Original Scientific Article
Virtual Reality in Tourism: Is it ‘Real’ Enough?
Marion Rauscher
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
marion.rauscher@hm.edu
Andreas Humpe
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
andreas.humpe@hm.edu
Lars Brehm
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
lars.brehm@hm.edu
Virtual Reality Technology is increasingly becoming popular in the tourism sector.
So far, the most researched application is the marketing of destinations. In contrast,
the technology has also beenmentioned as a means to limit or reduce the number of
tourists at a specific sight or destination. In this respect vr is considered as a sub-
stitute for the actual trip. This paper addresses this issue by looking at the possibility
to apply vr-technology to transfer the real-life experience into the digital world. In
a qualitative research framework, visitor behaviour and experience are investigated
when encountering vr sights in order to better understand items driving technol-
ogy adoption. Structured content analysis is applied for data analysis where coding
follows an adjusted Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model.
For interpretation purposes a pure qualitative framework was chosen. We find that
enjoyment is an important driver for vr technology acceptance, whereas facilitat-
ing conditions and outcome expectations seem to be obstacles for it. Perceived use-
fulness is evaluated controversially. While the technology is not acknowledged as
a substitute for a regular holiday trip, especially for travellers who take pleasure in
active holidays or appreciate social interaction, it was recognised as an alternative
for special occasions such as brief getaways from everyday life or short city trips.
Overall, when appropriately implemented the technology might not only be useful
to decrease visitor concentration in touristic hotspots or to decrease negative aspects
associated with frequent travel but could further be applied to sites where visitors do
not engage physically because sites are too distant, expensive, inhospitable, unsafe
or fragile.
Keywords: virtual reality, tourism, travel substitute, technology adoption, utaut
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.13.127-138
Introduction
Although virtual reality (vr) technology and research
thereof has been around for more than 20 years, it has
recently seen a renewed upsurge in academic inter-
est due to advancements in technology (Williams &
Hobson, 1995). The most commonly used definition
of Guttentag (2010, p. 638) describes the term ‘virtual
reality’ as ‘the use of computer-generated 3d environ-
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 127
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
ment [. . .] that one can navigate and possibly interact
with, resulting in a real-time simulation of one ormore
of the user’s five senses.’ Whereas the ability to move
around and explore the virtual environment is labelled
as a compulsory requirement, interaction is only facul-
tative. According to this definition it is not straightfor-
ward to determine whether 360° videos or even aug-
mented reality (ar) is part of vr or not. While both
applications represent, for the most part, a mere pas-
sive consumption, some navigation or limited interac-
tion might nevertheless be possible. Apparently, lines
are blurred and opinions differ in this regard. In fact,
academia has been arguing about whether navigation
is an optional component of vr or not (Yung&Khoo-
Lattimore, 2019).
For the purpose of this paper, we follow the more
flexible point of view (Gibson & O’Rawe, 2018; Wilt-
shier & Clarke, 2017) and consider vr as a computer-
generated 3d environment where navigation and in-
teraction are optional.
Irrespective of the technology or device used to
create a vr experience, two main factors are nec-
essary. The first one is physical immersion and the
second one psychological presence (Disztinger et al.,
2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). The more the vr user
is detached from the real world the more physically
immersed he is. In light of this and the elaborated def-
inition, on the one end of the vr spectrum there are
semi-immersive virtual environments where the user
is still in contact with the reality around him such as
360° videos followed by ar experiences. The other
end of the spectrum is determined by fully immersive
environments created, for example, by HeadMounted
Display (hmd) devices, maybe accompanied by head-
phones and gloves or other supporting tools to cre-
ate virtual tactile sensations. When smell or further
haptic stimuli are added the sensation of immersion
increases even more (Gutiérrez et al., 2008). Psycho-
logical presence is the subjective feeling of the user
of physically being in the virtual environment rather
than in the place where the body is located. This fol-
lowsWirth et al.’s (2007) definition of spatial presence.
An individual might reach a high psychological pres-
ence even in a physical semi-immersive environment
while anothermay not. It has been found, though, that
both concepts are somewhat related. Highly physical
immersive technologiesmay lead to a high level of psy-
chological presence. A lack of high immersion, on the
other hand, does not necessarily lead to a low feeling of
psychological presence. Subjective internal processes
of an individual may indeed compensate for lacking
external stimuli (Ijsselsteijn & Riva, 2003).
