, P. (2013). A survey of mobile cloud computing: Architecture, applications, and approaches. Wireless communications and mobile computing, 13(18), 1587–1611.
Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., Höllerer, T., & Webster, A. (1997). A touring machine: Prototyping 3D mobile augmented reality systems for exploring the urban environment. Personal Technologies, 1(4), 208–217.
Fritz, F., Susperregui, A., & Linaza, M. T. (2005). Enhancing cultural tourism experiences with augmented reality technologies. Paper presented at the 6th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST).

18

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

Gafni, R. (2008). Framework for quality metrics in mobile-wireless information systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 3, 23–38.
Gannes, L. (2013). Next Google glass tricks include translating the world from your eyes, All Things Digital. Retrieved November 2016, from http://allthingsd.com/20131119/new-googleglass-apps-will-translate-the-world-from-your-eyes-and-other-tricks/.
Gebauer, J., Shaw, M. J., & Gribbins, M. L. (2010). Task-technology ﬁt for mobile information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 25(3), 259–272.
Gospodini, A. (2004). Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: Built heritage and innovative design. Journal of Urban design, 9(2), 225–248.
Gretzel, U., & Yoo, K. H. (2008). Use and impact of online travel reviews. Information and communication technologies in tourism. 35–46.
Grossmann, M., Leonhardi, A., Mitschang, B., & Rothermel, K. (2001). A world model for location-aware systems. Informatik, 8(5), 22–25.
Halcomb, E. J., & Andrew, S. (2005). Triangulation as a method for contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 71–82.
Hariharan, R., Krumm, J., & Horvitz, E. (2005). Web-enhanced GPS. International Symposium on Location-and Context-Awareness. 95–104.
Herskovic, V., Ochoa, S. F., Pino, J. A., & Neyem, H. A. (2011). The Iceberg effect: Behind the user interface of mobile collaborative systems. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(2), 183–201.
Hill, A., MacIntyre, B., Gandy, M., Davidson, B., & Rouzati, H. (2010). Kharma: An open kml/html architecture for mobile augmented reality applications. Paper presented at the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). 233–234.
Höllerer, T. H., & Feiner, S. K. (2004). Mobile augmented reality. In H. Karimi & A. Hammad (Eds.), Telegeoinformatics: Location-based computing and services. London: Taylor & Francis.
Huang, Y., & Bian, L. (2009). A bayesian network and analytic hierarchy process based personalized recommendations for tourist attractions over the internet. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 933–943.
Huang, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2009). AR-view: And augmented reality device for digital reconstruction of yuangmingyuan. Paper presented at the international Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality.
Johnson, P. A., Sieber, R. E., Magnien, N., & Ariwi, J. (2012). Automated web harvesting to collect and analyse user-generated content for tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(3), 293– 299.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies—The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86.
Jung, T., & Leue, M. C. (2015). Enhancing the visitor experience through wearable augmented reality: A case study of Manchester art gallery. In M. Sigala, E. Christou, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality: Theory, practice and cases. Oxon: Routledge.
Karahasanović, A., Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., Lüders, M., Vermeir, L., Pierson, J., et al. (2009). Co-creation and user-generated content—Elderly people’s user requirements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 655–678.
Kenteris, M., Gavalas, D., & Economou, D. (2009). An innovative mobile electronic tourist guide application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13(2), 103–118.
Klubnikin, A. (2016). Tourism apps are primed to reshape the app industry, Tech.Co Retrieved November 2016, from http://tech.co/tourism-apps-primed-reshape-app-indusry-2016-01.
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.
Lee, H., Chung, N., & Jung, T. (2015). Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of mobile augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism. New York: Springer.

Identifying Tourist Requirements for Mobile AR Tourism …

19

Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & Tom-Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism. New York: Springer.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of inﬂuence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS quarterly, 657– 678.
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V. K., & Öörni, A. (2009). The impact of use context on mobile services acceptance: The case of mobile ticketing. Information & Management, 46(3), 190– 195.
Marimon, D., Sarasua, C., Carrasco, P., Álvarez, R., Montesa, J., Adamek, T., Romero, I., Ortega, M., & Gascó, P. (2010). MobiAR: Tourist experiences through mobile augmented reality. Telefonica Research and Development. Barcelona, Spain.
Morrison, A., Mulloni, A., Lemmelä, S., Oulasvirta, A., Jacucci, G., Peltonen, P., et al. (2011). Collaborative use of mobile augmented reality with paper maps. Computers & Graphics, 35(4), 789–799.
Munch, C. (2010). Effect of website speed on users, Munchweb. Retrieved November 2016, from http://munchweb.com/effect-of-website-speed.
Ngai, E. W. T., & Gunasekaran, A. (2007). A review for mobile commerce research and applications. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 3–15.
Nicas, J. (2016). Augmented reality moves forward with investments, products, The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/augmented-realitymoves-forward-with-investments-products-1452026393.
Olsson, T. & Salo, M. (2011). Online user survey on current mobile augmented reality applications. Paper presented at the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Basel, Switzerland.
Orland, K. (2015). Epic’s Tim Sweeney: Augmented reality will replace traditional screens, Arstechnica. Retrieved November 2016, from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/07/epicstim-sweeney-augmented-reality-will-replace-traditional-screens/.
Pang, Y., Nee, A., Ong, S., Yuan, M., & Youcef-Toumi, K. (2006). Assembly feature design in an augmented reality environment. Assembly Automation, 26(1), 34–43.
Papagiannakis, G., Singh, G., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2008). A survey of mobile and wireless technologies for augmented reality systems. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 19(1), 3–22.
Plack, M. M. (2006). The development of communication skills, interpersonal skills, and a professional identity within a community of practice. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 20(1), 37–46.
Pulli, P., Zheng, X., Antoniac, P., Hickey, S., Manninen, T., Martikainen, O. & Kuroda, T. (2007). Design and development of mobile services platform for senior citizens. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2007).
Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh, S., & Krulikowski, B. (2016). Fashion or technology? A fashnology perspective on the perception and adoption of augmented reality smart glasses. i-com, 15(2), 179–194.
Reitmayr, G. & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Location based applications for mobile augmented reality. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth Australasian user interface conference on User interfaces.
Rekimoto, J. (1997). Navicam: A magnifying glass approach to augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 399–412.
Roberts, J. J. (2013). One year after facebook integration, instagram relies on design by data, Gigaom. Retrieved November 2016, from http://gigaom.com/2013/11/06/one-year-afterfacebook-integration-instagram-relies-on-design-by-data/.
Rouse, M. (2015). Augmented Reality, WhatIS.com Retrieved November 2016, from http://whatis. techtarget.com/deﬁnition/augmented-reality-AR.

20

D.-I. Han and T. Jung

Schinke, T., Henze, N., & Boll, S. (2010). Visualization of off-screen objects in mobile augmented realit. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 313–316.
Shi, X., Sun, T., Shen, Y., Li, K., & Qu, W. (2010). Tour-guide: Providing location-based tourist information on mobile phones, Computer and Information Technology (CIT). 2397–2401.
Siluk, S. (2015). Microsoft to roll out hololens to developers in coming year, Sci-tech Today. Retrieved November 2016, from http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id= 0110015BAKJ2.
Stone, R., Bisantz, A., Llinas, J., & Paquet, V. (2009). Augmented multisensory interface design (AMID): A human-centric approach to unisensory and multisensory augmented reality design. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3(4), 362–388.
Swallows, D., Yen, D. C., & Tarn, J. M. (2007). XML and WML integration: An analysis and strategies for implementation to meet mobile commerce challenges. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 29(1), 97–108.
tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism. E-review of Tourism Research, 5, 1–13.
Van Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the uniﬁed theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2007). The conceptualization and measurement of m-commerce user satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 381–398.
Xu, D. J., Liao, S. S., & Li, Q. (2008). Combining empirical experimentation and modeling techniques: A design research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 710–724.
Zoellner, M., Keil, J., Drevensek, T., & Wuest, H. (2009). Cultural heritage layers: Integrating historic media in augmented reality. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. 193–196.

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?
Eleanor E. Cranmer, M. Claudia tom Dieck and Timothy Jung

Abstract The beneﬁts, value and potential of Augmented Reality (AR) are widely researched. However, the value of AR is most commonly discussed in relation to enhancing the tourist experience, rather than generating revenue or economic returns. Although AR promises to add value to the visitor experience and generate associated beneﬁts, the ﬁnancial implications and revenue model for AR implementation remain uncertain and therefore too much of a ﬁnancial risk for most tourist organisations, typically Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) characterised by limited funding. Thus, using the case of UNESCO recognised Geevor Tin Mine Museum, in Cornwall, UK, this study identiﬁes ways in which tourism organisations can proﬁt from AR implementation. Fifty semi-structured interviews with Geevor stakeholders, analysed using content analysis reveal a number of ways AR can be introduced to increase revenue generation and proﬁts, therefore ﬁlling a gap in research and minimising the risk for managers and practitioners considering AR implementation.
Á Á Á Keywords Augmented reality Tourism Revenue model Business model

1 Introduction

Throughout the 20th Century the emergence of new adaptive and interactive technologies changed the tourism industry completely (Buhalis and Law 2008). Technologies have revolutionised travel behaviours, such as decision making and

E.E. Cranmer (&) Á M. Claudia tom Dieck Á T. Jung Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK e-mail: e.cranmer@mmu.ac.uk
M. Claudia tom Dieck e-mail: c.tom-dieck@mmu.ac.uk
T. Jung e-mail: t.jung@mmu.ac.uk

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

21

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_2

22

E.E. Cranmer et al.

information searching (Wang et al. 2014), transforming traditional business channels and value networks (Buhalis 2003; Livi 2008). To remain competitive and ﬁnancially viable, it has been argued tourist organisations must pursue new ways to provide enhanced (Neuhofer et al. 2014; Tussyadiah 2014), enriched and unique experiences (Yovcheva et al. 2013), while offering value adding services (Garcia-Crespo et al. 2009).
For decades, tourism has been considered a tool to stimulate and improve the economy (Ko and Stewart 2002), thus in the modern age, this has progressed to include the adoption of, and investment in new technologies. It is now advised organisations that fail to adopt modern technologies, such as Augmented Reality (AR), will not remain attractive and competitive (Han et al. 2014; Tscheu and Buhalis 2016). Hereby, it is argued future competitive advantages are built around the effective use of technologies that add value to the tourist experience (Carlsson and Walden 2010; Cranmer et al. 2016; Deloitte 2013).
AR has gained much research attention within tourism, for its proven ability to enhance the tourist experience (Garcia-Crespo et al. 2009; Leue et al. 2015), adding value (Cranmer et al. 2016), and creating unique and memorable experiences (Yovcheva et al. 2013). It is widely acknowledged AR creates richer, more immersive content enhancing user’s interaction with and perception of the world and thus presents many opportunities to enhance experiences. However, despite many studies exploring and reporting the value of AR, the majority fail to identify and determine its ﬁnancial beneﬁts and economic potential. Therefore, in contrast to expectations, the adoption and integration of AR has been much slower than predicted (Chung et al. 2015). It is argued one reason for this is the absence of research identifying how AR can be introduced to improve proﬁt potential and create revenue streams. Research is yet to bridge the gap between technological potential and actual value adding economic beneﬁts. Therefore, this study attempts to progress understanding about how tourist organisations can implement and proﬁt from AR by providing new insight, which will reduce the risk associated with AR technology adoption, and help mangers and practitioners to better understand ARs ﬁnancial value, beneﬁts and potential.

2 Literature Review
2.1 Augmented Reality in Tourism
Technology has had a profound effect on tourism, strengthening the need for organisations to ﬁnd new ways to increase their presence and therefore competitiveness (Tscheu and Buhalis 2016). Proliferation of technology, and increased smartphone ownership has revolutionised the way tourists’ access and explore information (Jung et al. 2015). Tourists, now demand ‘info-cultural-tainment’ experiences, combining leisure, entertainment, culture, education and sociability

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?

23

(Palumbo et al. 2013). As a result, an increasing number of tourist attractions have begun to explore the use of AR to enhance visitor interactions with, and perceptions of their real-world environment (Roesner et al. 2014). Research praises AR for its ability to allow tourists with limited knowledge of an area to naturally and realistically experience it (Chung et al. 2015; Martínez-Graña et al. 2013), providing tailored and personalised information (Kounavis et al. 2012; Kourouthanassis et al. 2015) and enhance the tourist experience (Kounavis et al. 2012; Marimon et al. 2014).
A study by Palumbo et al. (2013) found AR increases visitor numbers and provides organisations with more scope to reach wider audiences (Chung et al. 2015; Kennedy-Eden and Gretzel 2012). Moreover, Chung et al. (2015) identiﬁed AR offers destinations and attractions a way to differentiate themselves and increase competitive advantage. In addition to this, it is argued simply that technology attracts tourists (Lashkari et al. 2010), because it offers added value to the user (Kounavis et al. 2012), facilitating seamless exploration of their surroundings (Yovcheva et al. 2013), thus extending their learning experience (Yuen et al. 2011). As well as this, implementing AR introduces many marketing opportunities, allowing destinations to come to life, giving visitors a better understanding of what to expect and therefore aiding in decision-making and planning processes (Yovcheva et al. 2013). Many of these ﬁndings imply AR could have a positive economic beneﬁt, such as increasing competiveness and therefore, visitors numbers. But, the majority fail to articulate ARs positive proﬁt potential, by failing understand how potential can be translated into economic value. Hence, the ﬁnancial implications of AR remain too unclear and therefore present too much risk for tourism SMEs.
As a result, contrary to expectations, adoption of AR has been slower than anticipated (Chung et al. 2015), although, it is still argued adopting and investing in modern technologies is a necessity for attractions to remain competitive (Tscheu and Buhalis 2016; Jung et al. 2015) and economically sustainable (Cranmer et al. 2016). The tourism industry currently lacks a framework or model to aid practitioners and managers to effectively implement AR. Research exploring Business Models (BMs) and Revenue Models (RM) for AR in tourism is scarce, and is currently delaying widespread adoption, implementation and exploration of ARs full potential (Cranmer and Jung 2014). To provide insight and progress one step closer to meaningful and wide scale adoption of AR in tourism, this study will identify how ARs potential can be translated into economic value.

3 Augmented Reality Revenue Model
BMs play a crucial role in helping secure and expand competitive advantage (Johnson et al. 2008), telling the story of how organisations intend to create and sustain proﬁts (Magretta 2002). BMs focus on creating value and capturing returns from that value (Chesbrough 2007). Stakeholder collaboration is vitally important to successfully implement new technologies (Al-Debei and Avison 2010),

24

E.E. Cranmer et al.

especially in the tourism context which is characterised by large and complex networks (Livi 2008). However, the economic value of AR for tourism is undeﬁned, and as a result, organisations remain unsure how to implement the technology to add value to the visitor experience while generating economic return. The potential to add value by implementing AR is widely researched, but, the majority of studies explore ARs value from a visitor perspective, rather than how it can be adopted to generate proﬁt or create additional revenue. An AR RM is currently missing from research, despite the fact it has been argued “a better business model often will beat a better idea or technology” (Chesbrough 2007, p. 12).
In a study exploring the value creation process of AR at Cultural Heritage (CH) sites, earning proﬁts was identiﬁed as the most important outcome of AR implementation from a developers perspective, and “varying business models are currently available on the market” (Tscheu and Buhalis 2016, p. 612). However, no AR speciﬁc BMs in a tourism context have been identiﬁed within existing research and it remains a clear BM for AR is yet to crystallise (Cranmer and Jung 2014; Kleef et al. 2010).
Nevertheless, Inoue and Sato (2010) propose several potential ways to generate revenue from AR. However, these mainly adapt existing BMs, and are not designed for AR and more speciﬁcally the tourism context. On this note, Kleef et al. (2010, p. 4) stated “value is the key concept of a business model, it is what a business trades with its customers”, but suggested in the case of AR, the value is likely to be non-ﬁnancial. In the context of tourist organisations, often SMEs faced with limited budgets, Tscheu and Buhalis (2016) suggested shared RMs are most suitable, but they do not outline or deﬁne how this could work in reality. Therefore, this study will attempt to explore potential RMs for AR implementation, using the case of UNESCO recognised, Geevor Tin Mine Museum, Cornwall.
Geevor is a publically funded organisation, and face increasing pressure to secure additional revenue streams whilst improving the visitor experience and modernising its appeal. Although each CH site is different (Tscheu and Buhalis 2016), the study will identify potential AR RMs, with the aim of providing practical guidelines for practitioners and managers to identify how AR could be implemented to generate ﬁnancial returns.

4 Methods
Geevor was used as a case study to understand the ways in which stakeholders perceived AR could be introduced to improve the visitor offer, while generating revenue. Stakeholder analysis was performed, identifying ﬁve stakeholder groups; 9 of Geevors internal stakeholders (G), 6 Tourist Bodies (B), 3 Tertiary groups (T), 2 local Businesses (L) and 30 Visitors (V). In total, 50 semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of these groups, between March 2015 and February 2016. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, a semi-structured interview

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?

25

approach allowed the freedom to add to and extend questions (Saunders et al. 2012), providing more ﬂexibility and increasing the quality of data (Gillham 2005).
Sampling is often chosen on the basis of employing methods that source respondents to best meet the overall aims of research. Importantly, “the sample must be appropriate and comprise participants who best represent or have knowledge of the research topic” (Elo et al. 2014, p. 4). Therefore, different sampling methods were employed; non-probability sampling was used to interview all stakeholder groups except visitors, where it was more practical to employ convenience sampling. Prior to interviews respondents were shown a short AR video demonstration and provided with an AR information sheet, to ensure their knowledge of AR was proﬁcient to adequately participate in the interview. All interviews were recorded and transcribed and data were analysed using content analysis.
Regarding the proﬁle of visitors, the majority (60%) identiﬁed themselves as ‘very much’ or ‘much’ with regard to their technical savviness, suggesting they are regular users of technologies such as smartphones and tablets, and 83% owned a smartphone (and those who did not often said they had a tablet). With regard to all other stakeholders, Table 1 demonstrates internal, tertiary, bodies and business stakeholder proﬁles including their organisation, position, and prior understanding of AR.

Table 1 Stakeholder respondent proﬁle

Code G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 T1 T2 T3 LB1 LB2

Organisation Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Geevor Cornwall Council Visit Cornwall Cornwall Museum Partnership Cornwall Museum Partnership (Freelance) Cornwall National Trust University of Falmouth University of Falmouth St Ives Secondary School Count House café Geevor Shop

Position Trustee Chair of Trustees Marketing Ofﬁcer Learning Ofﬁcer Mine Development Ofﬁcer Mine Guide Curator IT Manager Mine Manager Cultural Programme Ofﬁcer Chief Executive Ofﬁcer Chief Executive Ofﬁcer Development Ofﬁcer Museum Marketing Expert General Manager University lecturer University Professor Secondary school teacher Assistant Manager General Manager

Prior knowledge of AR Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

26
5 Findings 5.1 Secondary Revenue Generation

E.E. Cranmer et al.

Stakeholders strongly believed AR could be used to generate secondary revenue, through increased spend both on-site and in the local area, resulting from increased customer retention. It was considered the more time visitors spent on site, using and enjoying AR, the more likely they would be to spend money, such as staying to enjoy lunch in the café or having afternoon tea. In this way, LB1 hoped AR would encourage visitors to “come to Geevor for the day…I am trying to get double sale or tripe sales”. It is believed AR would give visitors more to do, while enhancing their experience and therefore enjoyment. In turn this would increase the time they spent on site and thus likelihood to visit the café for refreshments.
Similarly, with regard to the on-site shop, stakeholders suggested AR would increase visitors’ engagement and understanding of the exhibits, therefore increasing their likelihood to purchase items, such as books in the shop to continue and improve their learning experience. It was considered AR would help strengthen the connection between the museum experience and the products for sale in the shop. G7 for instance commented “in the mineral gallery…you could have one small notice saying many of these specimens can be seen and purchased in the shop”. In this way, it was considered AR would link directly to the on-site businesses, encouraging visitors to go in, instead of bypassing them. LB2 extended this further, suggesting advertising products throughout the museum experience would not only help drive trafﬁc, retain customers and increase sales, but also increase awareness and interest in local traditions and customs. Stakeholders felt if used in this way would be particularly beneﬁcial during low season when the site is quietest, to help combat issues associated with seasonality and customer retention. However, it was acknowledged AR would have to be subtle, careful not to interfere with, or detract from the exhibits.
Stakeholders identiﬁed one of Geevors challenges is that visitors underestimate the scale, scope and range of activities offered and often spend longer on site than anticipated. Thus, using AR, G8 and B2 felt people would be more likely to stay even longer because they would appreciate the scale of the attraction. B2 summarised “it is about eating more, drinking more and spending more” suggesting AR would extend visitors dwell time. Equally, B4 pointed out that AR would extend the visitor offer, and likelihood for visitors to spend longer on site, which increases the perception of value for money and therefore again increase their likelihood to spend more in the café and shop. Likewise, B2 claimed if more visitors are coming, staying longer and spending more money it will create a positive change, and increase revenues. These ideas are also mirrored by V22 who said as a visitor, if the experience is more engaging it would increase the likelihood of spending longer on site.