Empirical analyses of vr applications in tourism
are a fairly new research area. Since technological
progress has only recently led to an acceptable level,
such studies have not been on the rise until the last few
years. Nevertheless, empirical research on the adop-
tion of vr technology in a tourism context is still lim-
ited (tomDieck et al., 2018). This acknowledges Hine’s
(2000) demand for more empirical research of user
experience rather than mere prophecies of ground-
breaking vr applications in tourism. Yung andKhoo-
Lattimore (2019) even observe that among those anal-
yses that exist, many are still not based on theoretical
concepts or frameworks which verifies Huang et al.’s
(2016) assessment, that more substantive and theory-
based research on vr and its application is neces-
sary.
This paper contributes to reducing this void by
analysing vr user acceptance based on a qualitative
empirical research approach. More precisely, partici-
pants in two semi-immersive vr tourism experiences
in a cave Automated Virtual Environment were ob-
served and questioned based on the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (utaut). The
aim is to better understand determinants for accep-
tance and adoption willingness of vr technology as a
substitute for a real trip.
VR Applications in Tourism
Applications of vr in tourism have been discussed in
various contexts. Suggested areas of use range from a
planning andmanagement instrument to better assess
tourists’ desires and needs through an entertainment
tool, deployed for example within a theme park, to a
means for educational purposes, for instance in a mu-
seumor at a historical site (Guttentag, 2010). Themost
frequently researched area is, however, the use of vr
as a promotional tool. Several papers have already de-
scriptively highlighted the marketing potential of the
128 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
technology (Williams & Hobson, 1995; Cheong, 1995;
Williams, 2006; Guttentag, 2010; Griffin et al., 2017).
The hypothesis has been tested empirically within di-
verse research settings. For example, one of the ear-
lier studies questioned test persons after showing them
360° videos steerable by a regular pc mouse (Lee &
Oh, 2007). Pantano and Servidio (2011) usedwhat they
called a pervasive environmentwhich was represented
by stereoscopic technology creating a 3d image on a
screen. Both studies confirm the assumption that vr
provides an efficient marketing tool for destinations.
The reason is mainly attributable to the fact that vr
can help reduce uncertainty associated with buying
a touristic product. The ‘try-before-you-buy’ option
helps the traveller to get a more realistic experience
of what to expect. This way it can reduce travel anx-
iety (Lee & Oh, 2007) or increase motivation to visit
places that were somewhat unfamiliar to the individ-
ual (Pantano & Servidio, 2011).
Empirical vr research in tourism gained ground
with the introduction of so-called virtual worlds. The
most prominent example is Second Life from Linden
Lab. In this Internet-based 3d infrastructure users are
able to develop and design the virtual environment
and interact with each other via avatars. Related re-
search focused on the question whether the virtual
visit and associated interaction possibilities would
positively contribute to destination marketing efforts
(Guillet & Penfold, 2013; Huang et al., 2012; Huang et
al. 2013; Huang et al., 2016; Mascho & Singh, 2013).
The studies generally confirm the hypothesis, find-
ing that users develop positive feelings and increased
awareness towards the respective destination. This is
in linewith later analyses in alternate research settings.
For example, Tussyadiah et al. (2018) conclude that the
feeling of being in a virtual environment creates a pos-
itive sensation for the potential tourist, which leads
to a stronger preference for the destination and ulti-
mately a higher likelihood of visiting it. McFee et al.
(2019) compare 360° video information with a more
immersive vr experience and find that involvement
is a key aspect in image formation. Therefore, infor-
mation transmission via immersive vr should be pre-
ferred over 360° videos since it leads to a positive des-
tination image which increases visit intention. Gibson
and O’Rawe (2018) also observe a higher likelihood of
visiting the ‘real’ destination after experiencing it in a
virtual environment. Tussyadiah et al. (2017) measure
spatial presence which was found to have a positive
effect on post-vr attitude change toward the tourism
destination.
All of the aforementioned studies centre on the
question whether vr can help to create awareness of
a destination and ultimately increase visitor numbers.