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?

27

5.2 Marketing Tool

The marketing potential and merits of AR are much discussed within literature, however the use of AR to increase proﬁts has not been previously examined. Stakeholders strongly acknowledged ARs potential to increase Geevors marketing presence, raising the proﬁle of the site and on a larger scale, Cornwall as a tourist destination. Thus, also attracting more visitors who would spend more at Geevor and locally (T2). In this way, AR could give Geevor competitive edge, while helping to attract less specialist and more generalist audiences as well as appeal to younger target groups. Importantly, B5 recognised that if you are doing something for younger markets, you are also doing something to beneﬁt older markets, because they “share the same barriers”.
Stakeholders acknowledged simply offering AR would be valuable and drive visits from individuals interested in trying the new technology. In this way, AR could therefore help “seal the deal”, inﬂuencing and conﬁrming visitors’ decision to go to Geevor. B1 suggested AR would attract more visitors, anticipating a good visitor experience thinking “oh that sounds a bit different, I am going to try that out”. B1 and G2 perceived, this would have a signiﬁcant impact on word-of-mouth marketing and recommendations, in turn attracting more people to visit. This is exempliﬁed by V3, V4, V25 and V28 who all claimed they would recommend Geevor, if the AR app provided an enhanced experience.
One of Geevors’ key challenges is a lack of funding, therefore if AR had the potential to demonstrate site advancement, innovation and improvement indirectly attracting funders, this would be extremely valuable to Geevor (B3, LB2). In addition, B2 identiﬁed the beneﬁt of AR is that it would offer the media something “new” to promote. B5 and G3 also thought AR would increase visitors’ likelihood to share their experiences on social media platforms, which would again raise Geevors proﬁle and attracter wider audiences. T2 noted that society is used to instant sharing, and AR should inspire photo sharing, or what people thought of the experience to inspire higher visitor numbers “based on new visits rather than repeat visits”. G3 adds this would help increase Geevors online marketing presence. Although T2 raised concern that if some sort of AR experience was available pre-visit, it may have a negative impact and discourage people from actually visiting, because they would feel they had seen it all. But, nevertheless recognised AR would be a good way to potentially increase site engagement and drive visits. AR would however be effective at providing a “wow” factor (G2) incorporated into marketing materials to increase visitor numbers.

5.3 AR Free or Fee
A number of considerations arose during interviews. One of the main debates centred around the best and most effective RM to introduce AR at Geevor.

28

E.E. Cranmer et al.

Stakeholders were of two minds about whether AR should be offered for free, as part of Geevor trying to better the visitor experience or alternatively whether AR be offered as an extra, at an additional fee to the entry cost. Even among stakeholders who felt AR should be charged at a fee, the amount varied. Out of 30 visitors interviewed, just over half said they would be willing to pay between £1 and £5 to use AR, believing it would make the visit more interesting, entertaining and educational. Although, no ideal cost for AR was identiﬁed. Some visitors claimed to have paid for audio guides at other attractions, so paying to use AR would be no different. Most stakeholders agreed that audio guides prove visitors’ willingness to pay to have “a bit more information at their ﬁngertips” (B1) and thus would make sense to have a fee attached. However, it was also proposed that the fee could vary at different times of the year and for different target segments.
On the other hand, just under half of visitors argued they would not be willing to pay a fee to use AR, and it should be offered free as part of Geevor trying to deepen and broaden the visitor experience, bettering itself. Of these, some suggested however, that if the entry fee increased slightly to cover the costs of AR it would not cause concern. One of the main reasons visitors objected to paying a fee for AR is worry about Geevor becoming too expensive for families, as well as visitors feeling they have to use AR because they have paid for it. This clearly shows that there is no agreement about costs involved in using AR at CH attractions thus, proper research is required to ensure that visitors’ willingness to pay is fully understood and appropriate strategies adopted.

5.4 Own or Loan Devices
Another debate arising from interviews related to AR pricing structure; whether visitors should have their own devices or if Geevor would provide devices for visitors to loan. Yet, irrespective of the choice made, both could potentially generate revenue. Firstly, if visitors used their own devices Geevor could introduce a charge to download the AR application. Secondly, if Geevor loaned devices to visitors, they could demand a hire fee and deposit. However, both options introduce ﬁnancial implications, such as buying and maintaining enough devices to loan to visitors. Equally both options have barriers, for example if visitors used their own devices, it would be based on the assumption all visitors have an AR enabled device, that is fully charged, has enough memory, sufﬁcient connectivity and power to efﬁciently run the AR application. Visitors without their own AR capable devices would miss out on the experience.
On the other hand, if Geevor were to loan devices, stakeholder recognised the long-term commitment and investment it would involve and issues surrounding security and preventative measures to ensure devices are returned. However, deposit schemes, pre booking devices and tracking devices were proposed by stakeholders as a resolution to such barriers. Visitors largely favoured the idea of

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?

29

loaning devices, claiming they would be willing to pay more to hire a device because it would enhance their experience. Whereas if visitors had to use their own devices, paying to pay to download AR it was considered less favourable.

6 Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of this study was to explore and understand potential ways AR can be implemented to generate proﬁt. Despite the many beneﬁts AR presents to tourist organisations such as Geevor, its adoption still involves too many uncertainties and therefore ﬁnancial risk. Therefore, this study aimed to improve understanding by revealing how AR can be adopted to generate revenue, by identifying a number of ways potential AR RMs. However because the study is conceptual, although it identiﬁes potential proﬁt generation methods, using these methods to earn proﬁt is yet to be researched. Nonetheless, the study bridges a gap within current research. At present, the majority of AR studies identify the potential of AR to add value and enhance experiences, rather than generate proﬁtable and ﬁnancial value. This study adds to the existing pool of knowledge by exploring ﬁnancial implications of AR adoption. Fundamentally, business is concerned with creating value and capturing returns from that value (Chesbrough 2007). Although value does not have to be ﬁnancial, for tourist organisations such as Geevor, it is important investment into and adoption of technologies both enhance the tourist experience and generate revenue (Jung et al. 2015), and earning proﬁts is often considered the most important outcome of AR implementation (Tscheu and Buhalis 2016).
This study reveals a number of potential ways tourist organisations can adopt and implement AR to generate proﬁt. Since this is an underexplored area, the majority of ﬁndings have not been previously identiﬁed in literature. However, some overlaps with existing research are apparent; for instance stakeholders considered just by offering AR technology, it would broaden and attract wider audiences. This is conﬁrmed by Lashkari et al. (2010) who found technology itself attracts tourists. Similarly, stakeholders identiﬁed a number of potential secondary beneﬁts arising from AR implementation that would contribute to increased proﬁts; such as adding value to the visitor experience, increasing and extending the learning experience, as well as providing entertainment and sociability. Such beneﬁts of AR have been previously identiﬁed in literature (e.g. Chung et al. 2015; Kounavis et al. 2012; Palumbo et al. 2013), but this study extends understanding identifying how these beneﬁts can contribute to increase proﬁt generation. Stakeholders perceived if visitors have a better experience using AR, they are likely to stay longer on site which would increase their likelihood to spend more money in the café or make a purchase in the shop. In turn, this would create a better reputation for Geevor, broadening the target market, while attracting more visitors, increasing ticket sales and use of local infrastructure, as well as creating more money to invest back into the area. Although previous studies such as Yovcheva et al. (2013) discuss the marketing potentials of AR, they do not examine how it could generate revenue.

30

E.E. Cranmer et al.

Again, interview ﬁndings extend understanding; suggesting AR would raise the proﬁle of the site and Cornwall as a tourist destination, increasing visitor numbers, creating a good reputation for the area and enhancing competitiveness.
In addition to this, interviews revealed two debates, ﬁrstly should AR be offered free or for a fee? Secondly, should visitors bring their own devices or should Geevor loan AR enabled devices? There was a divide of opinion and although no clear answer was established, the study generates questions that require answers if, and before, AR is to be successfully and sustainably implemented by tourist organisations. For many SMEs, the pressure to adopt and invest in modern technologies increases daily (Han et al. 2014; Jung et al. 2015; Tscheu and Buhalis 2016), but at present there remain too many uncertainties and therefore ﬁnancial risk. The creation and examination of such ‘own or loan’, ‘free or fee’ debates create platforms for discussion and demonstrate the need for further research, as well as providing questions for mangers and practitioners considering AR adoption to answer. Therefore, not only does this study extend the existing pool of knowledge and move AR one step closer to meaningful implementation by outlining potential proﬁt generation. It also provides both practitioners and managers with a number of considerations and potential paths to pursue to implement AR to generate a proﬁt, thus minimising ﬁnancial risk.
This study has a number of limitations and recommendations for future research. The ﬁndings are based solely on a case study of Geevor Tin Mine Museum, therefore minimising their generalisability. Nonetheless, the study identiﬁed a number of potential ways to implement AR within tourist organisations to generate proﬁt, however the ﬁndings are in no way complete and it is recommended further studies are conducted and the ﬁnancial outcomes of actual implementation reported. Nevertheless, the study provides insight, of which provide a greater understanding of ARs proﬁt generating potential, thus offering managers and practitioners to learn from and share from the ﬁndings.

References
Al-Debei, M., & Avison, D. (2010). Developing a uniﬁed framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359–376.
Buhalis, D. (2003). Etourism: Information technology for strategic tourism management. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet; the state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623.
Carlsson, C., & Walden, P. (2010). Supporting tourists at the Bomarsund Fortress with a mobile value service. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(1), 43–56.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.
Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit destination: Role of augmented reality applications for heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 50(2015), 588–599.

How can Tourist Attractions Proﬁt from Augmented Reality?

31

Cranmer, E., & Jung, T. (2014). Augmented Reality (AR): Business models in urban culutral heritage tourist destinations. Paper presetned at Paciﬁc Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education (APacCHRIE), Kuala Lumpur.
Cranmer, E., Jung, T., tom Dieck, M. C., & Miller, A. (2016). Implementing augmented reality to increase tourist attraction sustainability. Paper presetned at ARVR Innovate, Dublin Ireland.
Deloitte. (2013). Tourism: Jobs and gorwth: The economic contribution of the tourism economy in the UK. Retreived July 2014, from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/ Local%20Assets/Documents/Industries/THL/uk-thl-the-economic-contribution-of-tourism.pdf.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K. & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis, Sage Open, 4(1), 4–12.
Garcia-Crespo, A., Chamizon, J., Rivera, I., Mencke, M., Colomo-Palacios, R., & Gomez-Berbis, J. (2009). SPETA: Social Pervasive e-tourism Advisor. Telematics and Informatics, 26(3), 306–315.
Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing: The range of techniques. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Han, D., Jung, T., & Gibson, A. (2014). Dublin AR: Implementing augmented reality in tourism. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 511–523). Wien: Springer.
Inoue, K., & Sato, R. (2010). Mobile augmeneted reality business models. Retreived October 2013, from http://www.perey.com/MobileARSummit/Tonchidot-MobileAR-Business-Models. pdf.
Johnson, M., Christensen, C., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(2008), 50–59.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49(2015), 75– 86.
Kennedy-Eden, H., & Gretzel, U. (2012). A taxonomy of mobile applications in tourism. E-Review of Tourism Research, 10(20), 47–50.
Kleef, V., Noltes, J., & Spoel, S. (2010). Success factors for augmented reality business models. Retreived August 2014, from https://www.interactief.utwente.nl/studiereis/pixel/ﬁles/indepth/ KleefSpoelNoltes.pdf.
Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521–530.
Kounavis, C., Kasimati, A., & Zamani, E. (2012). Enhancing the tourist expeirnce through mobil augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4(10), 1–6.
Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., & Chasanidou, D. (2015). Tourists responses to mobile augmented reality travel guides: The role of emotions on adoption behavior. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 18(1), 71–87.
Lashkari, AH., Parhizkar, B., & Mohamedali, MA. (2010). Augmented reality tourist catalogue using mobile technology. IEEE, 1(1), 112–125.
Leue, M., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In L. Tussydiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 463–476). Wien: Springer.
Livi, E. (2008). Information, technology and new business models in the tourism industry. Retreived October 2014, from http://www.gcbe.us/8th_GCBE/data/Elena%20Livi.doc.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Busienss Review, 80(2002), 86–87. Marimon, D., Sarasua, C., Carrasco, P., Alvarez, R., Montesa, J., Adamek, T., et al. (2014). Mobi
AR: Tourist experiences through mobile augmented reality. Retrevied November 2014, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228979424_MobiAR_Tourist_Experiences_through_ Mobile_Augmented_Reality. Martínez-Graña, A., Goy, J., & Cimarra, C. (2013). A virtual tour of geological heritage: Valourising geodiversity using Google earth and QR code. Computers & Geosciences, 61(12), 83–93.

32

E.E. Cranmer et al.

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technology-enhanced tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(4), 340–350.
Palumbo, F., Dominci, G., & Basile, G. (2013). Designing a mobile app for museums according to the drivers of visitor satisfaction. Retreived November 2–14, from http://www.wseas.us/elibrary/conferences/2013/Dubrovnik/MATREFC/MATREFC-24.pdf.
Roesner, F., Kohno, T., & Molnar, D. (2014). Security and privacy for augmented reality systems. ACM, 57(2014), 88–96.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. New York: Pearson.
Tscheu, F., & Buhalis, D. (2016). Augmented reality at cultural heritage sites. In A. Inversini & R. Schegg (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2016 (pp. 607–619). Wein: Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. (2014). Expectation of travel experiences with wearable computing devices. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussydiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 539–552). Cham: Springer.
Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. (2014). Smartphone use in everyday life and travel. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 52–63.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C. (2013). Engineering augmented tourism experiences. In L. Cantoni & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 24–35). Berlin: Springer.
Yuen, S., Yaoyuenyong, G. & Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview and ﬁve directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 4(1), 119–140.

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology in the Tourism Industry
Jessica Saoud and Timothy Jung

Abstract AR technology is a technology which uses the technique of adding digital content over the real world using computers and electronic glasses. As AR technology could be the next technological revolution, now is the time for ethicists to be more proactive in regards to the undoubtedly new ethical implications that will follow. This proposal aims to highlight the importance of developing an ethical framework speciﬁcally in regards to AR. It focuses on the merge of the physical and digital world that AR technology brings, and certain ethical aspects in regards to identity and communication, in relation to gamiﬁcation and wearable computers. The methodology draws in numerous Information and Computer Ethics frameworks in order to compare, contrast and create new links. The pressure on universities to provide market-oriented courses and temptations of businesses to provide proﬁtable products has forced ethical aspects to take the side bench, however previous research has shown that corporations that do include ethical considerations are more successful in the long run.
Á Á Keywords Ethics Augmented reality Tourism industry

1 Introduction

According to Moor (2005, p. 111), “[t]he emergence of a wide variety of new technologies should give us a sense of urgency in thinking about the ethical (including social) implications of new technologies”. Although there has been a steady rise in the interest of Information and Computer Ethics (ICE), this area is still very much under-researched even with the sharp rise of new technological paradigms and devices.

J. Saoud (&) Á T. Jung Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK e-mail: jessica.saoud@stu.mmu.ac.uk
T. Jung e-mail: t.jung@mmu.ac.uk

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

33

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_3

34

J. Saoud and T. Jung

This proposal aims to emphasize the importance of ethical discourse in regards
to technology, with an emphasis on Augmented Reality (AR) technology within the
tourism industry, mainly in the areas of education and heritage preservation
(Guttentag 2010). Through the analysis of literature relevant to AR, tourism and
ethics, and an evaluation of several ethical frameworks and approaches such as ACTIVE Ethics, ETICA approach and Bernd Stahl’s approach of interpreting emerging technologies, the proposal aims to highlight the need for a multi-level
interdisciplinary approach towards ICE. The methodological approach therefore
includes an in-depth research of ICE in order to develop interview questions aimed
at industry professionals and surveys aimed at industry professionals and tourists. According to Viseu (2003), William Mitchell’s book ‘City of Bits’ (1999)
interpreted the connection between the physical and the digital world by providing two phases of this relationship; The ﬁrst phase, initiated with the rise of personal computers, involves the “physical (being) pushed into the digital”, where the web, “the world of bits” (Viseu 2003, p. 17), is a “lean-forward medium…where users are (actively) engaged” (Nielsen 2008, p. 1). The second phase is one of ““functionality without virtuality”, where the digital is being pushed into the physical, creating artefacts whose ‘digitality’ is hidden” (Viseu 2003, p. 17).
Augmented Reality (AR) technology is an emerging technology that “deeply changes the perceiving subject and the perceived object” as it “[introduces] new objects in our world” (Liberati and Nagataki 2015, p. 136). This sort of ‘power’ that comes along with this new technological ‘tool’ raises many ethical issues as the “changing settings and practices that emerge with new computer technology may yield new values, as well as require the reconsideration of old values” (Brey 2000, p. 15).
According to Moor’s (2005) argument, ethical issues increase as the technology increases through its development stages, and Brey (2012) agrees that “current ethics…is insufﬁciently equipped to address the revolutionary changes…brought about with new and emerging technologies” (p. 15). According to Dechesne Warnier and Van Den Hoven (2013) the social and moral values need to be con-
sidered as AR technology is a socio-technical system embedded in social structures. This is because it creates a type of cyberspace, a new “social world…global simulated environment accessible by an almost ‘transparent’ neural interface” (Shields 2003, pp. 51–52).
AR technology is an emerging technology that has already been put to use by
several IT companies worldwide in order to create technological artefacts for dif-
ferent purposes. The technology itself has been on the rise from the late 1990s (Viseu 2003), however as predicted by James Moor in 20011 and Ivan Sutherland in 1968,2 new technological artefacts such as wearable computers are being tested and
produced. A device ironically made popular because of its under-rated introduction

1“Computing devices themselves may tend to disappear into our clothing, our walls, our vehicles, our appliances, and ourselves” (Moor 2001, p. 89). 2A “head-mounted three dimensional display” (Sutherland 1968).

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

35

is the Google Glass, a wearable computer powered by Android (Houghton 2013), others include Microsoft’s HoloLens and Meta’s Space Glasses. Recent news suggest a rumour that Carl Zeiss AG (The “German optics powerhouse”) and Apple
may work together to produce AR glasses (Rogowsky 2017). AR—a subdivision of Mixed Reality (MR) (Heimo et al. 2014)—is deﬁned by
Danado et al. (2003) as “a technology that allows the superimposition of synthetic
images over real images, providing augmented knowledge about the environment in the user’s vicinity” (Jung et al. 2015, p. 76). It relies on the “fusion between computer-generated information and ‘real world’ information… (to provide) new ways to interact with the ‘real world’” (Viseu 2003, p. 20).
Ethics has been a key philosophical discipline since Socrates’ time, it is a study carried through by “systematic theoretical reﬂection” of the “moral spiritual practice of individuals and communities…” (Maxim 2014). Its main concern is the essence of ‘Good’, which is an investigation of “the practical moral life”, hence why ethical analysis deals with issues such as “freedom and responsibility (and) autonomy and heteronomy”, as it perceives the “world as a whole…a synthetic conceptualized theoretical discourse” (Maxim 2014).

2 Literature Review
The following theoretical literature review is developed according to similar themes that have been found throughout the relevant literature—mainly in journals such as Ethics and Information Technology and Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. Beginning with a discussion regarding the concept of AR technology, the review will follow with opinions and views of authors who critically assess the possible impact of this technology, scientiﬁcally and philosophically. The main ethical issues discussed will be in regards to an individual perspective—Identity—and a social perspective—Communication. However, because these concepts are inter-related, they will be explained together in relation to two AR technologies—wearable computers and gamiﬁcation.

2.1 Augmented Reality Technology
AR technology is the technique of “adding and supplementing digital content over real world using computers” (Heimo et al. 2014, p. 1). As stated above, it is a subdivision of Mixed Reality (MR) “which stands for mixing computer generated content – a virtual world – into real world” (Heimo et al. 2014, p. 1). Viseu (2003) explained that they provide the “wearers instantaneous and constant access to information” (p. 20) such as “replacing a building with a virtual one that has existed in the same location but was demolished years ago” (Heimo et al. 2014, p. 2).