Yet, the opposite objective can also be of interest. It
might, for example, be sensible to restrict the num-
ber of visitors at vulnerable natural or cultural spots
such as heavily visited heritage sites. Dewailly (1999)
adopts the specific perspective of sustainability in this
context. To put it in a broader perspective, vr might
be a beneficial instrument to tackle problems associ-
ated with the current overtourism debate. The general
idea behind it is, that bymeans of a virtual visit the site
is still accessible to everybody while at the same time,
the environment is not harmed. This rationale holds
for all destinations that might be too distant, inhos-
pitable or unsafe. It also holds for travellers themselves
who might be unable to visit a destination (Guttentag,
2010). Hence, vr can serve as a substitute for the ac-
tual trip (Cheong, 1995; Sussmann&Vanhegan, 2000)
rather than a motivational factor for it. Wiltshier and
Clarke (2017) point out the opportunities of virtual
cultural tourism but also address some challenges for
the future. The present study takes on this viewpoint
as well and explores the necessary prerequisites for the
tourist to accept a technology solution over a physical
travel experience.
When investigating vr acceptance the sense of
presence plays an important role (Slater et al., 1994;
Hyun & O’Keefe, 2012; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Al-
though not placed within a vr environment, empir-
ical researches (Klein, 2003; Jacob et al., 2010) high-
light the importance of media richness, i.e. number
and quality of sensory stimuli, as well as interaction
possibility on the attitude towards and acceptance
of an envisioned product. vr-related studies support
this outcome by confirming that a high level of pres-
ence can be achieved by addressing multiple senses
(Dinh et al., 1999; Feng et al., 2016; Rodrigues Mar-
tins et al., 2017). Apart from the user’s sensations, the
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 129
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
aforementioned interaction possibility requires fur-
ther thought. Guttentag (2010) argues that acceptance
of the vr tourism substitute is influenced by the indi-
vidual’s perception of authenticity as well as travelling
motivations. While the technology is able to closely
reconstruct objects and sites, social interaction is re-
strained. However, an individual’s motivation to travel
to a specific destination can be a friends or family visit
regardless of the touristic surroundings. Furthermore,
many tourists like to meet and exchange with locals
and delve into their lifestyle to experience authen-
ticity. Even the trip itself is oftentimes perceived as
a social occasion. People usually do not travel alone
and individuals who do, enjoy the company of others.
Those social interactions can influence the tourism
experience as much as the destination itself. Thus,
each tourist becomes a co-creator of value. This does
not only apply to the producer-consumer relation-
ship such that the consumer enhances or degrades the
value provided by the tourism producer (Binkhorst &
Den Dekker, 2009; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer,
2012). It also holds for the consumer-consumer re-
lation, since travellers influence each other in their
tourism experience (Rihova et al., 2015). Integrating a
social element is therefore vital when investigating a
vr tourism experience, even though the technology
can only provide for this aspect to a limited extent at
the current stage.
Methodology
Research Design
The present study deals with visitors to two vr tour-
ism sites who were observed and later questioned with
regard to their experiences and assessments. Partici-
pants in the researched group were 16 University stu-
dents of a Tourism Management programme. All of
them had already encountered full or semi-immersive
virtual environments using vr hmd devices. For the
purpose of this study they were sent into a cave Au-
tomatic Virtual Environment (Cruz-Neira et al., 1992)
3 metres in diameter. Shutter glasses had to be put
on in order to create the 3d image but no vr hmd
was necessary. Although this implies a lower physical
immersion this semi-immersive research framework,
similar to the one used by Pantano and Servidio (2011),
was chosen in order to provide for a more interactive
and social environment. More precisely, participants
were sent into the cave in groups of 5–6 people, sim-
ulating a travelling group. As pointed out earlier, indi-
viduals may nevertheless develop feelings of psycho-
logical presence. The spatial area left room for motion
in every direction enabling the group to change po-
sitions in order to show things to and talk with each
other.
In the cave they were shown two different set-
tings. The first one was a 3d reconstruction of Christ
the Redeemer on Corcovado with a view down to Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. The participantswere able to change
perspective as well as zoom in and out of the picture
with a handheld controller. This way involvement and
interaction was intensified, which may also increase
psychological presence for some individuals (Wirth
et al., 2007). The second setting was a guided tour
through the Syrian ruined city of Palmyra, a digital
360° movie initiated by the tv station zdf/Terra X
and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation show-
ing the reconstructed site.
As Guttentag (2010) elaborates, the acceptance of
vr as a substitute for the real destination is subjective.
Not only is the tourist’s individual perception of the
substitute’s authenticity of importance but also his or
her travel motivations and constraints. It is therefore
central to profoundly understand and question the vr
user’s behaviour, perception and sensation on an indi-
vidual basis. In light of this, and due to the exploratory
character of the research, a non-participative observa-
tion research framework of the groups in the cave
was chosen as a first step. Two researchers were de-
ployed to get a better view and align observations in
order to limit observation errors. Results were sub-
sequently backed and further elaborated. One week
after the visit, semi-structured interviews took place
with each participant, questioning them regarding
their general travel motivations, their virtual travel
experience and their technology adoption appraisal.
Contrary to Sussmann and Vanhegan (2000), by actu-
ally sending sample groups into the cave, individuals
were able to more precisely verbalise their experience
rather than answering what they think it would feel
like.
130 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
Performance
expectancy
Effort
expectancy
Social
influence
Behavioural
intention
Facilitating
conditions
Use
behaviour
Figure 1 utaut Model (adapted from Venkatesh et al.,
2003)
Theoretical Background
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Tech-
nology (utaut) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) pro-
vided the underlying theoretical basis for observations
and semi-structured interviews. utaut is an empir-
ically validated evolution of the Technology Accep-
tance Model (tam). tam was introduced by Davis
(1989) and applied in several tourism-related vr stud-
ies, partly with minor adaptions (Disztinger et al.,
2017; Huang et al., 2016, 2013; Mascho & Singh, 2013).
utaut applications are not as widespread as some to
be found in the vr-related segment of Augmented
Reality. For example, Hein et al. (2018) investigate
consumer assessment of opportunities and threats of
smart glasses for society. Targeted towards the tourism
industry is Paulo et al.’s (2018) research of influencing
factors of mobile ar adoption in tourism. A specific
case is studied by Kourouthanassis et al. (2015) who
test a mobile ar travel guide in Corfu, Greece.
Variables impacting technology adoption accord-
ing to utaut are performance expectancy, effort ex-
pectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions.
The first three drive the intention to use the respective
technology. Behavioural intention in turn, together
with facilitating conditions, motivate technology use.
Additionally, utaut postulates that constructs are
moderated by individual differences, i.e. gender, age
and experience, as well as by the voluntariness to use
the technology.
In the present research we adopted utaut cate-
gories to formulate and evaluate interview questions
and observations. A few adjustments in accordance
with the literature reviewed were made to fit the needs
of the specific setting. First, Venkatesh et al.’s (2003)
study was tailored to the business environment as
opposed to the present analysis. The item ‘job-fit’
was therefore omitted to describe performance ex-
pectancy. However, a more hedonic-related item was
included to define performance expectancy in order to
represent the interactive and social nature of the tech-
nology (tom Dieck et al., 2018). More specifically, the
item ‘perceived enjoyment’ was supplemented similar
to Disztinger et al. (2017), who follow Holsapple and
Wu’s (2007) proposition that vr is a hedonic rather
than a utilitarian technology. Within the construct ef-
fort expectancy the item ‘perceived ease of use’ and
‘ease of use’ are very similar (Davis, 1989; Moore &
Benbasat, 1991; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and it is crit-
icised that statements are therefore not clearly allo-
cable to either one. Additionally, participants were
not questioned a second time after applying the tech-
nology several times. Therefore, it was unlikely that
they were able to clearly assess ease of use. In order
to avoid distortions and ambiguities, both items were
grouped together to ‘perceived ease of use.’ The item
‘social factors’ in the original utaut model refers to
co-workers and supervisors who use the system, as
well as to organisational support given to the individ-
ual. Again, this is not applicable for the present analy-
sis. Consequently, the item was excluded. To sum up,
constructs and tantamount items used are shown in
Table 1 with respective anchoring statements from the
interviews.
Due to the small sample size we did not control
for gender. Neither was age and experience accounted
for since all of the participants were in the same age
group and had the same prior vr experience. Lastly,
the purpose of the technology employment is solely
for leisure activities and participation in the study was
free of choice for the sample group. Therefore, volun-
tariness of use was also not applicable in the present
setting.
Structured content analysis (Mayring, 2014) was
used to analyse and interpret data obtained by the ob-
servations and interviews. Coding followed the previ-
ously described adjusted utaut constructs and items.