36

J. Saoud and T. Jung

Floridi (2008) applied a new term for “the world of data, information and knowledge…a new environment, the infosphere…” (p. 28).
Arguably this seems to be true, as “almost everyday papers report on new ethical problems or dilemmas created by computer technology” (Moor 2005, p. 117).
Moor 2005, Brey 2012, Floridi 2008 have all argued in favour of ethical emphasis
in regards to technology development, stating that we need ethical approaches that
are better informed concerning new technologies and their social consequences. Although there has been a rise in the interest in ICE, Tae Wan Kim’s and Kevin Werbach’s (2016) article pointed that ethics is still under-theorized, because “the
technological novelty and rapid adoption of the practice have outstripped careful consideration” (p. 161). Additionally, according to Søraker (2016) the games
industry evolves on a pace faster than the research conducted by academics, as the
latter requires more time to produce accurate results. Furthermore, Brey (2000) highlighted that there is a need for “conceptual clariﬁcation” as he reﬂected Moor’s point (1985), by stating that “the changing settings…that emerge with new computer technology may…require the consideration of old values” (Brey, 2000, p. 126). Richard Sclove (1995) added more emphasis and analysed them as “elements of social structures” (Brey 2000, p. 126) as they “help deﬁne or regulate patterns of human interaction” (Sclove, p. 11), additionally according to Lurie and Mark (2016) as “software systems affect the way people act and interact…the system ultimately has an effect on values and social norms” (p. 425).
According to Viseu (2003) augmentation involves “a synergy with the body” (p. 17), as the “interaction between individual agents and the social system in which they are embedded” begins to change. AR artefacts alter “the way in which the world is experienced [as] they mediate the wearer’s engagement with the world, more intimately then before” (p. 24). These technological artefacts, once “considered (universal) tools” (Viseu 2003 p. 20) because of their logical malleability (Viseu 2003; Moor 2001, 2005; Bao and Xiang 2006), are “no longer…tools and will become ‘technological companions’”.
According to Moor (1985) “computer operations…to most people, are hidden from view beyond their comprehension” (p. 272). According to Mitchell (1999), this “functionality without virtuality”, is now extending as both the “artefacts [and] digitality [are] hidden” (Viseu 2003, p. 17). Viseu (2003) argued that the “relationship between the physical and digital worlds is changing” (p. 17) as the world seem to be shifting from VR simulation projects (“Replication and Separation”) to AR augmentation projects (“Connectivity and responsiveness”) (Viseu 2003,
p. 18). She includes that although the relationship between those two worlds is dynamic as it is “constantly being re-designed and re-conceived… [T]ension… exists between those two worlds” (Viseu 2003, p. 18). This tension and mediation
discussed by Viseu will be further explained in the next part of the literature review.

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

37

2.2 The Physical and Digital World

According to Huizinga (1949) “the merge between the real and the virtual creates a ‘magic circle’ whose rules supersede the norms of reality” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 159). And according to Taylor (2009) “the boundary of [this] magic circle is not always clear-cut; the “real” and “virtual” cannot always be easily separated” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 159). This is because the augmentation “of the physical through the digital… [creates] a new entity with its own speciﬁcities” (Viseu 2003,
p. 22) according to De Kerckhove (1995). Although Floridi’s explanation of the infosphere suggests an ontological
framework that is different from the real world, Capurro (2008) suggests a re-ontology of the “nature of the infosphere” because Floridi (1999) discusses humans simply as a “bundle of information” (p. 53) and the infosphere as “non-natural environment…[a] hyperreality…separated from…[the] ‘‘life world’’ (Capurro 2008, p. 170). Floridi’s view of the “Digital Divide (DD)” suggests a
dualistic approach towards explaining the mediation of real world and digital world
information, as opposed to a twofold approach whereby the user, according to Viseu (2003) becomes a “hybrid actor…hosts the computational device [and] simultaneously affects and [is] affected by both realities” (p. 18). What if, instead of “de-ontologizing” the infosphere as Capurro suggest, we simply change perspective and begin to look at the human body as the new dynamic infosphere?
This new internal-external infosphere will unsurprisingly have “implications for identity and self-expression” (Jones 2016, p. 41) as communication will not
necessarily be made using our usual biological features, facial expressions, voice, etc. The “autonomous agency of ICTs (may require us) to rethink our own autonomy and thus our identity…a possibility that our view of ourselves will change” (Stahl 2016, p. 150).

2.3 Identity and Communication
For the sake of this speciﬁc proposal, identity and communication will be analysed in regards to two AR technologies, one being gamiﬁcation artefacts and wearable computers. McBride (2014) analysed identity as “concern[ing] a person’s concept of who they are, the moral and social beliefs they embrace and how they relate to others” (p. 32). Fearon and Latini (1999 and 2000) explained that identity “works at a personal and social level” because according to Perry (2010) “our conception of self is an internal cognitive function in which through…knowledge we build up a picture of who we are” (McBride 2014, p. 33).
Social processes such as learning (Acquiring knowledge) requires communication (Pejoska et al. 2016). “What happens when two people talk? They engage in a kind of dance. Their volume and pitch fall into balance and they fall into physical and conversational harmony” (Gladwell 2000). Bjorn Myskja explains that

38

J. Saoud and T. Jung

“non-verbal communication…may be essential to trust-building” as the “bodily presence in the encounter appears to be essential for understanding the relation of trust” (Ess and Thorseth 2008, p. 206). However online communication acquires a “disembodied” character which can “degrade human communication” (Wolf et al. 2016, p. 220). According to McLuhan (1962) “the shift from oral and tactile cultures to a literature cultures [allowed the individual to gain] a sense of perspective and individualism, but lost a sense of identiﬁcation with the world and his/her community” (Viseu 2003, p. 24).

2.4 Gamiﬁcation and Wearable Computers
Gamiﬁcation is “the use of elements and techniques from game design in non-game contexts” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 157). It “maintains the context of the physical environment during the game-like activity” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 159). An example of gamiﬁcation using AR technology is “Pokémon GO”, a game that “allows players to search for Pokémon, ﬁctional animals derived from the internationally recognized Pokémon franchise. The game uses geolocation to create augmented reality…gaming scenarios for players” (Wagner-Green et al. 2017, p. 35). According to Barﬁeld and Caudell (2001), wearable computers, are “fully functional, self-powered, self-contained computer(s) that [are] worn on the body… [and] provides access…and interaction with information” (p. 6).
Both of these AR technological artefacts can have a profound effect on the user. According to Anderson and Rainie (2012) “Digital games can…easily lead to cognitive [and therefore] behavioural manipulation”. Sicart (2015) argued that “gamiﬁcation…diminishes self-reﬂection…[and] interferes with human ﬂourishing by introducing an artiﬁcial set of motivators” (Kim and Werbach 2016) (Catching the Pokémon ﬁctional characters for example). The player may “develop a ﬁctional moral psychology” (Bartel 2015, p. 292)3 as he/she can only act within the limits of the game in order to win, “just as an actor can play the part of a villain” (Bartel 2015, p. 292), whether he endorses the actions or not. It arguably shapes “actions without conscious rational consideration” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 164), such as war games which include killing innocent “people”. Games like these show a “moral indifference to fundamental human values like the sanctity of life” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 160), and individual privacy. Using Pokémon GO once again as the example, several articles were published about players being found in inappropriate locations such as cemeteries and mass-reﬂection cemeteries (such as Auschwitz), a cliff (from where a user fell and passed away), a delivery room, funerals, police stations and residential car parks. Not one, but two rather disturbing
3“An individual’s moral psychology is made up of all the cognitive apparatus – the concepts, decision-making, strategies, heurists and affects – that are employed in her moral decision-making” (Bartel 2015, p. 291).

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

39

videos display a stampede of hundreds of users walking almost without any conscious while staring at their phones towards a “rare Pokémon”, in New York’s city Central Park and Taiwan.4
In regards to wearable computers, these can create a “reduced sense of shared experience” (Wolf et al. 2016, p. 220) between users and non-users. This is not the ﬁrst time social and psychological separation concerns in regards to technology
have been brought into light. According McLuhan (1962, 1964, 1988) argued that “the human psyche and social complex is affected every time a new technology is introduced…[as] a change in the ratio of senses..[is].. accompanied by a reduction” (Viseu 2003, p. 24). As the body’s nature is changing and we are “augmenting ourselves through this new digital prosthesis, what is being lost?” (Viseu 2003, p. 24). Another factor that can lead to a separation is psychological, as “traditionally people in the same physical space shared similar…not identical Local Space of Observations (LSO)” however, now if only one of two people owns a wearable computer, “neither can assume similar LSOs…bringing different psychological perspectives” (Wolf et al. 2016, p. 219). This raises the question as it “becomes easier and more convenient to communicate with individuals that are equipped with wearable computers, are all those who can’t afford it or don’t know how to use it, going to be excluded [from groups and certain social gatherings?]”
(Viseu 2003, p. 24).

2.5 AR and Tourism
“Heritage sites have huge amounts of information. However, it can be difﬁcult to present this information in a compelling way” (Kysela and Storkova 2014, p. 929). Certain data visualizations that AR can achieve such as “replacing a building with a virtual one that has existed in the same location but was demolished years ago” (Heimo et al. 2014, p. 2), allows a more “physically embodied construct of learning” (Pejoska et al. 2016, p. 475) and hence more personally fulﬁlling learning experiences.
According to tom Dieck et al. (2016), using AR applications “within art galleries…has a number of beneﬁts” (p. 1) as according to Cucchiara and Del Bimbo (2014, p. 76) it has the potential of “seeing what your eyes cannot reach…” (retrieved from tom Dieck et al. 2016, p. 1); it provides information about the paintings that otherwise would not have been known or been easily accessible. “AR is particularly valuable to the tourism industry because it can create an interactive learning environment…and increase social awareness of the immediate surrounding” (Jung et al. 2015, p. 76). This brings out a positive effect as according to Bligh and Crook (2015), Boys (2011) “learning theories commonly neglect spatial context” (Pejoska et al. 2016, p. 475). AR applications have been “developed for
4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLdWbwQJWI0 and (Bellware 2016).

40

J. Saoud and T. Jung

education in natural sciences”, however “applications for history and related tourism remain outside the main concern of developers” (Kysela and Storkova 2014, p. 929). From a positive perspective “only those who are familiar with the past can understand the presence and create a successful future…history can again become a play…and search for new information” (Kysela and Storkova 2014, p. 929), however there are concerns that teachers wouldn’t teach effectively because they wouldn’t know whether the students are paying attention or not
(Choudhury et al. 2016).

3 Proposed Methods
According to Himma and Tavani (2008) “The ﬁeld of information/computer ethics…is becoming one of the most important ﬁelds of applied ethics” (Kernaghan 2014, p. 296). Applied ethics is “concerned with the study of morality in particular domains of human practices” (Brey 2000). For Van Den Hoven (1997), it involved the application of existing moral theories and principles to context-speciﬁc scenarios. The relationship between ethics and IT goes back to the 1940s for what is now called Information and Computer Ethics (ICE). Computer ethics was developed in the 1970s and in the 1990s Luciano Floridi introduced Information Ethics. Because we are now entering a domain on the basis that users will be receiving information from wearable computers, I will be using the term ICE as Professor Norbert Wiener’s examination of ethical issues in relation to technology, AI, robotics, etc. at it seems relevant to the task at hand.
The methodology will begin with Moor’s three stages of a technological revolution, and follow with an advantage that AR technology has in relation to technological revolutions. Certain epistemological issues that arise from the use of AR technology will then be analysed. In order to evaluate the process of arriving to the best methodology in regards to the research of ethics in AR, certain IT ethical frameworks will be analysed in summary beginning with Value Sensitive Design, followed by the ETICA project, ACTIVE ethics, RRI in regards to forecasting approach, ethical technology assessment and anticipatory technology ethics (ATE). Finally, Simon Jones’ ethical analysis framework will be analysed. The analysis is in this order as each framework becomes more scientiﬁc and less speculative, as the anticipatory technology ethics will combine all the strong aspects of the previous frameworks, and Simon Jones’ framework will also work well with ATE.
According to Moor (2005) a technological revolution does not appear fully developed as it matures in stages, however its impact and integration into society will be major. Whether AR technology is going to be “revolutionary” in the sense of having “signiﬁcant social impact” is not yet deﬁnite, however Moor’s stages of a technological revolution are relevant as AR technology is going through the ﬁrst one. The three stages are the introduction stage, permeation stage and power stage. In the introduction stage “the earliest implementation of the technology are esoteric…only a few people are aware…but some are fascinated…integration into

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

41

society will be normal”. The permeation stage is when “the technological devices are standardized…more conventional…number of users grow…special training classes…cost of application drops…demand for its use increases”. The ﬁnal stage —the power stage—is when “many understand how to use it…integration into society is major” (Moor 2005, p. 112). Identifying these three stages is the initial step of an ethical research framework of AR. However, instead of perceiving AR solely as revolutionary, Moor’s stages should only apply as a guide, as Popper (1945) “argued for what he called piecemeal social engineering, rather than revolutionary social change…to proceed in small or limited steps and to learn from trial and error” (van de Poel 2016, p. 670). This will help in applying a pro-active approach in the aim to “reduce uncertainty in the early phases of technological development” (van de Poel 2016, p. 669) as according to the European Group on Science and Governance (2007) “we are in an unavoidably experimental state” (van de Poel 2016, p. 671). Because the full impact of AR technology is not yet clear, one epistemological issue faced is “the problem of uncertainty concerning future devices, applications, uses and social consequences of emerging technology” (Brey 2012) as according to Sollie (2007, p. 299) “the unpredictable nature of societal processes stem from social, economic, and cultural dynamics” (p. Another is the issue of agency, according to Moor 2004; Dechesne et al. 2013; Wolf et al. 2016; Kim and Werbach 2016 “developers bear responsibility” in regards to the usage of the technology, however “developers of the technology can only to a lesser extent be expected to anticipate values and social consequences of the use of technology” (Dechesne et al. 2013, p. 178). This could be as according to Holland (2011) there are “relatively low levels of moral judgement skills amongst computing students in higher education, regardless of level, and despite exposure to computer ethics in the curriculum” (Jones 2016). This proves that an ethical map or moral theory needs to be constructed in order to provide “normative guidance to both scholars and practitioners” (Kim and Werbach 2016, p. 161), as “teaching ethical theory is an essential part of teaching computer ethics” (Staehr 2002, p. 15). Value Sensitive Design (VSD), an approach constructed in the 1990s holds that “potential computer-ethics issues would be preventable if…attention is directed at the very beginning to avoi(d) harm to human values” (Kernagahan 2014, p. 302). Such values include democratic values, ethical values, people and professional values. It focuses on the “social” aspect of this socio-technical system (Dechesne et al. 2013). The ETICA approach (Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications), focuses on the “ethical assessment of emerging ICTs” (Brey 2012). It is a good starting point as it provides an abstract and general framework towards ethical analysis. Bernd
Stahl (2011) provided graphic discourses of ethical issues in regards to emerging technologies. The deﬁning features that he included of AR technology are physical immersion, synthetic sensory stimulation, mental immersion of the user and
interactivity. Table 1 below features certain relevant social and socio-technical implications of emerging ICTs from Brey’s analysis:
The table provided above and theoretical analysis given in Stahl’s research led to another graphic analysis in which he provided certain categorisation of ethical
issues, below are certain examples from the one originally constructed:

42

J. Saoud and T. Jung

Table 1 Brey’s analysis of socio-technical implications of emerging ICTs

Emerging ICTs Pervasiveness
Embedded
Synthetic sensory stimulation Virtualisation of resources

Power over users
Control over your body and mind Stimulate parts of the brain Dehumanising factors

Natural interaction
Context-aware
Interactivity
Mental immersion of the user

Direct link between humans and machines Augmentation
Motor function
Adaptive

• Technical enablers • Uncertainty of outcomes • Ethical theories • Conceptual Issues • Role of humans • Perceptions of technology • Social consequences (ex. nature of society, culture, responsibility, ownership,
sustainability) • Impact on individual (Treatment of humans, privacy, security, autonomy,
identity)
ACTIVE ethics was formed as a new version of the model PAPA which stands for Privacy, Accuracy, Property and Accessibility. It is also a form of virtue ethics which stands for Autonomy, Community, Transparency Identity, Value and Empathy. “The possession of virtues enables actors to make reasoned decisions in the face of ethical dilemmas” (McBride 2014). The analysis of such issues along with rules-based approaches such as codes of conduct will assist in developing new policies as according to Kant “laws are necessary to practice being moral” (Ess and Thorseth 2008). According to the European Commission (2000, p. 3) “Europe needs smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” (Stahl 2011, p.151). Innovation in technology is an important aspect of the Digital Agenda for Europe (Stahl 2011), which leads to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). “Ethical study of emerging technologies is an important prerequisite for responsible innovation” (Brey 2012, p. 307). Forecasting studies, “the uses and social consequences of” technological devices is comprised of futures studies and technology assessment. Futures studies is “the ﬁeld that aims to study possible or probable futures” (Brey 2012, p. 307) and includes approaches such as the Delphi method which relies on “consultation of experts in various ﬁelds”. Technology assessment is the study of “new technology on industry”. The ethical technology assessment (eTA) “provides indicators of negative ethical implications at an early stage of technological development” by the “form of a continuous dialogue rather than a single evaluation at a speciﬁc point in time” (Palm and Hansson 2006, p. 543) This is more relevant as “ethics is an ongoing and dynamic enterprise” (Moor 2005, p. 118).

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

43

Brey’s ethical approach is the anticipatory technology ethics (ATE) approach. He breaks down his analysis into three stages, the technology, the technological artefact and the application level. “Various objects of ethical analysis are deﬁned” at different levels. He initially applied the forecasting method o the technological level, where “understanding of the technology is because acquired from engineers”. Similar to the ETICA project, at the identiﬁcation stage “description of the technology ae cross-references with ethical values”. “Ethical issues are either inherent, consequential, or pertaining to speciﬁc risks”. In regards to the technology level for example, an inherent issues is the manipulation of DNA and in regards to the artefact level, a video game could be degrading human beings. Consequential relate to the consequences of the technology or artefact. The application level deals with different issues, namely “intended use, unintended consequences for users and unintended consequences of non-user stakeholders”. He then includes a “design feedback stage…responsibility assignment stage and governance stage”. This entire approach is a “full-blown approach to RRI”.
While this methodology is extensive and includes elements from almost all the ethical approach mentioned (VSD, ACTIVE and ETICA), an additional framework can be added in order to get stronger results. Simon Jones (2016) recommended ﬁve stages that need to be completed in order to reach a result of ethical analysis:
• Identify a particular ethical dilemma. • Analysis of speciﬁc technologies and the social context of their design
deployment and use. • Values and principle at stage are identiﬁed in order to understand the “bigger
picture”. • Consideration of laws. • Practitioner moment whereby the implications are followed through for pro-
fessional practice. • Assessment and evaluation of potential solutions
During the initial levels the theoretical aspects of the projects can be done through secondary research, however the steps after will require working alongside scientiﬁc experts and also social scientists (Brey 2000). Primary research will be in the form of surveys and interviews directed at industry professionals (software developers and IT businesses) in order to understand their priorities and align them with context-speciﬁc ethical issues. Whether the ﬁnal result is reached by building a more comprehensive framework or checklist will be more clear as the research continues.

4 Limitations and Further Research
Forecasting studies can be speculative without a comprehensive and systematic global ethical system (Brey 2012). According to Jones (2016) there is no stand-alone theory that will be comprehensive enough to tackle every single

44

J. Saoud and T. Jung

modern ethical dilemma. However, as mentioned previously ethical studies is a “dynamic enterprise that continually requires reassessment of the situation.” (Moor 2005, p. 118) and “the target is to achieve a breakthrough in introducing new principles and concepts, to create a new beginning” (Bao and Xiang 2006, p. 43). What if, Moor’s According to Brey 2000, Moor 2005, Jones 2016, a multi-dimensional framework is needed to build a comprehensive framework. More research can be conducted in regards to the ontology of Information Ethics and Communication Ethics, AR Reality bioethical issues, AR Tourism, AR Education, AR Health, etc. Additionally, a look into Husserl’s phenomenology in regards to horizons (Inner, Outer and World) and how traditional and technological glasses mediate our perception will also assist in building a clearer picture in regards to the wide application of AR technology. This area is very much under-researched and could allow a revival of philosophy and philosophical ethics speciﬁcally as the world moves into new forms of interaction and sensory enhanced spatial locations.

5 Conclusion
“[T]he emergence of a wide variety of new technologies should give us a sense of urgency in thinking about the ethical (including social) implications of new technologies” (Moor 2005, p. 111). We need to be more proactive and less reactive in doing ethics, as technologies such as gamiﬁcation and AR are still “under-theorized…” (Kim and Werbach 2016). The aim was to highlight how a merge between the physical and digital world will create a “magic circle” where the rules are not the same, requiring changes or perhaps additions to our ethical concepts and moral codes. Identity and Communication were the concepts analysed in regards to ethical studies and were related to AR technology by analysing the inter-dependent relationship between the concepts and two AR technologies, wearable computers and gamiﬁcation technology. The methodology discussed with Moor’s three stages of a technological revolution and epistemological issues that arise from the use of AR technology. Certain IT ethical frameworks were analysed in summary beginning with Value Sensitive Design, followed by the ETICA project, ACTIVE ethics, RRI in regards to forecasting approach, ethical technology assessment, anticipatory technology ethics (ATE) and Simon Jones’ ethical analysis framework will be analysed. “The temptation to improve the statistical side of business…could overcome the more ethical actions”, however “corporations promoting their ethical actions tend to fare better than corporations that do not” (Heimo 2014). Philosophers and industry professionals need to ﬁnd common ground in order for moral theories to be developed exclusively to the subject/object at hand, and be proactive instead of reactively trying to ﬁx avoidable accidents.

An Ethical Perspective of the use of AR Technology …

45

References

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). The future of gamiﬁcation. Retrieved from PewResearch Internet Project. Retrieved February 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/05/18/thefuture-of-gamiﬁcation/.
Bao, Z., & Xiang, K. (2006). Digitalization and global ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 41–47.
Barﬁeld, W., & Caudell, T. (2001). Basic concepts in wearable computers and augmented reality. Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality, 162, 3–26.
Bartel, C. (2015). Free will and moral responsibility in video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(205), 285–293.
Bellware, K. (2016). Rare Pokemon Sparks Massive Stampede In Taiwan, The Hufﬁngton Post. Retrieved January 2017, from www.hufﬁngtonpost.com.au/2016/08/23/rare-pokemon-sparksmassive-stampede-in-taiwan/?utm_hp_ref=au-pokemon+go.
Brey, P. (2000a). Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 125–129.
Brey, P. (2000b). Disclosive computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30(4), 10–16.
Brey, P. (2012). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technolog, 14, 305–317.
Choudhury, N., Venkatesh, T., Bhattacharya, S., & Sarma, S. (2016). Avabodhaka: A System to
Analyse and Facilitate Interactive Learning in an ICT Based System for Large Classroom. Procedia Computer Science, 84, 160–168. Cucchiara, R., & Del Bimbo, A. (2014). Visions for augmented cultural heritage experience. IEEE, 2(1), 47–82. Dechesne, F., Warnier, M., & Van Den Hoven, J. (2013). Ethical requirements for reconﬁgurable sensor technology: A challenge for value sensitive design. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 173–181. Ess, C., & Thorseth, M. (2008). Kant and information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(4), 205–211. Floridi, L. (2008). Information ethics: A reappraisal. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(2), 189–204. Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little
Brown. Heimo O. I., Kimppa, K. K., Helle, S., Korkalainen, T., & Lehtonen, T. (2014). Augmented reality
—Towards an ethical fantasy? Paper presented at IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering. Chicago, USA. Houghton, S. (2013). Google glass: Release date, news and features. Retrieved January 2017, from
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/gadgets/google-glass-1152283/review. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul. Jones, S. (2016). Doing the right thing: Computer pedagogy revisited. Journal of Information
Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(1), 33–48. Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented
reality technologies—The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86. Kernaghan, K. (2014). Digital dilemmas: Values, ethics and information technology. Canadian
Public Administration, 57(2), 295–317. Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamiﬁcation. Ethics
and Information Technology, 18(2), 157–173. Kysela, J., & Storkova, P. (2014). Using augmented reality as a medium for teaching history and
tourism. Proceda—Social and Behavioural Sciences, 175, 926–931.

46

J. Saoud and T. Jung

Liberati, N., & Nagataki, S. (2015). The AR glasses “non-neutrality”: Their knock-on effects on the subject and on the giveness of the object. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(2), 125–137.
McBride, N. K. (2014). ACTIVE ethics: An information systems ethics for the internet age. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(1), 21–44.
Moor, J. H. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266–275. Moor, J. H. (2001). The future of computer ethics: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Ethics and
Information Technology, 3(2), 89–91. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information
Technology, 7(3), 111–119. Nielson, J. (2008). Writing style for print vs. web. Retrieved January 2017, from https://www.
nngroup.com/articles/writing-style-for-print-vs-web/.
Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 543–558.
Pejoska, J., Baueters, M., Purma, J., & Leinonen, T. (2016). Social augmented reality: Enhancing context-dependent communication and informal learning at work. Brtish Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 474–483.
Rogowsky, M. (2017). ‘Wear’ to now? Apple’s vision for the future may be coming into focus. Retrieved January 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2017/01/10/new-
rumor-suggests-apples-augmented-reality-future-may-be-coming-into-focus/#6d3ca3461b33. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford. Shields, R. (2003). The virtual. London: Routledge.
Sollie, P. (2007). Ethics, technology development and uncertainty: An outline for any future ethics of technology. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 5(4), 293–306.
Søraker, J. H. (2016). Gaming the gamer?—The ethics of exploiting psychological research in video games. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(2), 106–123.
Staehr, L. J. (2002). Helping computing students develop a personal ethical framework. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 1, 13–20.
Stahl, B. C. (2011). IT for a better future: How to integrate ethics, politics and innovation. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 9(3), 140–156.
Sutherland, I. (1968). A head-mounted three dimensional display. Paper presented at Fall Joint Computer Conference, Los Alamitos.
Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge: MIT. tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, D. (2016). Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning
experience using wearable augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–19. van de Poel, I. (2016). An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 667–686. Viseu, A. (2003). Simulation and augmentation: Issues of wearable computers. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(1), 17–26. Wagner-Greene, V. R., Wotring, A. J., Castor, T., Kruger, J., Dake, J. A., & Mortemore, S. (2017). Pokémon GO: Healthy or harmful? American Journal of Public Health, 107(1), 35–36. Wolf, M. J., Grodzinsky, F. S., & Miller, K. W. (2016). There’s something in your eye: Ethical implications of augmented visual ﬁeld devices. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(3), 214–230.

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product and Service Consumers: Some Empirical Findings
Azizul Hassan, Erdogan Ekiz, Sumesh S. Dadwal and Geoff Lancaster
Abstract There are evidences that, tourist adopt Augmented Reality (AR) for purchasing tourism products and services. Few holiday operators make this technology available for their customers. Arguably, AR as innovative technology supports tourists in pre, during and post-holiday mode and offer them better experiences. As far as, AR turns into an important research area, very few known studies are conducted. Thus, on the empirical ground, this study aims to bring out factors of AR adoption by tourists. Findings classify two different factor sets: positive factors of AR adoption by tourists and negative factors of not adopting AR by tourists. Innovativeness and user-friendliness features appear as the dominant reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourists while availability issue and technological issue appear as the negative factors of not adopting AR by tourists. This research offers some theoretical and managerial implications and thus a unique contribution to the limited knowledge of responsible factor studies of AR adoption by tourists.
Á Á Keywords Augmented reality Adoption Tourists

A. Hassan (&) Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK e-mail: m.hassan15@outlook.cardiffmet.ac.uk
E. Ekiz King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia e-mail: erdogan.ekiz@gmail.com
S.S. Dadwal University of Ulster, London Campus, London, UK e-mail: dadwal.ss@googlemail.com
G. Lancaster London School of Commerce, London, UK e-mail: geofﬂancs@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

47

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_4

48
1 Introduction

A. Hassan et al.

Augmented Reality (AR) is arguably becoming popular among tourism product and service consumers. This growth of AR is rather an example where innovative technological advancements are fueled by the unprecedented acceptance of the Internet. The adoption of AR is the positive outcome of wearable and handheld devices. Thus, AR adoption is sharply facilitated by wearable and handheld devices. There are some factors that allure tourism product and service consumers to adopt AR. Some of these factors are positive that supports the adoption of AR tourism product and service consumers where some factors are negative that lead to not adopting AR. However, from the consumption context, AR can hardly be featured as the most trouble-free and updated technology. Thus, there is a necessity to outline these positive and negative factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers. Based on theoretical suppositions of both AR speciﬁc and general theories of technology acceptance/adoption, this research aims to bring out the key factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers. This study then determines a series of factors appear into two distinct forms: positive factors and negative factors. AR as a valid research topic is explored in some relevant research works: AR application in museums, parks and heritage sites (Jung et al. 2015); tourism education (Hassan and Jung 2016); visitor management in tourism destinations (Hassan and Ramkissoon 2017); tourism marketing (Hassan and Rahimi 2016; Dadwal and Hassan 2015); tourism destination promotion (Hassan and Shabani 2017). However, a knowledge gap exists in the particular research area of positive and negative factor determination of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers. This research area is yet to draw attention of researchers and scholars to contribute to narrow the identiﬁed knowledge gap justifying to conduct this research. This study along with the other on-going research (Hassan et al. 2017) is a constructive contribution to the limited literature of factor determination of AR adoption.

2 Literature Review
Literature studies show that, AR as an innovative technology has found its place mainly in scientiﬁc research. However, this is also evidenced that, AR is valid research topic both in the tourism industry and tourism literature but rather in a very narrow space. There are also evidences that, AR is adopted by tourism product and service consumers. On the contrary, there are also evidences that, AR as a technology has some issues that hinder its wider adoption.

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

49

2.1 AR and its Adoption in the Tourism Industry

In real time, AR integrates digital information with the user’s environment (Dadwal and Hassan 2015). Both AR and VR are arguably adopted by tourists if they are attached to speciﬁc tourism product or service offers. In terms of feature analysis, AR offers a bit dissimilarity with Virtual Reality (VR). AR uses the present environment and overlays newer information on top of it where VR creates a fully artiﬁcial environment. The growth of both VR and AR is the result of Global Positioning System (GPS) that is made compatible with Smartphone devices to support and enhance AR usability. The unprecedented development of mobile telephone and handheld computing technologies result more adoption of AR. Also, increasing use of Smartphone expands the scope of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers. They can access AR in Smartphone devices where this technology can direct them to local tourism amenities with the support of GPS. In the most recent time, AR as an innovative technology experiences popularity for its capacities to offer enhanced and positive experiences with the support of mobile, handheld and wearable devices (Jung et al. 2015). This popularity dates to the historic background of AR. According to Henderson and Feiner (2007), the development of AR is initiated in 1990. Boeing researcher Thomas Caudell notiﬁes that, Augmented Reality illustrate head-mounted displays that the electricians used to apply to assemble complex wiring works. The very early commercial use of AR as a technology was the yellow ‘ﬁrst down’ line. This line appeared in 1998 in televised football games. Accordance to Layar (2016), Google glass is probably the most notable and well-known example that brought AR for use by the general consumers. This glass is also accepted by tourism service and product consumers. In later stage, the use of AR expands to many other areas as: healthcare, public safety, marketing and tourism.

2.2 AR Adoption Factors Generated from AR Speciﬁc Theories
AR speciﬁc theories are very limited in number making the sufﬁcient factors determination difﬁcult. According to Rauschnabel and Ro (2016), ease of use, functional beneﬁts and social norms are some factors of AR adoption where Chung et al. (2015) believe that, technology readiness, visual factor of AR and situational factor are few factors. Factors as personalised service, content, system quality affect users’ intention and satisfaction are identiﬁed by Jung et al. (2015). In addition, Leue et al. (2014) ﬁnd out high quality information, enjoyable features and content, perceived beneﬁts, cost beneﬁts and innovativeness. On the other side, tom Dieck and Jung (2015) identify personal innovativeness as factor of AR adoption. In principle, AR speciﬁc theories are largely indebted to conventional technology acceptance theories as (Table 1):

50

A. Hassan et al.

Table 1 The summary of Technology Acceptance Theories

1. The Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers 1962)

2. The Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1986, 1989; Davis et al. 1989); with derivatives, as:
i. The Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM 2) (Venkatesh and Davis 2000);
ii. The Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) (Venkatesh and Bala 2008); iii. The Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003);
iv. The Task Technology Fit (Goodhue and Thompson 1995);
v. The Technology Readiness Index (TRI) (Parasuraman 2000); and
vi. The Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM) (Lin et al. 2005; Walczuch et al. 2007)

2.3 Reasons of AR Adoption Generated from Existing AR Literature
To ﬁnd out reasons and positive factors of AR adoption and negative factors of not adopting AR adoption tourism product and service consumers, researchers are diverse in their arguments because of limited AR literature. Few of such literature studies claim that tourism product and service consumers adopt AR for purchasing a tourism product or service. However, the exact reasons and positive factors of AR adoption and negative factors of not adopting AR adoption still remain unclear and unexplored. However, researchers have determined few reasons and positive factors of AR adoption.
Researchers opine that, reasons for AR adoption are diverse. According to Smith (2010), there are two such reasons as: ﬁrst, AR can ensure success in new marketing campaigns; and second, easier access of AR through handheld/mobile computing devices. Larkin (2011) deﬁnes the reasons of AR adoption as: similarity with Virtual Reality (VR); user perception enhancement in a real-world environment; more opportunities generation for marketers; and information displaying or messaging is user-friendly. Hopkins (2009) argues that, the reasons to adopt AR are: it is simple and a user can adopt AR easily by turning on the Smartphone/computing device or pressing a button. AR is beneﬁcial as users can see space and people around them by using the ‘sensed’ mobile device. Also, AR can offer location-based information for general users. Spillers (2009) deﬁnes several speciﬁc reasons of AR adoption as: this technology is mobile phone device supported; capable to enhance mobile device user-experience; able to meet customer expectations by using mobile phone or computing device; AR is simple, helpful and offers convenient just-in-time information. On the other side, Sykes (2013) argues that, AR technology is adopted because, AR delivers design interactive experiences; AR is supported by mobile phone devices and AR is capable to create place-based interactions.

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

51

Jackson (2014) believes that, AR is adopted for a series of reasons as: AR ensures a better return from business enterprises; AR combines traditional retail experiences with e-Commerce; AR introduces stronger and active branding campaigns; AR helps to navigate and cover wider areas of a business organisation; AR ensures both brand trust and brand loyalty; AR adoption offers more information to improve shopping experience; AR visualises real-time product or service catalogue; AR creates more selling opportunities with 3D product view support; AR positively supports customers; AR allures and encourages potential customers to buy more services and products. Johnson (2015) states some reasons to adopt AR as: AR has capacities to be merged with digital and print media; AR is an interactive technology to help tourist attractions, destinations and museums; AR obviously helps navigation and transportation; AR offers better retail experiences and AR is compatible with Google glasses. Also, Lord (2012) believes that, AR is supportive to Google Glass. In addition to this, Lord (2012) believes that, there are some reasons to adopt AR as: AR is friendly and fully compatible with Smartphones; AR can produce geo-location based information; AR is not a gimmick and thus replaces gimmicky apps and on top of all reasons, AR is an elusive app.
From an industrial context, the reasons to adopt AR are more application focused. A number of reasons are identiﬁed by Total Immersion (2016) as: AR is a virtual support for industries; AR appears with elaborated real-time information of relevant business areas; AR offers immediate beneﬁts to industrial users; AR technology delivers unforgettable experiences to its customers promoting brand image; AR can create interests in consumers to purchase a product or service; AR is interactive and offers both relevant information and direction to purchase a product or service; AR turns a general user into an active user of a product or service. On the other side, Augment (2016) spots some reasons to adopt AR as: AR is capable to make eye-catching presentations and advertisements; AR assists in interactive learning; AR is user-friendly that requires less expensive and portable learning materials; AR holds a better or higher retention rate and AR nurtures intellectual capacities of the customers. Pauley (2016) believes that, AR is a sort of experiential marketing. Pauley (2016) determines some reasons to adopt AR as: AR is massively expanding with the support of 3D touchscreen technologies; AR allows customers getting a solid position in a business environment that is immersive; AR offers memorable experience for the customers; AR is an innovative and high-tech technology to ensure digital interactivity for the customers; AR transforms complex information into easier and more accessible for customers; in principle, AR is a futuristic technology that makes a product or service as eye-catching; ﬁnally, AR makes visual contents to be translated into many other languages and making them more accurate and consistent.

52
2.4 Positive Factors of AR Adoption Generated from Existing AR Literature

A. Hassan et al.

Researcher like Smith (2010) identiﬁes uniqueness or difference, personalisation and increased content as positive factors of AR adoption tourism product and service consumers. Also, interactivity capacities with viral loop of AR is also deﬁned as the positive factor of AR adoption (Smith 2010). Another researcher Hopkins (2009) identiﬁes few positive factors of AR adoption as: improved mobile usability, redeﬁned mobile technology experience, revolutionised experience, interface technique and enriched usability. Regarding positive factor identiﬁcation of AR, the contribution of Larkin (2011) is notable as some key factors are emerged as: better personal experience, interactivity advantage, a new media platform, a new virtual sphere, a new sphere of opportunities, social media compatible, virality and visualised catalogue.

2.5 Negative Factors of not Adopting AR from Existing AR Literature
In terms of negative factors of not adopting AR by tourists, researchers show some speciﬁc factors that can be termed as negative. According to Larkin (2011), uncertainty about fully taking off is the key negative factor. Also, Andy (2014) argues that, poor performance on low spec mobile device, integration failure, limited scope of image recognition and gimmick are some negative factors where Pauley (2016) identiﬁes technological similarity as the basic negative factor. Hopkins (2009) argues that, unexplored capacities of AR, privacy issue and restricted use for general people, narrow contents of AR are some major negative factors of not adopting AR. On the other side, researcher like Dribble (2014) opines that, disturbed binocular vision of depth perception, cartoonish image, limited use in movies, glitchy imaging, problematised object recognition and conﬂict with animation, disturbed compatibility with Smartphones are some negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers.

3 Methodology
3.1 Cases Under Investigation
Three holiday operators are selected as cases for this research as: Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travel and Thomson Cruises. One of the key reasons for such case selection is that, customers of these holiday operators are given access to AR. Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travel and Thomson Cruises have evidences to support their

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

53

customers by making innovative technologies as AR readily available. These three holiday operators also have a considerable customer base from diverse backgrounds. Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travel and Thomson Cruises bring AR in their marketing campaigns.
Butler (2013) informs that, Virgin Group formed Virgin Holidays in 1985 in the United Kingdom having it’s headquarter in the ‘Galleria’ in Crawley. Owned by Sir Richard Branson, this company is considered as one of the most successful long-haul scheduled tour operators based in the UK. Virgin Holidays also has partnership with more than 100 retail operators including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Debenhams, House of Fraser, Morrison’s and many others. Virgin Holidays employs Aurasma, one of the most updated AR providers for bringing holiday retail experience to their customers. This holiday operator launches an app that allows customers for researching holiday destinations and thus making purchases (Virgin 2016). Technologically, this AR app functions on the brochure after placing on a speciﬁc destination. This app is said to be the ﬁrst of its kind that is made available on iPhone for free downloading. After opening this app, a loading screen greets the viewer and allows them to see Virgin Holiday retail interiors. Users are then directed to AR functions and can browse holiday destinations and latest product or service offers. This app is activated by using the iPhone’s in-built camera after the device is positioned at a speciﬁc place. For example, if the device is placed on the cover of a brochure, the brochure is seemed to have opened with a video of that speciﬁc destination on the screen. The customer is then moved to a speciﬁc destination when it is made lively. This is supported by sound and movement that are otherwise impossible in a conventional 2D brochure.
Anandan (2009) notiﬁes that, the operational headquarter of Kuoni Travel is in Dorking after acquisition of Challis and Benson Limited in 1966. However, Kuoni Travel is originally established by Alfred Kuoni in 1906 in Zurich (Bywater 2001). After its establishment, Kuoni Travel is expanded within diverse geographical locations in the world turning it into a global brand. At present, this is world’s one of the leading travel companies with more than 11000 employees and has business operations in resorts, hotels, package holidays, tailor-made holidays, cruise liners and many others. Kuoni Travel is the United Kingdom’s leading tourism operator that has applied AR in its press advertising and magazines. Kuoni Travel is collaborated by Aurasma, an AR specialist that made AR available for Kuoni Travel customers. Kuoni Travel customers can view Kuoni Travel service or product offers on their Smartphone or iPad. This technology is supported by AR with image recognition technology. Online displays and advertisements of Kuoni Travel are made artistic and lively. Considering customer demands, Kuoni Travel website creates more than 240 diverse messages for its customers. These messages appear during the time customers are live on Kuoni Travel website for a booking holiday or making a tourism product or service purchase. AR app of Kuoni Travel aligns with a brand slogan ‘Requested by you…Crafted by Kuoni Travel’ a part of this holiday company’s integrated marketing campaign (Kuoni Travel 2016). The application of AR by Kuoni Travel manages to grab attention of increased number of customers with more sales.

54

A. Hassan et al.

Thomson Cruises is operated by Thomson that offers cruises across Europe with ships from Royal Caribbean International, Louise Cruise Lines and Holland America Line. Thomson Cruises was founded in 1973 and primarily entered the cruise market in the same year. However, suffering from rising fuel price issue this venture is terminated in initially in 1976. Later in 1995, Thomson reinitiated this cruise line. This is currently part of the TUI Group as a UK based cruise holiday operator. According to Cruise Market Watch (2017), in 2015, the world-wide cruise holiday industry is calculated as a US$39.6 billion industry (a 6.9% increase from 2014) carrying 22.2 million passengers (a 3.2% increase from 2014) where the market share of Thomson Cruises in 2015 is 1.8% of this industry and 1.3% of these passengers. This brand of Thomson Cruises with other TUI owned travel operators is expected to be phased out in 2018 and will operate under the single name of TUI. Mann and Ibrahim (2005), Thompson and Martin (2005) believe that, Thomson Holidays became the pioneer in business-to-business online shopping in 1981. Thomson launched its ﬁrst Internet site for their Portland Holidays brochure on 19 October, 1995 (Debbage and Ioannides 2005). There is evidence that, Thomson Cruises applies AR for their customers. According to Thomson (2017), Thomson Cruises introduces AR brochures considering the sharp rise of holiday bookings using Smartphone, tablet or handheld computing devices. Thomson Cruises ﬁnds a unique way for bringing its ships alive and showcase the life aboard. To do this, an innovative technology as AR is embedded in its conventional brochure pages to modernise its customers’ research experiences. Supported by AR, few photographs as seen on the latest Thomson Cruises’ brochure brings to life having 6 ﬁlms. Such ﬁlms present classy gourmet dining and entertainment selections on board. These also highlight the Platinum offers on board Thomson Celebration and Thomson Dream followed by introduction of the Customer Operations Director of Thomson. For accessing such hidden footage, tourism product and service consumers are required to download the free Aurasma App as available from the Google Play and App Store. Then they have to search for, select and follow Thomson Cruises. By placing the Smartphone, tablet or handheld computing devices over speciﬁc images as recognisable through an icon on the brochure, the ships come alive. This offers tourism product and service consumers a real feel for their desired holiday that they wish to book. Thomson UK is headquartered in Luton of England. In the most recent time, Thomson is doing online business as well for retaining a major share in the high-street travel agency business (Canwell and Sutherland 2003; Needle 2004).