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 131
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
Table 1 Adjusted Constructs and Anchoring Statements
Construct Item Anchoring Statement
Performance expectancy Perceived usefulness I had read before, that it’s an application to rebuild historical sites
Extrinsic motivation When I start my travel plans, there is some outside influence
Relative advantage A lot of things are missing – activities. This is why I travel
Outcome Expectations I am looking for recuperation. To be away from everyday life
Enjoyment I thought it was cool
Effort expectancy Perceived ease of use I would say, using the controller seemed to be relatively easy
Complexity It wasn’t complex, it was easy to operate
Social influence Social norm I don’t travel alone, but together with a friend or in a small group
Image Social Media is relevant for me when choosing a destination
Facilitating conditions Facilitating conditions I didn’t find it too impressive from a technical point of view
Compatibility I don’t think it can be a substitute for real travel experiences
Table 2 Frequencies of Codings
Outcome expectations 142
Perceived usefulness 80
Relative advantage 46
Enjoyment 52
Extrinsic motivation 31
Perceived ease of use 42
Complexity 12
Social norm 57
Image 2
Facilitating conditions 108
Compatibility 29
The intentionwith this approach is not tomeasure im-
pact on behavioural intention and use behaviour on a
quantitative scale as this requires a large sample survey
methodology. Rather, the aim is to get a deeper un-
derstanding of the relevant input parameters affecting
technology acceptance and adoption in the outlined
travel context.
Results
Frequencies of coded observation results and inter-
views are displayed in Table 2.
Within the construct performance expectancy, out-
come expectations and perceived usefulness seem to
be important elements for the participants. It was
found that the assessment of outcome expectations
strongly depends on the travel motive of the individ-
ual interviewee. While travellers with motives such as
hiking, kite-surfing or two-week relax holidays were
less likely to imagine vr travel as a substitute at the
current stage, those with motives like short-term city
breaks or sightseeing tours considered it more posi-
tively. Further investigations revealed that the first set
of motives are linked to certain feelings, emotions and
the search for authenticity in terms of getting into con-
tact with the local community, which cannot properly
be transported via vr. For example, one person pri-
marily looking for recovery from a demanding work-
ing life mentioned: ‘I actually want to feel emotions.
[. . .] Simply, that it was a good time.’ Another one
pointed out that the feeling of actually being onCorco-
vado is different because ‘you have gone or driven up.
You’ve already taken the path. You know “ok I’m here”
and have a certain feeling. I didn’t get this feeling in the
cave.’ Regarding the search for authentic encounters
with locals, one interviewee expressed: ‘So if it is really
about travelling and not about city trips, then the peo-
ple and their hospitality are always themost important
thing.’More generally, it was added that only authentic
experiences are able to create a positive attitude in the
tourist, which he or she can live off in the weeks and
months to come. Even though the reasoning of many
132 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
participants went in this direction, there were some
exceptions, which imply a higher psychological pres-
ence: ‘Nevertheless, I felt like I am walking through it
[Palmyra]. You have to get involved, you have to tell
yourself “ok, I’m really looking at this now.” And not
think of something else at the same time. You have to
get involved and then you can empathize.’
Usefulness of the technology in the travel indus-
try was saliently perceived to be very low. During the
observations, only one group started to develop ideas
for whom such a virtual travel would be suitable. In-
terestingly, during the interviews, after reference to
potential alternative uses (e.g. travel option for phys-
ically disabled people) was made by the interviewer,
almost all respondents revised their opinion and con-
firmed the suggested applications as being a relative
advantage over the actual trip. Some even developed
further ideas subsequently. For example, as a conse-
quence of watching the Palmyra video, some stated
the advantage of experiencing a destination that no
longer exists. Few mentioned additionally, that there
might be an advantage in the cultural tourism area,
where vr technology could be used as an efficient ed-
ucational tool. In some instances, a potential economic
threat of vr travel for destinations and their service
providers was voiced mainly due to loss of revenues
caused by shrinking visitor numbers. Besides these
special-purpose applications, many interviewees were
able to imagine vr to be a substitute for a short get-
away from everyday life, for example as a two-hour
vr travel experience to relax after work. The time and
monetary savings potential supports a possible rel-
ative advantage over a real trip in that respect: ‘You
have only little time and need a break, but you can’t
fly or drive anywhere at the moment because it takes
too long. Then you might want to go to a vr studio
for a city trip and come back more relaxed.’ Or, as an-
other one put it: ‘I would consider it an experience.
Maybe it can replace a short holiday. Like a visit to an
amusement park.’
Enjoyment was a clear positive contributor to per-
formance expectancy. In fact, all of the participants
mentioned the ‘fun-factor’ and the pleasure that group
members experienced during the activity. This was
also observable during the surveillances and empha-
sises the importance of hedonic elements when driv-
ing technology acceptance. It also hints towards the
supposition that intrinsic motives play a much greater
role among the participants than extrinsic ones. Espe-
cially when taking the circumstance into account that
extrinsic motivation had no declared influence on us-
ing vr technology for travel purposes, even though it
sometimes played a minor role in choosing a destina-
tion or holiday activity.