3.2 Research Design
To generate primary data, 20 face-to-face interviews are conducted supported by open-ended and informal discussion with target respondents. A semi-structured questionnaire is used for the purpose. Respondent selection is based on purposive sampling because of the nature of this research. For interview, respondents having prior knowledge in AR and loyalty for the selected holiday operators are selected.

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

55

This is to avoid risks of lack of knowledge about an innovative technology as AR. Adoption of this technology require specialised knowledge that general tourism products and service consumers might not have and thus purposive sampling is followed. The respondent proﬁle is followed:

3.3 Data Collection
Main sample respondents of this research are customers of three selected holiday operators (i.e.: Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travel and Thomson Cruises) are the respondents. These sample respondents are identiﬁed through careful selection and purposive sampling. In this research, careful attention is paid to respect business policy secrets and sensitive data are not disclosed of any of the 3 holiday operators. However, for the sake of keeping business policy secrecy, the researcher is not granted to make face-to-face visits with any ofﬁcial of the 3 holiday operators. The researcher is not allowed to access to the head ofﬁce of any of these holiday operators to conduct formal or informal interviews even after several attempts. However, very generic information are passed over the telephone conversation with responsible ofﬁcials of these holiday operators. Keeping in mind about such limitation, data collection is designed in meaningful and achievable ways that involved the customers of these holiday operators where the research only covered consumption/adoption side of AR. Selected stores of Virgin Holidays and Kuoni Travels both in and around London are targeted as the location for data collection. On the other side also, selected stores of Thomson in and around London are targeted for Thomson Cruises customers. This is because both in-land and cruise ship holidays of Thomson are found booked from these stores. Having verbal consent of the store management of these selected stores, only loyal customers of these holiday operators are selected having prior knowledge in AR. These respondents are approached for data collection on their way back from these stores. Thus, no interruption in day-to-day business activities in these stores are made. Respondents are clearly asked the reasons and positive factors of AR adoption with negative factors of not adopting AR. This is supported by open-ended discussions. Maximum length of these interviews are 10 min that is considered as sufﬁcient to reach data saturation covering necessary data and information. The interviews are taken in person and audio-recorded. In addition, to collect secondary data, both online and ofﬂine resources including tourism industry reports are used. These 3 holiday operators are evidenced to allow their customers to adopt AR for marketing purposes.

3.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
Collected data are self-transcribed. This offers the researcher to properly bring out the contents of these interviews. The researcher listened to each of these interviews

56

A. Hassan et al.

Table 2 Respondent proﬁle table

# Gender Age Customer of

# Gender Age Customer of

R01 M

20–30 Virgin Holidays R11 M

50–60 Kuoni Travel

R02 F

30–40 Kuoni Travel

R12 F

40–50 Kuoni Travel

R03 M

20–30 Virgin Holidays R13 M

50–60 Virgin Holidays

R04 F

30–40 Kuoni Travel

R14 F

30–40 Kuoni Travel

R05 M

50-60 Virgin Holidays R15 F

50–60 Virgin Holidays

R06 M

30–40 Virgin Holidays R16 F

30–40 Thomson Holidays

R07 F

20–30 Virgin Holidays R17 F

20–30 Thomson Holidays

R08 F

30–40 Thomson Holidays R18 M

40–50 Kuoni Travel

R09 M

50–60 Kuoni Travel

R19 M

40–50 Kuoni Travel

R10 F

30–40 Thomson Holidays R20 M

30–40 Kuoni Travel

for several times and then transcribed manually. Data analysis follows qualitative approach with an aim to make non-technical readers understand research ﬁndings easily and comprehensively. Thus, data analysis also avoids excessive use of technical terms and made clear explanation of any technical term used. Data analysis in this research has not involved any rigorous statistical analysis. However, ﬁndings of this research actually lead to further research with complex statistical analysis through using updated data analysis software (Table 2).

4 Findings and Analysis
Findings are presented in a more explanatory and analytical manner for general readership. Findings outline tourism product or service consumers are becoming more technology savvy relying more on updated technologies that are innovative. AR is an example of such innovative technology. On the other side of AR adoption, all respondents mentioned Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travel and Thomson Cruises are the leading AR user in the United Kingdom for serving tourism consumers.

4.1 Reasons of AR Adoption by Tourists
Innovativeness appear as key reason as stated by respondent 11, ‘innovativeness and service features are the main reasons to adopt AR’. Also, respondent 16 states that, ‘innovativeness and uniqueness are the two basic reasons and positive factors to adopt this technology’. Respondent 1 identify a couple of speciﬁc reasons of AR adoption as, ‘AR accommodates hidden reality that is exciting and AR is thrilling at the same manner’. In the almost related statement, respondent 2 says, ‘AR is interesting and learning as well’. In another statement respondent 7 opines that,

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

57

‘I think acceptance possibility and reduced complexities are the two basic reasons and positive factors’. Respondent 8 has almost similar opinion as, ‘AR is reliable and AR is a valid technology’.
Usability comes as the next reason as, respondent 10 mentions that, ‘AR is mainly used because, this is user-friendly and mobile phone usable and the user does not have to open my laptop every time to use AR’. Also, respondent 18 says that, ‘AR is designed as capable to produce a good picture of the desired destination that a respondent wishes to visit’. On the other side, respondent 19 informs that, ‘AR is easy to use and offers huge information’. In a similar manner respondent 20 shows that, ‘easing off difﬁculties that a consumer normally faces to purchase a product or service is the reason to adopt AR’. Another respondent 15 stresses on that, ‘AR is useful and effective in making a consumer to purchase a speciﬁc tourism product or service’. Respondent 13 particularly mentions its usability and eagerness to try a new technology. On the almost same position, respondent 17 mentions that, ‘interest creation capacities and attractiveness of this technology are reasons and positive factors for using it’. Other respondent 6 asserts that, ‘assessing the impacts of a newly introduced technology is the other reason to adopt AR by tourists’. This respondent believes that, as a new technology, AR can really beneﬁt and uplift customers perceived expectations to a higher level to adopt this technology. Thus, respondent 12 thinks that, ‘consumer expectations and aspirations to use a new technology are the vital reasons and positive factors’. Respondent 14 also believes that, ‘AR as playful enjoyable and competitive to use to serve a purpose’.
Better content is the other reason to adopt AR by tourism product and service consumers as mentioned by respondent 5, ‘contents of AR ﬁnd an accepted position among the tourists’. This respondent also states that reasons and positive factors of AR adoption are contents and interactiveness. In addition, this respondent believes
that, the contents of AR can be diverse accommodating many aspects while the
interactiveness feature is also great, to some extent.
There are also some other diverse features of AR appear as reasons categories of
R adoption by tourists in respondent statements. Respondent 3 coins that, reasons to adopt AR are: ﬁrst, it offers a pleasant purchase journey and second, it offers personal experiences. In addition, lack of available technology to replace AR
appear as the response as respondent 4 answer that, the dominant reason to use AR
is the lack of effective technologies to help a tourism product or service purchase.
Also, respondent 9 answers that, lack of effective and applicable technology are the
reasons for AR adoption by tourists.

4.2 Positive Factors of AR Adoption by Tourists
Innovativeness feature of AR appears as the speciﬁc positive factor for its by tourism product and service consumers. Supporting this positive factor, respondent 11 says that, ‘I would mention two features as: innovativeness and service features’. Also, respondent 16 mentions that, ‘the very generic advantages of AR are:

58

A. Hassan et al.

innovativeness, uniqueness; and faster popularity’. In the same manner respondent 7 accepts that, ‘this technology can be well accepted and can be readily available’. In addition, respondent 8 suggests that, ‘I should say the two very important advantages of AR are reliability and validity of this technology’. Following innovativeness feature of AR, respondent 15 mentions that, ‘AR is helpful but many consumers need to know that, AR needs to be granted as useful and general consumers should be aware about that’. Based on innovative features of AR, respondent 18 says that, ‘AR can create a perceived image and can help to create a positive impression about a destination’.
Usability feature is the other positive factor found to adopt AR by tourism products and service consumers. This is stated by respondent 19 as, ‘AR is easy to use and can accommodate a wide range of information’. Also, this respondent believes that, this technology is effective and usable. Also, respondent 13 coins that, ‘from experience, I would that, better usability and effectiveness are the positive factors to adopt AR’. Stressing on trouble-free usability feature of AR, respondent 20 mentions that, ‘the best advantage of AR is its capacity to ease off most of the troubles and difﬁculties related to time, costs and efforts’. Similarly, respondent 20 says that, ‘the two advantages of AR as found are user-friendliness and easy to use’. According to respondent 4, ‘I have found AR as promising and able to ﬁll the existing gap of an effective technology. This technology helps a lot to allow consumers have a good product or service purchase’.
Several other factors are also mentioned by the respondents. Respondent 5 indicates that, ‘wider range of contents and interactivity are the two basic advantages of AR’. Respondent 12 points that, ‘this technology is capable to meet demands of tourism consumers where the expected performances are matched to their desired beneﬁts’. On the other side respondent 14 mentions that, ‘three basic features: playfulness, enjoyable and competitive are the key positive factors to adopt AR by tourism product and service consumers’. Experience generation is the other positive factor as explored by respondent 3 and this respondent states that, ‘AR is capable to offer pleasant purchase experience’. This respondent also says that, ‘this technology can generate memorable personal experiences’.
Feature of AR is found as interesting in the statement of respondent 1 as, ‘with hidden reality, this technology is exciting and thrilling’. This respondent believes that, this is a technology that would beneﬁt tourism consumers in a great way. According to respondent 2, ‘AR is a technology that makes a product or service purchase interesting. This technology is a learning experience at the same time’. On the other side respondent 6 mentions that, ‘AR is a new technology having diverse features where customer views and ideas about this technology are also positive as far as understood’. Respondent 17 argues that, ‘some consumers have more interests in using AR’. Reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourists generated empirically are symmetrical to literature based reasons and positive
factors mainly indebted to Augment (2016), Hopkins (2009), Sykes (2013), Jackson
(2014), Johnson (2015), Larkin (2011), Lord (2012), Pauley (2016), Smith (2010),
Spillers (2009), Total Immersion (2016).

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

59

4.3 Negative Factors of AR Adoption by Tourists

Availability issue appears as the negative factor of not adopting AR by tourism products and service consumers. In the statement, respondent 19 says that, ‘in many cases, consumers are not fully aware that, AR is so easy to use and contains so much information and consumers need to know about it’. Likely, respondent 12 mentions that, ‘in many cases, people expects too much from a new and innovative technology’. This respondent doubts that, AR can hardly be able to meet such expectations as in some cases, this technology may have limitations. Also, respondent 13 argues that, ‘some features of this technology require adequate knowledge in computing and in some cases, these can turn as disadvantages’. Respondent 8 insists that, ‘AR still needs to be familiarised as a reliable and valid technology where many people need to know about it’. Respondent 9 stresses that, ‘the basic disadvantages of AR are its less publicity and less attractiveness and people know very little about it’. Similarly, respondent 17 says that, ‘the two basic disadvantages of AR that, I can mention are: it is promising but still unable to
attract massive number of consumers to adopt it and this is a disadvantage. Thus, AR can manage to attract only selective consumers having access of the Internet’. In a related manner respondent 6 highlights that, ‘the very key disadvantage of this technology as believed is its unavailability and this technology is not yet fully available where some of the features are quite difﬁcult to understand making this as widely complex for non-technical users’. Respondent 15 ﬁnds that, ‘the great disadvantages as found from using AR are: common consumers do not often know that, this technology really helps’. On the other side respondent 16 ﬁnds that, ‘the basic disadvantages of AR are: its less advertisement and consumers yet to know about this technology beneﬁtting them in great ways’. Also, according to respondent 11, ‘this technology needs to be readily available and till now it is less available to common tourism consumers’.
The other negative factor of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers is the technological issue as mentioned by respondent 5, ‘as in some cases, AR can be a bit complex and misunderstood by tourists and this technology requires expertise in some cases that tourists may do not have’. Supporting this statement, respondent 1 mentions that, ‘bringing reality in digital format is a complex and difﬁcult matter to consider and in this regard, some tourism consumers may not ﬁnd AR as heavily interesting’. Also, according to respondent 10, ‘some people cannot download this technology in an easy manner due to technological difﬁculties and that can be the crucial disadvantage of AR’. On the almost similar opinion respondent 3 argues that, ‘while making personal experiences, consumers’ personal aspects become issues and personal artefacts can be disclosed in some cases and this is the key disadvantage of this technology’. This respondent also believes that, ‘this technology is yet to be fully operational meaning that it needs further updates to make it fully accessible and operational’. In addition, respondent 20 remarks that, ‘any speciﬁc disadvantage is not easy to ﬁnd but this technology can be highly sophisticated and difﬁcult in a sense’.

60

A. Hassan et al.

Usability issue is the other disadvantage as mentioned by respondent 2 as, ‘the great disadvantages of AR are: some customers may ﬁnd it less interesting and this technology may be less appealing to them as this in some cases requires advanced technological knowledge’.
There are some other disadvantages of AR as mentioned by the rest other respondents. In opinion, respondent 4 highlights that, ‘the generic disadvantage of AR that, this can make customers lazy enough to visit a high-street travel agent and this can in turn reduce their business and even threaten their existence’. Also in accordance to respondent 7, ‘some customers may not widely accept this technology because they may be fussy and thus, this is difﬁcult to say that, this technology can be readily accepted by all’. In addition, respondent 14 argues that, ‘this technology requires specialised knowledge mainly to enjoy those playful and enjoyable features. Also. Virtual Reality (VR) in some cases threatens it growth and popularity’. This statement is supported by respondent 18 as, ‘AR in few cases can be difﬁcult to use and understand where the usability can become issue in given contexts’. Apparently, empirical ﬁndings as negative factors of not adopting AR match with literature ﬁndings as outlined mainly by Larkin (2011), Andy (2014), Pauly (2016), Hopkins (2009) and Dribble (2014).
A summary based on empirical evidences supported by the literature generated data of key reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers with negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers can be the below (Fig. 1).
Findings of this research supports that, AR is an innovative technology that enhances experiences getting supported from mobile, handheld and wearable devices (Jung et al. 2015). Results also align with ﬁndings from dominant theories as: the Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers 1962) and the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1986, 1989; Davis et al. 1989) with derivatives that AR is a technological innovation and also with AR speciﬁc theories in tourism (Chung et al. 2015; Jung et al. 2015; Leue et al. 2014; tom Dieck and Jung 2015; Rauschnabel and Ro 2016). The Internet has facilitated a relatively newer wave of advancements in mobile and personal computing resulting to increase the adoption of an innovative technology as AR for tourism product and service consumers. Supported by this wave of technological advancements, product and service consumers have witnessed more modiﬁed wearable devices as Smartphones, Smart

Fig. 1 Key reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers and negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers

Innovativeness Availability issue

Adoption of AR

User- friendliness

Not adopting AR

Technological issue

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

61

glasses, Smartwatches or even ﬁtness bands. Also, the use of 3D head-mounted displays is mentionable in this regard that allows users to view data by looking straight ahead. These modiﬁcations are interesting for exploring a relatively new technology that offers incentives to users coupled with a bit more different experiences. Such experience can come in a computer generated, real-world environment as branded as ‘Augmented Reality’. Thus, this research is conducted on a trendy and innovative technology as AR where innovativeness and user-friendliness appear as key reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers where availability issue technological issue appear as negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers.

5 Conclusion
This research is based on an identiﬁed knowledge gap of AR literature in tourism. Thus theoretically, this research initiates factor determination research of AR adoption in tourism while contributing positively to this identiﬁed knowledge gap. On the other side of managerial perspective, holiday operators/managers can learn the reasons, positive factors ad negative factors while making an innovative technology available for the customers. Also, as managerial implications, ﬁndings can support tourism enterprises understanding customer demands and act in accordance to fulﬁl their expectations. Basic limitation of this research is the data and access restriction by the all 3 case holiday operators. Better data support could possibly enrich contents of this research. Results of this research can help them preparing more consumer-friendly approaches. The aim of this research is to delineate the features of AR while determining the reasons and positive factors for its adoption by tourism product and service consumers as well as negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers. This research clearly determines innovativeness and user-friendliness appear as key reasons and positive factors of AR adoption by tourism product and service consumers where availability issue technological issue appear as negative factors of not adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers as result of this research. In tourism, technological innovations are adopted by tourism product and service consumers. This research also explores a closer proximity between AR as an innovation and tourism consumers, in terms of their innovativeness, usability and availability of an innovative technology. Among many others, attractiveness, information generation, experience capacities, playfulness are some other inﬂuential reasons and factors of adopting AR by tourism product and service consumers. The, recent development of mobile phone and handheld computing devices is found as the most dominant factor of AR adoption. Virgin Holidays, Kuoni Travels and Thomson Cruises are found as competitive in making AR available for their customers. These holiday operators make AR as an innovative technology having potentials to be adopted by tourism product and service consumers. Further research can contribute to eliminate basic limitations of this research by including larger sample groups and including

62

A. Hassan et al.

voices of the target holiday operator management. Also, future research studies should incorporate both tourism service providers and tourism product and service consumer opinions on line of criticality.

References
Anandan, C. (2009). Product management. Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. Andy, W. (2014). 5 reasons why augmented reality fails for brands. Retrieved January 2016, from
http://www.enginecreative.co.uk/blog/5-reasons-augmented-reality-fails-brands. Augment. (2016). 5 reasons to use augmented reality in education. Retrieved February 2016,
from http://www.augment.com/blog/5-reasons-use-augmented-reality-education/ Butler, R. W. (2013). Richard Branson: ‘Screw it, let’s do it’. In R. W. Butler & R. Russell (Eds.),
Giants of tourism (pp. 136–150). Wallingford: CABI. Bywater, M. (2001). Travel distribution: Who owns whom in the European travel distribution
industry. In D. Buhalis & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism distribution channels (pp. 151–171). London: Continuum. Canwell, D., & Sutherland, J. (2003). Leisure and tourism. London: Nelson Thornes. Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of Augmented Reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 588–599. Cruise Market Watch. (2017). Market share-2015 worldwide market share. Retrieved on Janurary 2017, from http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/market-share/. Dadwal, S., & Hassan, A. (2015). The augmented reality marketing: A merger of marketing and technology in tourism. In N. Ray (Ed.), Emerging innovative marketing strategies in the tourism industry (pp. 78–96). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts: Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer-technology —A comparison of 2 theoretical-models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. Debbage, K. G., & Ioannides, D. (2005). The economic geography of the tourist industry: A supply-side analysis. London: Routledge. Dribble, A. (2014). The 3 biggest problems facing augmented reality today-and how to ﬁx them. Retrieved January 2017, from http://brainberryglobal.com/3-biggest-problems-facingaugmented-reality-today-ﬁx/. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology ﬁt and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236. Hassan, A., & Jung, T. (2016). Augmented reality as an emerging application in tourism education. In D. H. Choi, A. Dailey-Hebert, & J. S. Estes (Eds.), Emerging tools and applications of virtual reality in education (pp. 168–185). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hassan, A., & Rahimi, R. (2016). Consuming ‘‘Innovation’’: Augmented reality as an innovation tool in digital tourism marketing. In P. Nikolaos & I. Bregoli (Eds.), Global dynamics in travel, tourism, and hospitality (pp. 130–147). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hassan, A., & Ramkissoon, H. (2017). Augmented reality for visitor experiences. In J. N. Albrecht (Ed.), Visitor management. Oxfordshire: CABI (in press). Hassan, A., & Shabani, N. (2017). Usability analysis of augmented reality for tourism destination promotion. In S. K. Dixit (Ed.), Routledge handbook of consumer behaviour in hospitality and tourism. Oxon: Routledge (in press).

Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product …

63

Hassan, A., Shabani, N., Ekiz, A., Dadwal, S. S., & Lancaster, G. (2017). Augmented reality in tourism and factors for its adoption: An empirical study. Paper accepted for presentation at the 22nd Annual Graduate Education and Graduate Student Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism. Texas, TA: The University of Houston Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management and the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Henderson, S. J., & Feiner, S. K. (2007). Augmented Reality for Maintenance and Repair (ARMAR). Retrieved March 2016, from http://graphics.cs.columbia.edu/projects/armar/pubs/ henderson_feiner_AFRL_RH-WP-TR-2007-0112.pdf.
Hopkins, D. (2009). Advantages and drawbacks of using augmented reality. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.dontwasteyourtime.co.uk/technology/advantages-and-drawbacks-ofusing-augmented-reality-augmentedreality/.
Jackson, C. (2014). Augmented reality and the future of printing and publishing opportunities and perspectives. Retrieved March 2015, from http://www.inglobetechnologies.com/docs/ whitepapers/AR_printing_whitepaper_en.pdf.
Johnson, K. (2015). 6 reasons why Augmented Reality will be as common as eye glasses. Retrieved February 2016, from: http://usdailyreview.com/6-reasons-why-augmented-realitywill-be-as-common-as-eye-glasses/.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86.
Kuoni Travel (2016). Kuoni Travel. Retrieved January 2016, from https://www.google.co.uk/ search?q=kuoni+travel+logo&biw=1280&bih=927&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved= 0ahUKEwi0u9mJgsTLAhUsCZoKHZUcCT4Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=FaIf3cFe05wZvM%3A.
Larkin, F. (2011). Advantages and disadvantages of augmented reality. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.behindthespin.com/features/advantages-disadvantages-of-augmented-reality.
Layar. (2016). Layar for Google glass. Retrieved March 2017, from https://www.layar.com/glass/. Leue, M., tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2014). A theoretical model of augmented reality
acceptance. e-Review of Tourism Research, 5, 1–5. Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., Sher, P. J., & Wang, Y. L. (2005). Consumer adoption of e-service:
Integrating technology readiness with the technology acceptance model. In Technology management: A unifying discipline for melting the boundaries. Portland: 483–488. Lord, T. (2012). 5 reasons to get excited about augmented reality in 2013. Retrieved January 2016, from http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/23/augmented-reality/. Mann, M., & Ibrahim, Z. (2005). The good alternative travel guide: Exciting holidays for responsible travellers. London: Earthscan. Needle, D. (2004). Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. Pauley, P. (2016). 4 reasons why experiential marketing with virtual and augmented reality boosts sales. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.pauley.co.uk/blog/4-reasons-why-experientialmarketing-with-virtual-augmented-reality-boosts-sales/. Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart glasses: An investigation of technology acceptance drivers. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.philipprauschnabel. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RAUSCHNABEL-RO-2016-AR-Smart-Glasses-IJTMKTforthcoming.pdf. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Smith, A. (2010). Beneﬁts of augmented reality marketing. Retrieved January 2016, from http:// www.socialmediatoday.com/content/5-beneﬁts-augmented-reality-marketing. Spillers, F. (2009). What’s next in mobile user experience? Augmented reality. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.demystifyingusability.com/2009/09/augmented-reality-userexperience.html.

64

A. Hassan et al.

Sykes, J. (2013). 5 reasons you should pay attention to augmented reality interactive storytelling. Retrieved January 2016, from http://blog.coerll.utexas.edu/augmented-reality-interactivestorytelling-system/.
Thompson, J. L., & Martin, F. (2005). Strategic management: Awareness and change. London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Thomson (2017). Thomson Cruises gets techy with new winter 2014/15 programme and announces new port ‘O’ call. Retrieved January 2017, from http://press.thomson.co.uk/ thomson-cruises-gets-techy-with-new-winter-201415-programme-and-announces-new-port-o-call/.
tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–21.
Total Immersion. (2016). Augmented reality as a virtual support to industries. Retrieved January 2016, from http://blog.coerll.utexas.edu/augmented-reality-interactive-storytelling-system/.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–314.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal ﬁeld studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a uniﬁed view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 41(6), 747–762.
Virgin. (2016). Home. Retrieved February 2016, from https://www.virgin.com/travel/through-thelooking-glass-could-augmented-reality-reshape-our-cities.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees’ technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information & Management, 44(2), 206–215.

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different Dimension for Museum Visitors
Larissa Neuburger and Roman Egger

Abstract This paper addresses how Augmented Reality (AR) can be used as a tool to provide different dimensions to the conventional museum experience. The principle of AR works by furbishing the actual environment with extra information, which enables users to have a different perception of reality. When integrating both the concepts of AR and Experience, the author discovered that this could be a powerful tool for museums, which have to grapple with the question of how to engage their visitors. Therefore an AR-application-prototype was developed for the Dommuseum Salzburg. The objective was to gauge the value of AR and whether or not it made a signiﬁcant difference towards the museum experience. The visitor experience was assessed using the experience model (Pine/Gilmore), as well as the Museum Experience Scale (MES). On the whole, this paper aims to show how technology can be used in the curation process, by facilitating and enhancing the presentation of exhibits in a museum.

1 Introduction

The author of this paper advocates a need to critically assess the state of affairs in museums, as visitor numbers in the Federal Museums in Austria have been on the decline over the past few years (Standard 2012). Instead of relying on tried and tested approaches, there is a need for museums to reinvent themselves and to use the vast array of possibilities offered by new media, in order to draw in more visitors. The typical museum visitor is discontent, restless and on a quest for stimuli. To put it succinctly, people are not satisﬁed with ordinary, homogenous tourism products anymore but are looking for customized, emotional experiences

L. Neuburger (&) Á R. Egger Innovation & Management in Tourism Department, University of Applied Sciences Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria e-mail: roman.egger@fh-salzburg.ac.at
R. Egger e-mail: lneuburger.bwib-m2013@fh-salzburg.ac.at

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

65

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_5

66

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

(Brunner-Sperdin 2008). No longer willing to be passive consumers, the contemporary tourist has certain aspirations, namely to be at one and to immerse themselves in the tourist experience. They now demand information, entertainment, active participation and multisensory stimulation in combination with innovative design elements (Pine II and Gilmore 1999). Bearing in mind these ﬁndings by previous researchers, the author of this paper is particularly interested in the concept of experience and how to integrate this with AR, in order to ascertain how the experience of museum visitors can be improved and enhanced. The author hopes that this paper will be able to provide concrete suggestions and valuable insights for museums to re-strategize and embrace the potentialities of AR. This paper seeks to clarify what AR is about, and to present its relevance, beneﬁts and challenges. The central question is formulated below and the subsequent questions listed afterwards, are also relevant to this paper:
Can Augmented Reality enhance the experience of visitors in museums?
RQ1: Which factors inﬂuence the experience of a museum’s visitor? RQ2: In which ways can Augmented Reality enhance the experience of visitors in
museums? RQ3: How can Augmented Reality be implemented in museums from a technical
point of view?

2 Literature Review
2.1 The Experience Economy
The concept of the Experience Economy evolves from the process of tertiarization of the economy and can be seen as the enrichment of products or services with components of experiences. Declining proﬁts of conventional transactions, new production possibilities due to modern technologies, rising expectations of customers as well as the struggle to escape the everlasting price battles, can be seen as the cause for this development (Weiermair 2001). Also, the growth of prosperity levels and the afﬂuent society are important factors for the development of the Experience Economy (Pine II and Gilmore 1999). Therefore there exists a big opportunity to create value by staging experience, as this is a saturated world with mostly undifferentiated goods and services (Pine II and Gilmore 2011). Based on this background, Pine and Gilmore (1999) developed a model about staging experiences. With this model they describe the perfect experience that can be found in the balance of Absorption and Immersion on the one hand and Active and Passive Participation on the other hand. Furthermore this perfect experience consists of elements of the four different realms Entertainment, Education, Esthetics and Escapism. As this model was also used as a basis for the research of this paper it is further explained here. In the model the engagement of the customer is shown over two different axes. The horizontal axis deﬁnes the involvement of the customer that shows the passive

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

67

involvement of the customer on the one side, where the customer is not actively and directly inﬂuencing the event and the active involvement on the other side, where an active participation and a direct inﬂuence is taking place. The vertical axis describes the connection and the relationship between the customer and the event. On the one side of the axis, absorption can be seen as the total preoccupation of the visitor’s attention during an event. In contrast to that, immersion can be found on the other side of the axis and represents the physical or cognitive aspect of the visitor’s participation so that he even becomes part of the event itself. Whereas watching TV is an example of absorption, the physical participation in a virtual PC game can be named as an example of immersion. The combination of these two dimensions shown on the two axes leads to four different realms describing the perfect experience: Entertainment, Education, Escapism and Esthetics. Entertainment is a combination of absorption and passive involvement and can refer to attending a performance, listening to music or reading books only for pleasure. In contrast to Entertainment, Education requires the active participation of the visitors. In order to enhance one’s knowledge and abilities, it is necessary to involve people not only cognitively but also physically. The third realm of Escapism describes the total immersion of the visitor into the experience but also his active participation at the same time. The consumer is not only passively watching or listening but also shapes his experience actively. Therefore the consumer cannot only forget his everyday life problems but also immerses into a totally different world and slips into a different life. In the realm of Esthetics the consumer as well is immersed in a different world but does not inﬂuence it and leaves the external event untouched. In this realm especially, the experience of all ﬁve senses plays an important role.
The richest experiences are those that offer all aspects and elements of all dimensions. This spot in the middle can be named as the “sweet spot” and represents the perfect overall experience (Pine II and Gilmore 1999).

2.2 Museum Experience
Since Falk and Dierking published their ﬁrst book about the museum experience in 1992, the number of museum institutions has been increasing. Although the museum industry has achieved a high level of professionalization since then, the focus of museums professionals on the experience of museum visitors is now more important than ever and museums are on their way to becoming service providers of the society as the approach from object-focused exhibitions has changed, where the focus is now on providing information on the exhibitions (Falk and Dierking 2013; Barricelli and Golgath 2014). Therefore museum visitors are now rather seen as customers or even guests of the museum (John 2008a). Museums have tried over the last years not only to be places of collection, conservation, research and communication but have additionally become places of trust for the visitors (Barricelli and Golgath 2014). The challenge of museums in the 21st century is their existence in the dual reality of tangible objects, digital technologies and social

68

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

media (Falk and Dierking 2013). But museums are also under pressure to justify their existence towards public, funders or governments and have to ﬁnd a balance between being an institution for collection and preservation and a visitor-orientation place of experiences. Therefore the museum as an institution has to allow itself to scrutinise and reinvent its motifs (Priddat and Van den Berg 2008). So rather than focusing on the collection and marketing campaigns to increase visitor numbers and to broaden the target audience, the museum has to concentrate on the visitor and the visitor experience (Falk and Dierking 2013). The overall aim for the museum is to create a positive experience to the visitor so that he wants to return to the museum after his visit (Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund 2000). In the best case scenario, the visitor leaves the museum thinking that the museum is a pleasant place of leisure and learning, by learning something new and by discovering emotional experiences (Barricelli and Golgath 2014).
The museum experience can be compared with a journey the visitor is travelling through. This visitor journey can also be compared to the customer journey, which is a basic tool for the analysis of visitor experiences in the tourism sector. Falk and Dierking (2002) see the museum experience as a timeline—from the visitor’s ﬁrst thoughts about the museum, through the actual visit until the memories that linger on in the mind of the visitor after the museum visit (Falk and Dierking 2002). The museum experience has to be seen within the background context and the situation of the visitor. Therefore the visitor is involved in a personal, social and physical context of which the certain experience depends on. The personal context refers to the personal background of the visitor, his experiences and the knowledge he brings to the museum as well as his interests, motivations and concerns. All these values are individual and therefore every visitor arrives with his own background, expectations and experiences. The social context describes the social interaction the visitor has with other visitors or the staff of the museum. The museum experience depends on the company of the visitor and the group in which the visitor is part of, the degree of crowd density and the knowledge as well as the friendliness of the museum staff. The physical context appears to the visitor when he enters the museum. It can be named as the “feel”, the architecture or the ambience of the museum. Not only the behaviour of the visitor depends on that but also the length of his stay and his return can be inﬂuenced by the physical context. When he enjoys the smell, the sound, the surrounding and the fulﬁlment of his needs, the visitor is much more likely to stay long, revisit and recommend the museum to others. So it is important for museum professionals to not only focus on one or two of the concepts but to see the museum experience as a holistic construct inﬂuenced by the personal, social and physical context (Falk and Dierking 2002).

2.3 Augmented Reality
AR “[…] describes the concept of augmenting a view of the real world with 2D images or 3D objects […]” (Woods et al. 2004). As AR is a fairly new concept in

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

69

tourism and still in its rudimentary phase of development, a clear and ultimate deﬁnition cannot be given yet (Han et al. 2013). Smartphones and tablets are now used on an unprecedented scale and this has led to changes not only in communication and human behaviour, which in turn stimulated the development of AR. An important aspect of AR is its ability to “[…] enhance a user’s perception of and interaction with the real world” (Azuma 1997). AR works in several ways; the augmented objects can be seen through a visor, which can be head-mounted, where the camera is installed on the head of the user mostly with a see-through-display on smart glasses or hand-held mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. The visor consists of a display screen and a small camera, which captures the real world around the user and sends those pictures to the computer, which tracks the position, the elements and the rotation of the camera. Then the artiﬁcial components of the AR application are sent back to the display screen. In this way, the user has the illusion of looking through the augmented content into the real world. The big advantage of virtual objects not being limited to costs or physical limitations makes AR a practical and powerful tool. Virtual objects can be 2D images, 3D objects, videos (animated 2D images), animated 3D objects and sound (Woods et al. 2004; Mehler-Bicher et al. 2011). With advancements and developments over the recent years, AR can be seen as a ﬂexible and practicable tool with high visual quality to overcome the problems associated with limited space and objects being too valuable such that they can be liabilities, while providing a strong source of support that enhances museum content. Within the museum industry, AR is still in its infantile stage but it is becoming increasingly embraced as a credible, versatile and powerful technological tool among the scientiﬁc community and the public (Woods et al. 2004; Noh et al. 2009). Another advantage of AR is that it does not exclude museums with limited ﬁnancial resources, as they too, can make use of an AR system. The AR system is one that does not require the acquisition of expensive hardware systems have to be acquired and many AR software providers offer systems which can be implemented and applied by museum professionals without any IT expertise (Wojciechowski et al. 2004). The average visitor would not ﬁnd AR too alienating, foreign or radical, as he would already be accustomed to holding mobile devices for the purpose of photography. Therefore, scanning an AR object with the device is a very natural gesture and can lead to an organic museum experience (Sherman 2011).

3 Methodology
Based on the results of the literature, an empirical research study with an experimental design was conducted in order to strengthen the ﬁndings of the literature. Furthermore an AR prototype was developed to be able to test the experience enhancement of the museum visitors. The application was designed to provide background information on the selected artworks of the museum exhibition. An impression of the prototype can be seen in Fig. 1.

70

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

Fig. 1 Example picture AR application prototype
From both sample groups in the experiment, a quantitative questionnaire had to be completed by the participants in the aftermath of the conducted experiment. The two groups ﬁlled out the same questionnaire, in order to gauge the differences between their respective experiences.
In order to assess the experience of the museum visitors, the concept of measuring the experience is important. Therefore, the author chose to utilize the experience model conceptualized by Pine and Gilmore (2011). The four realms of the model (‘entertainment’, ‘education’, ‘aesthetics’ and ‘escapism’) were operationalized in order to deduce suitable questions for the quantitative questionnaire that had to be completed by the participants in the aftermath of the conducted experiment. In order to adequately measure how special the museum experience was for the participants, the concept of the Museum Experience Scale (MES) by Othman et al. (2013) was also added to the survey. The MES also consists of four dimensions, which are deﬁned by ‘engagement’ with the museums and its exhibitions, ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’ obtained from the museum exhibition and its artefacts, ‘meaningful experiences’ by interacting with the artefacts of the museum exhibitions and ‘emotional connection’ with the exhibits and the exhibition. For the process of the operationalization of the concept, different papers were used that had already applied the concepts in empirical studies, with proven validity of the constructs.
In order to create a more enjoyable and meaningful visit for the visitors, the AR application prototype was designed to provide background information on the selected artworks. The development of the AR application prototype was made possible through the support of the Dommuseum in Salzburg, the software company Wikitude and the cooperation with a software engineer in order to enhance the quality of the prototype. The objects that were chosen for use in the AR prototype were the most important objects of the exhibition and contained some additional information that could be shown to the visitors the AR application. The experiment was conducted over nine full-day sessions in the Dommuseum Salzburg. After the random selection of participants in the museum, participants were also randomly assigned to two different groups, the control group and the experimental

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

71

group. Participants of the control group were asked to visit the four rooms of the museum individually and independently in order to ﬁll out a questionnaire afterwards. The experimental group was asked to try out a museum app with additional information about several museum objects.

4 Findings
In order to answer the research questions of this paper the collected data from the written questionnaires was recoded and analysed with SPSS 21. Due to illegible writing and partially ﬁlled out questionnaires, some cases had to be excluded from the sample. Therefore, the number of questionnaires had to be reduced from n = 185 to n = 176 as important answers about the experience were missing.

4.1 Reliability Analysis
The purpose of the reliability scale was to verify if the measurement instrument (in this case the questionnaire) could represent the several constructs completely and consistently and if the same results would emerge with a repeated experiment. In order to ensure the inner consistency of the constructs, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was applied in this research. The values of the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test are acceptable in almost all constructs as they meet the required a = 0.7 and therefore demonstrate a strong internal reliability of the items representing the different constructs. Only the construct of ‘entertainment’ shows a value of a = 0.56. Although the required value for most tests is a = 0.7, a value of a ! 0.5 can be accepted in order to compare two groups, which was also conducted in this research (Mücke 2010).

4.2 Comparison of Groups
In order to evaluate the different results between the groups, the independent t-test was used. In order to avoid an analysis of every single item, the items of the different constructs were summed up to a common value for each construct of the model. In order to test the hypothesis, the author also wants to analyse the results separately. Therefore, the different items of the questionnaire were deliberately tested with a 7-level Likert-Scale. As the middle point was located at M = 3.5 it can be said that values in between 3.5 M ! 7 can be evaluated as high. In addition to the results of the t-test, the effect size was also indicated in order to prove the extent of the observed effect (Field and Hole 2003).

72

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

Table 1 T-Test experience scale

Variable

Analysis Experience Scale * p\0:01 ** p\0:05

Mean experimental

Mean control

t

group

group

Entertainment

5.47

Education

6.06

Escapism

4.79

Esthetics

5.79

Overall

5.53

Experience

4.58

5.71*

5.41

3.86*

4.17

2.98*

5.51

1.65

4.92

4.36*

Effect size d 0.86 0.58 0.45 0.25 0.66

H1: AR enhances the overall experience of the museum visitors. H1 could be accepted because of the signiﬁcant difference between the values of the experimental group and the value of the control group showing an additional intermediate effect. The exact numbers can be seen in Table 1. Therefore, it is evident that the experience of visitors who used the AR application to explore the museum exhibition exceeded in quality, the experience of visitors who visited the exhibition only with an audio guide or without any additional information. In order to deepen the analysis of the overall experience, the different concepts and constructs were also explored. The values of the overall experience can be generally evaluated as relatively high values for the overall experience in the museum.
H1a: AR enhances the ‘entertainment’ realm of the museum visitors. The construct of ‘entertainment’ also shows a signiﬁcant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Entertainment is one of the biggest aspects when it comes to enhancing the experience of a museum. Museum visitors are often confronted with too much information or obtuse exhibition content, which can be too intimidating for most people. Providing visitors with information and access to the museum exhibitions in an entertaining and playful way also enhances the overall experience. This concept of ‘edutainment’, which had already been mentioned in this paper, combines education and entertainment in a way where the visitors can have fun while learning and yet are able to retain more content and information long after they depart from the museum. The AR application offers boundless possibilities to enhance the entertainment factor in a museum, as it is interactive and summarizes information in the form of multimedia content. Therefore, the visitors can experience the real exhibition and at the same time, obtain stimulation from videos or pictures, which refer to the real artefacts of the museum.
H1b: AR enhances the ‘education’ realm of the museum visitors. The difference between the experimental group and the control group is also signiﬁcant with an intermediate effect. One of the greatest priorities of museums is the educational aspect and having to deal with the transmission of information to the visitors. As already mentioned, the biggest opportunity here is to combine education with entertainment, to transfer knowledge to the visitors interactively through multimedia features. Museums always face the challenge of ﬁnding the right balance of designing the exhibition in an aesthetically appealing way but at the same

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

73

time, they have to take care not to pay too much attention to form at the expense of substance, as the visitor fundamentally needs to be provided with solid information so as to be able to interpret the exhibition and engage with the artefacts. The usage of AR can provide visitors with additional information to the artefacts that often cannot be envisaged otherwise, as different visual perspectives of artefact (such as the inside of the book in the Dommuseum) show and moreover provide this information interactively and in an entertaining, playful way. Therefore, it can be said that AR can enhance the museum-going experience and educate visitors in a memorable way.
H1c: AR enhances the ‘escapism’ realm of the museum visitors. This hypothesis can also be accepted due to the value’s signiﬁcant difference between the experimental group and the control group with an acceptable effect size. ‘Escapism’ describes the situation of the visitor who is so thoroughly immersed in the experience so that he temporarily forgets about his everyday life, all his problems and concerns. A museum experience itself is able to lead the visitor into this alternative psychological condition. AR can additionally enhance this aspect by showing the visitor a whole new virtual world without letting him lose the connection to the real museum exhibition. Therefore, the application of AR can immerse the visitor totally into the museum situation, let him forget about time and his everyday life beyond the museum, leaving him with a heightened, impressionable and enhanced experience.
H1d: AR enhances the ‘aesthetics’ realm of the museum visitors. The difference of the two groups in the realm of ‘aesthetics’ is not signiﬁcant enough to lead to a rejection of the hypothesis. This insigniﬁcant difference can probably be explained through the external inﬂuencing factors concerning the location of the museum. Due to its location in a side wing of the Cathedral, the visitors can see and experience the church through the windows of the Dommuseum. In that way, visitors can be inﬂuenced by stimuli from the church like the Holy Mass every Sunday or organ concerts which are organised a few times per week. As visitors from the experimental group as well as from the control group are inﬂuenced by the described stimuli, there can be no signiﬁcant difference found between the two groups.

Table 2 T-Test museum experience scale

Variable

Analysis museum experience scale * p\0:01> ** p\:05

Experimental

Control

t

Effect size

group

group

d

Engagement

5.96

Knowledge & learning

6.07

Meaningful experience

5.31

Emotional connection

4.00

Overall museum

5.33

experience

5.29

4.01* 0.60

5.42

4.20* 0.63

4.72

3.55* 0.54

3.52

2.19** 0.33

4.74

4.24* 0.64

74

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

H2: AR enhances the overall museum experience of the museum visitors. The result shows the difference between the experimental group and the control group regarding the overall museum experience is signiﬁcant as can be seen in Table 2. Therefore it can be said that the museum experience of those visitors who use the AR application is higher than the museum experience of visitors who visit the museum in a traditional way.
H2a: AR enhances the engagement of the museum visitors. Within the dimension of ‘engagement’, a signiﬁcant difference was found between the visitors being part of the experimental group and visitors of the control group. As a conclusion it can be said, that the engagement of the visitors with the museum and the museum artefacts can be enhanced with the application of AR. Especially because of the additional, visualized information, the visitors feel more engaged with the museum and its exhibition and this information helps them to understand the content and interpret it in the right context.
H2b: AR enhances the knowledge of museum visitors. When comparing the results of the two scales, it is interesting to see that the values of the items ‘education’ as part of the experience scale, and ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’ as part of the MES are almost identical. Therefore the hypothesis can be accepted, as there is also a signiﬁcant difference between the experimental group and the control group. The effect size shows a similar intermediate characteristic as the construct of ‘engagement’. As already mentioned, the transfer of knowledge and information can be enhanced with the application of AR to visualize additional information
H2c: AR enhances the ‘meaningful experience’ of the museum visitors. The realm of ‘meaningful experience’ as part of the MES also shows a signiﬁcant difference. Therefore, the hypothesis can be accepted with the signiﬁcant difference between the experimental group and the control group. So it can be concluded that the experience not only can be enhanced by the application of AR but this can also lead to a meaningful experience. This ‘meaningful experience’ can be inﬂuenced by the balance of the content visualized in AR application and the context AR is used in.
H2d: AR enhances the ‘emotional connection’ of the museum visitors. The ‘emotional connection’ refers to the rapport and afﬁnity that museum visitors build up with the artefacts of an exhibition and shows a signiﬁcant difference in the dimension of the emotional connection between the two groups but only on a signiﬁcant level of p < 0.05. Nevertheless the hypothesis can be accepted with the signiﬁcant difference between the two groups. The effect size d = 0.33 shows the lowest value in all constructs and represents only a small effect. The values in general are relatively low and are not much higher than the middle point of the frequently-used Likert Scale of 3.5. Most likely this can be explained by the religious content of the exhibition. Religious content in a museum is very complex for the visitors as well for the museum itself. Therefore, visitors cannot build up an emotional connection with the exhibition especially visitors from other countries that are not familiar with the culture and religion of Austria, and therefore face actual limitations Therefore, AR can be used to familiarize the visitors with these religious artefacts in a way that facilitates their understanding and appreciation for them.

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

75

5 Discussion and Conclusion

While AR has already been around for more than 20 years, the development of this technology has yet to reach its limits and no one can really predict where these limitations lie. AR is increasingly ﬁnding its way through contemporary life, a phenomenon that is compounded by new technological developments. In contrast to VR that appears to be at the peak of its popularity right now, there is plenty that hints at AR being the new supreme technology of the future, which is why it is even more important to investigate its effects, uses and inﬂuences in different areas. Furthermore, the importance of museums is something that will and has to persist, as they are formidable institutions that showcase the numerous cultural treasures of this world and the accumulation of centuries worth of historical knowledge.
The 21st century poses some challenges to the relevance of museums. They have to strive hard to avoid coming across as inaccessible ivory-towers. Potential museum visitors have less leisure time but at the same time, more possibilities to spend their leisure time, with a wide array of activities at their disposal. People also have higher expectations of what they can derive from their leisure activities and do not only want to spend their time and money without discernment, but to engage in unforgettable experiences as well as escaping from their everyday life routine or problems. The museum experience is a highly complex construct that has to be considered in this context. Today, the materialisation of museum artefacts and the digital world can be bridged, by including high-tech components and invisible technologies in order to meet the expectations of the visitors and enhance their experiences on the one hand, without affecting, disturbing or inﬂuencing the specially-designed exhibitions.
Given the results of the conducted experiment in the Dommuseum Salzburg, it can be said that AR deﬁnitely has the potential to enhance the experience of museum visitors. The results can answer the overall research question and show that both the overall experience deﬁned by Pine and Gilmore (1999) and the Museum Experience by Othman et al. (2013) has been unequivocally enhanced by AR. When broken down into the different realms and dimensions of the two tested models, it can be said that the realms of ‘entertainment’, ‘education’ and ‘escapism’ as well as ‘engagement’, ‘knowledge/learning’ and ‘meaningful experience’, all demonstrate higher numerical values, alluding to the success of AR. The results also show an intermediate to large effect size. Only the realms of ‘aesthetics’ being part of the experience model and ‘emotional connection’ as part of the Museum Experience Scale do not show signiﬁcant values or suggest only a very low effect size due to the special location of the museum next to the Cathedral of Salzburg and its special religious artefacts with their complex meaning. Once again, the author would like to reiterate that AR enabled the museum visitors to feel more entertained and engaged, to gain more educational knowledge, while being able to experience escapism and simultaneously have an exceptionally meaningful experience.
The question of how AR can enhance the experience of the visitors can be addressed with the different types of content that were used in the application

76

L. Neuburger and R. Egger

prototype. The content that can be used to augment the various museum exhibits depends on the available additional information of the different artefacts. According to the visitors from the experiment, they strongly had a preference for pictures that either showed different aspects of the artefact or reference images with background information of the artefacts. According to observations during the experiment, it can be deduced that videos can be used but with an improved technology like overlay videos. Obviously limited text should be used, in order to avoid information overload. The appearance of the actual object has to be visible and fully-preserved, as many museum visitors are still on a quest to view the ‘real’ thing as opposed to something replicated.
From a technical point of view, the usage of iPads showed that tablets are suitable devices for AR due to their appropriate size but it is still a challenge to develop a stable application for all possible devices on the market. The most important technical aspect is the implementation of the AR application for usage on the visitor’s own devices. The visitors should have the possibility to download the app for their own devices (iOS as well as Android) for free or to include it in the ticket price with a special code. In this context, the availability as well as the free usage of a WIFI connection is important. Afterwards, the visitors can explore the exhibition individually at their own pace without disturbing other visitors. The AR experience then also depends on the visitor’s device, its computing power and its display resolution. Very small devices have other requirements that differ from tablets with relatively big display screens. In addition, the museum could provide some devices for the visitors but one has to foresee that this creates additional responsibilities for the staff, such as having to deal with deposits and ensuring proper returns. New technological developments in the area of smart glasses and wearables will also add a whole new dimension to this topic.
In summary, it can be said that it is relatively easy to implement AR in a museum and one of the undeniable advantages have to do with the fact that AR is a budget-friendly technology. The effect of AR on the experience of the visitors and its yet unforeseen consequences, can be seen as much bigger and priceless for the image of the museum, boosting its attractiveness of the museum and possibly cultivating a deeper sense of the loyalty the visitors, when used in an optimal way.

References
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
Barricelli, M., & Golgath, T. (2014). Historische Museen heute. Wochenschau Verlag, Germany. Brunner-Sperdin, A. (2008). Erlebnisprodukte in Hotellerie und Tourismus. Erfolgreiche
Inszenierung und Qualitätsmessung. Berlin: Schmidt. Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2002). The museum experience. Washington: Howells House. Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2013). Museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Field, A., & Hole G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. London: Sage.

Augmented Reality: Providing a Different …

77

Han, D., Jung, T., & Gibson, A. (2013). Dublin AR: Implementing augmented reality in tourism. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 511–523). Cham: Springer.
John, H. (2008a). Hülle mit Fülle. Museumskultur für alle—2.0. In H. John & A. Dauschek (Eds.), Museen neu denken. Perspektiven der Kulturvermittlung und Zielgruppenarbei (pp. 15–66). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund. (2000). Service to people: challenges and rewards. how museums can become more visitor-centered. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://www. wallacefunds.org/publications/pdf/ACF384E.pdf.
Mehler-Bicher, A., Reiss, M., & Steiger, L. (2011). Augmented Reality: Theorie und Praxis. Munich: Oldenbourg.
Mücke, S. (2010). Skalenbildung—Arbeitsschritte der Testanalyse. Potsdam: University Potsdam. Noh, Z., Sunar, M., & Pan, Z. (2009). A review on augmented reality for virtual heritage system.
In M. Chang et al. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Learning and Games: Learning by Playing. Gamebased Education System Design and Development. (5670) Banff, 50–61. Othman, M. K., Petrie, H., & Power, C. (2013). Measuring the usability of a smartphone delivered museum guide. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 629–637. Pine, B. J., II, & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Pine, B. J., II, & Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Priddat, B. & Van den Berg, K. (2008). Branding Museums. Marketing als Kulturproduktion— Kulturproduktion als Marketing. In H. John & B. Günter (Eds.), Das Museum als Marke. Branding als strategisches Managementinstrument für Museen, (pp. 29–48). Bielefeld: Transcript. Sherman, A. (2011). How tech is changing the museum experience. Mashable. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://mashable.com/2011/09/14/high-tech-museums/. Standard, (2012). Bundesmuseen verzeichneten 2011 einen Rückgang. Retrieved November, 2015, from http://derstandard.at/1326502878492/Zwei-Prozent-Minus-Bundesmuseenverzeichneten-2011-einen-Rueckgang. Weiermair, K. (2001). Von der Dienstleistungsökonomie zur Erlebnisökonomie. In H. H. Hinterhuber, H. Pechlaner, & K. Matzler (Eds.), IndustrieErlebnisWelten. Vom Standort zur Destination, (pp. 35–48). Berlin: Schmidt. Wojciechowski R., White M., and Cellary W. (2004). Building virtual and augmented reality museum exhibitions. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on 3D Web Technology (pp. 135–187). Woods E., Billinghurst M., Looser J., Aldride G., Brown D., Garrie B., & Nelles C. (2004). Augmenting the science centre and museum experience. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australasia and South East Asia (pp. 230–236).

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending and Blending of Museum Objects and Virtual Collections
Ronald Haynes

Abstract Enhanced and innovative museum exhibitions are enabled by collaborative use of Augmented Reality, interconnecting collections and complementing physical with relevant virtual objects for all participants. Carefully assembling related objects from multiple collections beneﬁts museum visitors and researchers, cohering experiences in a blended collection environment. We propose collaboration between suitable institutions to develop a Veholder (Virtual Environment for Holdings and Online Digital Educational Repositories) community project. This should help share key museum holdings, rich sources of material for general learning and focussed research, which otherwise remain hidden in storage or in distant repositories. While preserving natural and cultural heritage, this collaborative AR approach can extend the wider impact of collections, aiding our overall understanding, deeper appreciation, and shared knowledge. Discussions about research-based specialist collections held at the Universities of Cambridge and Copenhagen have indicated keen interest in further development, with additional partnering institutions and funding options being actively sought.
Á Á Á Keywords Augmented reality Museums Virtual collections Blended colÁ Á Á lections 360 viewing 3D scanning Calibration and real-world scaling

1 Introduction

We visit and engage with a museum for what is found there, but we also learn by discovering what is not there. A museum can be both exhilarating and challenging, at times overwhelming with wonder, stirring the imagination and prompting a desire to share knowledge and experiences. There are times which may also spark our curiosity about what is not available—because of insufﬁcient space, external exhibition loans, or perhaps the lure of what similar materials might be found

R. Haynes (&) Information Services, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK e-mail: rsh27@cam.ac.uk

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

79

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_6

80

R. Haynes

elsewhere. Every dinosaur must have cousins in other museums, but is every specimen (e.g. T. Rex) the same size and the same shape, or are there variations readily found if you could get more of them together in one space?
Every Egyptian mummy in one collection will have curated contemporaries or related cultural artefacts awaiting our discovery elsewhere, in someone else’s collections—yet if placed together would they not tell us much more about all these representatives of the same period? So it is for many such collections, from Art History to Zoology, which despite having well-established and shared classiﬁcation systems will not always have sufﬁcient extent or context in a single collection to satisfy those with a keener interest, or to answer the continuing quest for greater knowledge. Neither is it possible for local museum visitors to always travel to see distant collections, nor can local museums always create the perfect special exhibition bringing together all suitable representative objects.
Awareness of Augmented Reality (AR) is now well-established, at least through particular types of mobile apps such as Pokémon GO and the Ikea Catalogue, however it is still relatively new in the museum. Partly due to the popular enthusiasm with the other mobile apps, AR is a growing area for museums planning to provide additional behind-the-scenes information, alternative image views, and potentially interactive capabilities with existing collections in an institution. However, if used in carefully coordinated ways, AR can also be extremely useful in providing the means for two or more suitable collection-holders to extend their individual collections, providing each with a greater context for the better understanding of the connections between the objects in each, while supporting conservation requirements and overcoming many practical constraints of location and cost.
Following an agreed framework for scanning each collection in a precisely reproducible manner, in order to produce an accurate virtual copy of items from each local collection, provides instant beneﬁts by way of options for the enhanced display of the local items. It also enables the blending of local physical objects with remote virtual items, into an extended collection or special exhibition. This combination of physical and virtual objects, which can be curated as a combined collection, can be developed either for engagement with the general public, or enhanced to enable additional sharing with fellow researchers (e.g. via higher resolution or multiple types of scans for greater object detail). Such connected collections may together contain items representing the same period of time (e.g. Bronze Age), or originating in the same place (e.g. Equatorial Africa), or perhaps arising from connected cultures (e.g. parts of the Persian Empire), or perhaps those created of similar form or material (e.g. onyx items, or bone remains or artefacts— whether tools, artwork, or religious items), or any other shared characteristics.
We wish to propose a collaboration between suitably matched museums and collections, to develop what might be called a ‘Virtual Beholder’ or VEHOLDER, a Virtual Environment for Holdings and Online Digital Educational Repositories. This Veholder project addresses anyone seeking generalist or specialist knowledge in museums, archives, special collections, etc., enabling them to visit and experience correlated specimens and knowledge, not all of which are physically available

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

81

in one location. It is conceived as providing ‘Augmented Knowledge’ (AK), by the combination of physical, tangible objects and suitably-matched virtual, high-quality 3D-scanned items, thus expanding the physical limits of knowledge and opening new avenues for both researchers and the public.
Given the potential for virtual visits to other collections, and the ability for high-quality images and 3D scans to be visualised on their own, or preferably to be visualised alongside related collection specimens, this mixing of physical and virtual collections is helpful in conserving, researching, communicating and ideally exhibiting human heritage in a blended manner—tangible and intangible together— and so this combination ﬁts well within the wider mission of the museum. This is absolutely well-suited for a museum’s mission, in line with the deﬁnition given by the International Council of Museums (ICOM): “A museum is a non-proﬁt, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment” (http://icom.museum/the-vision/museum-deﬁnition [November 28, 2016]).
With the advances and emerging possibilities found with AR, we are enabled with the possibility of such a combination of collections. By mixing physical objects in one locale with complementary virtual objects in a collaborating remote collection—or optionally providing the combination of two or more virtual object collections, making them available to those museums remote from any of the collaborative collections—we create the means of expanding the content, context and mission of each participating museum. High resolution 3D scanning, reliably and reproducibly scaled, coupled with suitable Augmented Reality displays and systems, enable both the specialist researcher, the enquiring student, and the interested general public to get the most out of otherwise hidden and (understandably) carefully-shielded collections.
As one example, the specialist Duckworth Collections (www.human-evol.cam. ac.uk/duckworth.html [November 28, 2016]), which is part of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge, has specimens which are regularly used for comparative studies, to consider structural changes (morphology) and functional developments over time and species, and this study would be mutually enhanced both by offering high resolution scans of its specimens to other such collections as well as having access to high resolution scans of their collection. This has been part of the promising discussion and ongoing planning with specialists at the Natural History Museum of Denmark (http://snm.ku. dk/english [November 28, 2016]), part of the University of Copenhagen, and working together with the Universities’ museums and collections, along with other partnering institutions, we hope to improve the Veholder project more generally.

82
2 Literature Review

R. Haynes

While AR use in museums is still relatively new, current planning seems largely aimed toward the use of smartphones and tablets, as evidenced by recent searches of the literature, websites, and the main app stores, particularly for available museum-related downloads in the latter. Thus far, no mention has been found of a coordinated and collaborative project to blend physical and virtual catalogues, nor to make use of museum-ready smart glasses to provide a combined and coherent view of an extended and themed exhibition. Wojciechowski et al. (2003) in “Augmented Reality Interface for Museum Artefact Visualization” helpfully summarised and presented projects which piloted many key AR aspects, including the use of portable computing and head-mounted displays (HMD) to mix AR historical reconstructions within cultural settings. These projects now seem dormant, having completed their studies (and websites unavailable).
With signiﬁcant updates to available hardware and possibilities, only one pair of smart glasses has been found to be museum-ready, the Epson Moverio BT-350, due to be available by April of 2017 and engineered for multiple public users as a more durable version of the third-generation BT-300 already in use. Along with reduced size, cost, and use of the well-supported Android platform, these smart glasses are better suited than earlier HMD, including in museum settings similar to pilot projects noted above—see Epson case studies, such as: Brescia Museums—A Walk in the past with Moverio smart glasses (Epson 2016).
The option for live (as well as pre-recorded) virtual guided tours using 360 and 3D cameras and smart glasses has also not been found in searches, however it is a natural prequel to the plan to develop blended 3D-scanned and combined collections and exhibitions. It is also a natural complement to the very successful great performances which are now in many cinemas, with live theatre, opera, music and dance regularly available streamed live, along with pre-recorded art gallery visits and exhibitions (BBC 2017). Additionally, 360 3D tours would also be a live complement to the Street View approach which Google is providing in association with a number of museums (e.g. British Museum—With Google) (British Museum 2016).
There are a number of speciﬁc technologies and techniques for high-quality 3D scanning, for instance Niven et al. (2009) present in their “Virtual skeletons: using a structured light scanner to create a 3D faunal comparative collection”. This approach is generally used by those involved with the Veholder project, but of course only one of many types available. African Fossils (2016) is a good example of current online curation of 3D image collections, while Ynnerman et al (2016) in “Interactive Visualization of 3D Scanned Mummies at Public Venues” show advanced possibilities with multiple combined scanning and visualisations technigues.
For future consideration, Kiourt et al. (2016) in “DynaMus: A fully dynamic 3D virtual museum framework” present interesting options and possibilities for a virtual museum, including interactive input as part of the selection of content, which could be provided by multiple online resources, using advanced web and game

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

83

technologies. Additionally, Carrozzino et al. (2010) in their “Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums” convey their rich case studies, results, and issues from their focus on VR (virtual reality) in immersive installations in museums. The experience with VR will help reﬁne the use of AR in museums, while somewhat serving as a contrast in terms of the issues which are either more attached to the use of VR (e.g. some experiences of isolation) or not identical in AR (e.g. improving virtual cultural representation).

3 Findings
As a work-in-progress, ongoing discussions with subject, museum, and 3D technology specialists in several institutions have included a comparison of experiences of 3D digitisation of objects from museum collections. In particular, we have initially explored opportunities for collection collaboration between Cambridge and Copenhagen. The identiﬁed opportunities include work in progress with the staff of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies (LCHES) on a proposal for a coordinated 3D scanning of selected samples from the Duckworth Collections (www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/duckworth.html), including an option to make use of existing CT (high-resolution, X-ray-based 3D computer tomography) scans of 50 ancient human skeletons, potentially to be paired with selected scans in a complementary collection. These have been part of the discussions with the Director and collection specialists in the Natural History Museum of Denmark (http://snm. ku.dk/english), at the University of Copenhagen. Although both institutions have been building up their 3D scanned collections for some time, it was acknowledged that generally each 3D scan has often been a ‘stand-alone’ operation—consistent and useful on its own, and likely to be useful alongside other 3D scanned objects, but not necessarily able to guarantee precision in all aspects when being captured in the scanning process, nor when being displayed subsequently and in the context of other collection objects.
Given the variations which can come with different 3D scans, the key areas of establishing a common framework for calibration and accurate scale representation were identiﬁed, especially for research purposes, but also for general comparative and realistic display of objects. The differences between 3D scanning technologies and outcomes have been part of the considerations, and while CT scans provide high-quality detail—including of the internal structure of objects—they are not ideal for scanning all objects, and are not the best option when wanting to scan and carefully represent the colour and perhaps textures of an object. Given general experience and the state of the art, there has been an inclination to making use of structured light 3D scanners, in common with the experience of Niven et al. in their work on “Virtual skeletons: using a structured light scanner to create a 3D faunal comparative collection”. Such scanners, which have become well-known in research collections, can provide reasonable speed, detail, and high-quality images.

84

R. Haynes

Given a set of 3D images, in order to be able to see any virtual objects displayed next to a physical object, to be able to achieve AR (or MR–Mixed Reality), some kind of displaying device is required. While it is possible to use a laptop or smart phone or tablet, for use with a blended museum collection the best devices currently available are smart glasses. These leave your hands free to work with any display interfaces provided, and the better ones provide a clear image in front of you, while enabling you to see the physical objects in front of and around you—so perfect for the blending of collections. While many were introduced to smart glasses by the publicity surrounding Google Glass, the withdrawal of that early technology was soon followed by the announcement of Microsoft Hololens, which uses two display areas—one for each eye—so providing for the option of stereoscopic display of 3D images, which can either ﬂoat in the air (e.g. a small weather report window) or be associated and anchored to a physical object (e.g. a 3D model appearing to sit in a ﬁxed position on top of a table). While these products receive great publicity, there are other developments in the smart glasses area which seem be more suitable for museum purposes. On the high end there is the Meta 2, while there are very capable and well-priced options available with Epson Moverio smart glasses and headsets (Epson Moverio 2016). The apps and development options for Moverio seem very promising, and the Android-based devices provide the promise of a large and well-known platform base for rapid testing. As noted above Epson have a useful case study, about their smart glasses used to augment with original structures the viewing of the ruins in an outdoor museum—“Brescia Museums—A Walk in the past with Moverio smart glasses” (Epson 2016).
To return to the concern about scale, we need to be able to ensure that the calibration of all the equipment and data involved (e.g. scanning equipment, smart glasses, ﬁle format for storage of the 3D scans) will provide real-world scaling when it comes to ﬁnal display and related operations. We should be able to verify that 3D models are precisely taller, shorter, stouter, the same, etc. when compared to physical specimens. The London Charter for the Computer-Based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage (www.londoncharter.org) might be a helpful guide, for instance with its call for intellectual and technical rigour in digital heritage visualisation, along with access and sustainability strategies in the research, management and communication of cultural heritage. We need to be able to provide an AR environment where, if we placed an original physical item (e.g. a skull) next to a 3D image of the same skull (e.g. using smart glasses), then they would be the exact same dimensions—you could superimpose the 3D image on top of the original and they would exactly line up. This is especially important for researchers, but also important for non-specialist viewers of any of the collection, so that they can know the comparative size and shape of a 3D image when displayed next to the complementary physical object in the collection they are viewing. It appears that the application developed using Epson Moverio smart glasses for Brescia Museums have had to solve this.
Given the many pieces of equipment and techniques, both for 3D scanning and image storage and display (not to mention for printing), it is clear that the assurance of accurate calibration and scale indicated above will need to be part of establishing

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

85

a reproducible regime for the full 3D collection processing workﬂow. This will provide the promise of working with virtual objects alone or in a blended mode alongside physical objects, and be sure that the scan of say an ancient skull would be able to be measured or placed next to the original and show no distortion or anything but the true original size and shape. So far, we have not been able to discover an established scale or set of operations which could provide such assurance. If we should ﬁnd such a workable solution, we would be glad to adopt it or collaborate to further develop it, if helpful, as part of a much-needed community effort for standardisation, which will ensure wider assurance and adoption.
If not ready or available, and therefore still needed as it seems however, we believe that establishing such a scalable solution is possible, but that it can only be accomplished in a community context. It thereafter should be included as a necessary part of any further project and funding planning, to ensure a more authoritative and sharable set of scanned collection objects for the future. While common scaling is crucial for research purposes, we believe it would be generally helpful for any such virtual collections to be shared with the general public, as well. When blending physical objects with related virtual objects, it aids general understanding to ensure the context of dimension makes for reliable comparisons (e.g. do we expect all T. Rex skeletons to look and be sized alike). One of the differences which may be worth considering when blending collections is that of image resolution, with research-grade collection items presented at the highest resolution, while public-grade collections might be presented at a lower grade—including for improved speed and lower costs, when compared with those associated with displaying the larger ﬁles involved with research-related items.

4 Discussion
At the Augmented Reality conference IFITTtalk@Manchester, held 25th November 2015 in Manchester, there was some discussion about standards for content from different projects to be reusable or able to be combined with other projects. While this was mainly about Virtual Reality (VR) material, it seems similarly true for AR (and MR), at least in the sense of ensuring that calibration and scale and reproducibility can be assured when scanning takes place at different times and locations, using different equipment, ﬁle storage options, and display technologies.
Given the time and collaboration required to establish any such standard (http:// digitalsenses.ieee.org/standards) with a coalition of the willing, it may be prudent to consider experimenting with a simpler collaboration, perhaps also on a smaller scale, including by testing the sharing of partial collections between two museums, using smart glasses. This could even be via initial pilots, by virtually joining a regularly-scheduled guided tour in another museum, perhaps adding the option of a separately-scheduled and customisable tour (e.g. exploring combined Celtic collections), considering the overall experience and the question of suitable tour fees, as and where appropriate. This would give valuable experience with the use of

86

R. Haynes

smart glasses within and between museums, and ideally by the general public, and help enhance the working partnerships required as well as prepare the way for when the blended 3D collections are available.
One of the best-established ways in which 3D visits to museums has been handled for over a 150 years is via the stereograph (see Fig. 1). With stereo-viewing smart glasses we have the option to incorporate these older images into existing collections—either as a kind of time-travel reference or as an extension of existing displays.
The image (Fig. 1) shows a mid-1800s stereograph of The Megatherium, British Museum, scanned from an Albumen silver print taken from a glass negative. (www. metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/271658).
Furthering this old idea of a 3D museum tour, from still stereographs to a live streaming video feed, we now have the ability to link museums via high-quality 3D and 360-degree cameras broadcasting directly to stereo-viewing smart glasses (see Fig. 2). This would enable guides in two (or more) museums to show and explain items and displays at each site, perhaps using a hat-mounted camera, or alternatively a moving camera platform (e.g. possibly even a guided robotic platform). Visitors wearing smart glasses would be able to follow the view and focus of the

Fig. 1 Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Roger Fenton (1850s) Fig. 2 Images courtesy of Live Planet, Inc./Seiko Epson Corporation

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

87

guide, whether local or remote, but also look around and get a better idea of surroundings and display context, much as is the case with those in the same physical gallery.
The possibility for pairing (Fig. 2), for example, a Live Planet 360º 4K Stereoscopic (3D) live-streaming camera with an Epson Moverio BT-350 smart glasses, could provide coordinated and blended inter-museum tours and visits. Other currently-available 360 cameras which may be useful include Orah 4i, ALLie 360 VR, Giroptic HD 360 and Ricoh Theta S 360 cameras. (Currently, no other public museum-ready smart glasses are known to be readily available.)
This model, of linking from one museum to guides in another museum, was an earlier stage of what has developed into the plan for 3D blended collections, and should prove to have merit on its own. As a hint of how smart glasses are being used in some guided, practical applications, it is worth considering Hewlett-Packard Enterprise’s Visual Remote Guidance (2016). While such 2D live interactions may be a simpler form of AR, they should also help establish what seems another key element to future blended models, which is the linking of museums and the ability to assist and support public (or researcher) participation from one museum collection to another. Given the levels of combined expertise, and the unique ability of museum professionals and volunteers to provide the content, context and support for the cultural material to be shared, the museum-to-museum model is worth testing and, ultimately, worth maintaining to ensure success. It also helps ensure that museums can continue to fulﬁll their mission, which provides something of beneﬁt for everyone.
In “Why a Virtual Museum?” (2016) Georges Ricard, Curator of The Virtual Egyptian Museum, maintains that “there is a deﬁnite beneﬁt to the virtual experience that cannot be duplicated in a real museum. Some of the notable virtual advantages we can envision include: Lighting … Scale … Peripheral Vision … Non-Linear Visit … Presentation of Historical Context … Access and Conservation”. These advantages are evident in this and other members of the Virtual Museum Transnational Network (2016). By contrast, in The Museum and the Web: Three Case Studies—Comparing the Virtual and the Physical Visits (2017) Marcy McDonald provides supporting citations suggesting that “Three-dimensionality and scale are unarguably two of the most distinguishing, and irreproducible, elements of the physical exhibit.” While there is much to commend in a purely physical (traditional) museum, and much to appreciate in a purely virtual museum, as will be clear from above the virtual museum experience we propose is intended as a blended one and as such is intended to connect one museum to another museum, combining the best of physical and virtual collections, for mutual and general beneﬁts (see Fig. 3).
The use of smart glasses with a museum display (Fig. 3), is indicated here with a physical dinosaur skeleton which has a computer visualised overlay of muscle and skin, along with extra text and visual detail about the display. The images are from an Epson concept video (https://youtu.be/hhYPqF3aHUs), which illustrates existing or technically possible scenarios (dependent on software use or development), and also shows the smart glasses wearer interacting with the augmented display using

88

R. Haynes

Fig. 3 Images courtesy of Seiko Epson Corporation
hand gestures to frame and capture a photograph of a self-selected scene of the enhanced visual information.
While the example in Fig. 3 shows an AR-enhanced display (e.g. of a single dinosaur specimen with additional virtual details), the AR enhancements could as easily include high-resolution 3D images (e.g. one or more additional dinosaur specimens), with remote collection images shown as well, using the smart glasses to enable viewing of both local physical object and remote or scanned images, for blended inter-museum experiences. As indicated, precise 3D scanning is intended as a major growth area for the development of collections, enabling enhanced options for the display of local collections, as well as the sharing of the virtual and physical. Also noted was the need to establish and adhere to a framework, to ensure scale and details needed to provide the means for reliable comparisons amongst specimens in blended collections.
Given the timing and testing required for the various options indicated, these can be treated as either separate (but closely related) projects, or ideally as phases for the larger overall Veholder project. For instance, Phase I could be the live-streaming guided option, using smart glasses and live guides to introduce the new technology and to help blend collection images and concepts. Phase II could be the introduction of 3D scanned images, potentially using existing material (whatever the scanning techniques, scaling and image detail available), and involving live guides to introduce the technologies and collections, as well as help explain and clarify any oddities in the blending of the particular virtual and physical combinations. Phase III could be the introduction of a speciﬁcally curated and blended special exhibition, with 3D images suitably scanned and precisely scaled for compatibility across the collections, and which would ideally be live-guided (but which could be prepared for self-paced interaction, as well). Phase IV could be the development of a much larger catalogue, perhaps after several special exhibitions (e.g. Phase III), presenting an expanding volume of suitably matched 3D images, available for more extensive self-paced interaction or guided presentations, across more of the participating museums’ collections.
For the future, an additional phase may be to consider making selected image collections available to a wider community outside of the museum, including those without any museum nearby (and potentially to the virtual visitor at home with the

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

89

potential to test suitability of use in a sedentary mode with low-cost VR goggles). Given the various technologies and cultural communication issues involved, most likely the live-guided phases would be best-suited to consider initially in all phases, given successful trials, with the curated phases (III, IV) being possible candidates to test self-paced interaction from a distance. Any extra costs, incurred by the additional demands of a potentially global extra-museum group of virtual visitors, might be shared with partnering institutions who might be able to provide a more localised support, for example smaller museums not otherwise participating in the blended collection efforts, or perhaps local libraries, or educational facilities, or possibly other local spaces made possible perhaps by sympathetic corporate sponsorship.
For reference, the Natural History Museum of Denmark (SNM), as with similar European museums, is a member of CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities: consolidating 59 European institutions’ taxonomic research capability) and SYNTHESYS (an EC-funded project to create an integrated infrastructure for natural history collections). Increasingly, the emphasis is on high resolution scanning projects to facilitate research, in addition to the existing access, education, and outreach efforts. Large scale digitisation programmes enabling ‘big data’ approaches to for instance biodiversity are underway in a number of European natural history museums, including notably Leiden and London. We plan to liaise further with Copenhagen and the museum networks to help establish the common framework described, to further aid open access to data, in keeping with the museums’ mission.

5 Conclusion
Discussions with specialists from research-based collections held at the Universities of Cambridge and Copenhagen and elsewhere have indicated keen interest and commitment for further development of the shared, blended 3D collections project, with additional partners and funding options being actively sought.
It was noted that institutions understandably tend to be more protective of their collections of rare skeletal and fossil remains, when for instance compared to other specimens, however the aim is to continue to provide open access in all digitisation projects. The model would be one of mutual sharing for general beneﬁt.
Blending physical and virtual collections can be achieved in phases, with more immediate options helping to build up the necessary partnerships and providing key shared experiences in the collaborative efforts involved. These phases could include:
• Phase I—live-streaming guided option, using smart glasses and live guides to introduce the new technology and help blend collection images and concepts
• Phase II—introduction of 3D scanned images, potentially using existing material and involving live guides to introduce the technologies and collections, and clarifying any oddities in the blending of the particular virtual and physical combinations

90

R. Haynes

• Phase III— introduction of a curated, blended special exhibition, with 3D images suitably scanned and precisely scaled for compatibility across collections, ideally live-guided (but could be prepared for self-paced interaction)
• Phase IV—development of larger catalogue, presenting an expanding volume of suitably matched 3D images, available for more extensive self-paced interaction or guided presentations, across more of the participating museums’ collections
• An additional phase may be to consider making selected collections available to a wider community outside of the museum (with the potential to test suitability of use in a sedentary mode with low-cost VR goggles). Most likely the live-guided phases would be best-suited initially in all phases, given successful trials, with the curated phases (III, IV) being possible candidates to test self-paced interaction from a distance.
• Any extra costs, incurred by additional demands of a global group of virtual visitors, might be shared with partnering institutions able to provide more localised support, for example smaller museums, local libraries, educational facilities, or possibly other spaces made possible perhaps by supportive sponsorship.
It is promising that there is agreement for cooperation on initial collaborative projects, which for Cambridge and Copenhagen at least may be related to primates and human evolution, and that sharing of experience in these areas should continue. There was also interest in benchmarking progress and proposals against other leading institutions in the sector. This was part of making initial contact with other institutions, and the follow up with them will include an attempt at a wider community of sharing, and of resolution of the calibration, scale, and related ﬁle format challenges. More details of the Veholder project will be found on its website (veholder.org).

Acknowledgements This exploration grew in part from the presentations and discussions at the Augmented Reality conference IFITTtalk@Manchester, in November 2016, and the author wishes to thank Timothy Jung and all the Creative AR and VR Hub group. Special thanks for the ongoing support and collaboration go to the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge, in particular Robert Foley, Marta Mirazon Lahr, Fabio Lahr, Federica Crivellaro, Frances Rivera, and Alex Wilshaw. Special mention goes to Emily Fricke, visiting Summer Intern from Bucknell University. Additional thanks go to the collaborating partners from Statens Naturhistoriske Museum (SNM), University of Copenhagen, in particular Peter Kjærgaard, Anders Drud Jordan, and Nikolaj Scharff. Special mention goes to project collaborator Richard Mee.

References
African Fossils. (2016, November 28). (africanfossils.org). Augmented Reality conference IFITTtalk@Manchester. (2017, July 22). www.mmu.ac.uk/
creativear/conferences/2015-augmented-realityiﬁtttalkmanchester. BBC. (2017) Is watching opera in the cinema just as good? Retrieved March, 2017, from http://
www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150114-opera-in-the-cinema-blasphemy.

Eye of the Veholder: AR Extending …

91

British Museum. (2016). British museum—with google. Retrieved November 2016, from www. britishmuseum.org/with_google.aspx.
Carrozzino, M., & Bergamasco, M. (2010). Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage., 11, 452–458.
Duckworth Collections. (2016). Duckworth collections. Retrieved November, 2016, from www. human-evol.cam.ac.uk/duckworth.html.
Epson. (2016). Epson case study: Brescia museums—A walk in the past with Moverio smart glasses. Retrieved November, 2016, from www.epson.co.uk/insights/casestudy/6217.
Epson Moverio. (2016). Epson Moverio BT-300: A new way of seeing the world. Retrieved November, 2016, from https://youtu.be/hhYPqF3aHUs.
HPE. (2016). HPE Visual Remote Guidance for the Enterprise. Retrieved November, 2016, from https://www.hpe.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA5–8053ENW.pdf.
ICOM. (2016). Museum Deﬁnition- ICOM. Retrieved November, 2016, from http://icom. museum/the-vision/museum-deﬁnition.
Kiourt, C., Koutsoudis, A., & Pavlidis, G. (2016). DynaMus: A fully dynamic 3D virtual museum framework. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 22, 984–991.
London Charter. (2016). London charter for the computer-based visualisation of cultural heritage. Retrieved January, 2016, from www.londoncharter.org.
Natural History Museum of Denmark. (2016). Natural history museum of Denmark. Retrieved November, 2016, from http://snm.ku.dk/english.
Niven, L., Steele, T. E., Finke, H., Gernat, T., & Hublin, J.-J. (2009). Virtual skeletons: Using a structured light scanner to create a 3D faunal comparative collection. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2018–2023.
Standards Activities—IEEE Digital Senses. (2017, March 4). (http://digitalsenses.ieee.org/ standards).
The Megatherium, British Museum, Roger Fenton (1850s) (2017, February 11). (http://www. metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/271658).
The museum and the web: Three case studies—Comparing the virtual and the physical visits. (2017, March 4). (http://xroads.virginia.edu/*MA05/macdonald/museums/virtual.html).
Virtual Museum Transnational Network. (2016, November 28). (www.v-must.net/virtualmuseums).
Why a Virtual Museum? (2016, November 28). (www.virtual-egyptian-museum.org/About/Story/ About.WhyVirtual-FR.html).
Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K., & White, M. (2003). Augmented reality interface for museum artefact visualization. In Proceedings of the 3rd IASTED International Conference on Visualization, Imaging and Image Processing.
Ynnerman, A., Rydell, T., Antoine, D., Hughes, D., Persson, A., & Ljung, P. (2016, December 12). Interactive Visualization of 3D Scanned Mummies at Public Venues. Communications of the ACM, 5, 72–81 (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/12/210363).

Virtual Reality as a Travel Promotional Tool: Insights from a Consumer Travel Fair
Alex Gibson and Mary O’Rawe

Abstract Although the potential of virtual reality (VR) as a technology in tourism has been recognised for more than twenty years, (Horan, Hosp Inf Technol Assoc— Electron J 1:1–7, 1996; Williams and Hobson, Tourism Manage 16:423–427, 1995), we have witnessed a renewed interest in both academic and business circles recently (Jung et al., Information and communication technologies in tourism 621–635, 2016). From a marketing perspective, VR offers the potential to build a sensory experience of a tourism destination or attraction, and can be used in sales contexts to complement, or indeed, supplant traditional promotional tools such as brochures. The immersive nature of the experience offers a deeper and more emotional assessment of the tourist offering from the consumer’s perspective, and an opportunity to build imagery and inﬂuence the consumer decision-making process from the marketing communicator’s viewpoint. Research was conducted into consumers’ attitudes and experiences of 360-degree VR videos, which have been developed by Fáilte Ireland (Ireland’s domestic marketing and product development agency) to showcase a number of activities along the Wild Atlantic Way. Using a quantitative research approach constructed along the dimensions of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, MIS quarterly 319–335, 1989), 129 surveys were carried out at two consumer travel shows. Respondents’ VR experience was rated positively across all demographic cohorts and against the selected dimensions of the TAM model. Using VR to promote the Wild Atlantic Way was found to greatly increase the likelihood of visiting the destination itself in the future. This offers very encouraging prospects for destination marketers. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how VR can aid in destination marketing and promotion, and potential limitations to its wider deployment.

A. Gibson (&) Á M. O’Rawe School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland e-mail: alex.gibson@dit.ie
M. O’Rawe e-mail: mary.orawe@dit.ie

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

93

T. Jung and M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality,

Progress in IS, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_7