Both the observational as well as the interview
analyses of effort expectancy indicate that participants
perceived the ease of use as very positive and were
comfortable in testing the equipment. Furthermore,
they found it easy to operate the equipment and the
complexity was rated low. However, some mentioned
that the controller needed a little practice and thus the
ease of use could be improved.
Social influence was rather negatively evaluated
mainly because social norms play an important role
for traveling. Almost none of the partakers travel alone
and meeting locals is relevant for most of them. In
fact, in several cases it seemed like social norm was
almost perceived as a facilitating condition, because
the respective interviewees referred to the two items
within the same text passages. Within this context, it
was striking that no one regarded experiencing the
vr sites in a group as beneficial, which was originally
intended by the researchers. Obviously the social el-
ement does not seem to be superficially present. In
contrast to this, observations pointed towards the fact
that it nevertheless is a valuable component because
participants started conversations as well as shared
impressions and encounters with each other after they
familiarised themselves with the technology. Further-
more, although social media and recommendations
of friends or family members are important when de-
ciding which destination to visit, according to the in-
terview statements this external input does not seem
to be relevant for technology adoption. Thus, image
does not present a stimulus in the present study. Taken
together with extrinsic motivation, outside factors in
general do not appear to have any importance for the
respondents in their assessment of the technology.
Facilitating conditions were rated rather negatively
as most partakers mentioned technical shortcomings,
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 133
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
specifically directed towards visual elements. More-
over, some demanded additional stimuli of senses like
temperature, wind, sound or smell tomake the vr ex-
periencemore real. However, the latter was oftenmen-
tioned only after indicated by the interviewer. Finally,
evaluation of compatibility can be related to the some-
what negative appraisal already discussed in connec-
tion with relative advantage.
Discussion
In our qualitative study we were not able to define a
commutated tendency for items describing the con-
struct performance expectancy and consequently for
behavioural intention. While some declared that they
felt to be ‘in an artificial space [. . .] because there is
no impact from the environment around,’ others ac-
knowledged that ‘the destination does not exist any
longer, so vr is better than nothing.’ Apparently, the
absence of deeper emotions, which was criticised by
many interviewees, aswell as lacking social encounters
with locals, seem to be a major obstacle for technol-
ogy acceptance. Likewise,Mura et al. (2017) found that
virtual tourism in its current form is being regarded
as not authentic enough and thus not viable as a re-
placement for corporeal tourism. ‘The journey itself is
irreplaceable,’ as one respondent aptly expressed. Our
research revealed, however, that more granular reflec-
tions are indeed necessary in this respect.
To begin with, the assessment of outcome expecta-
tions seems to depend on how strongly the individual
is able to get involved in the vr experience. This sup-
ports the proposition that a person can feel psycho-
logical presence even though physical immersion is
rather low as Ijsselsteijn&Riva (2003) suggested. Also,
answers relating to outcome expectations were con-
nected to travel motives of the participants. In this re-
gard,most participants proactively perceived the tech-
nology as useful and advantageous for short getaways
or sightseeing tours. This points at least weakly to-
wards the findings of Disztinger et al. (2017), who re-
port perceived usefulness or relative advantage to have
a positive effect on the intention to use vr technol-
ogy. In addition, after advocated by the interviewer,
respondents stated that although the vr experience
cannot replace the real visit, it might be a useful appli-
cation for special purposes. This applies in particular
to individuals who are not able to physically travel or
to destinations that are simply not visitable anymore
such as Palmyra, which is in line with Sussmann and
Vanhegan’s (2000) results. Summing up, the type of
travel and specific motivation appear to be crucial for
technology acceptance. If technology adoption wants
to be achieved, the content of the vr offer therefore
should reflect these customer needs. This conclusion is
further backed by studies researching the application
of ar in a cultural context (Dueholm & Smed, 2014;
Leue et al., 2015), which state that the suitable quality
of content emerged as one of the biggest requirements.
Reinforcing Disztinger et al.’s (2017) findings, per-
ceived enjoyment gave a positive impulse for all par-
ticipants. Hedonic benefits are, thus, an input param-
eter that should not be neglected when promoting vr
travel technology acceptance.
Moreover, participants’ statements gave no indica-
tion of the existence of any extrinsic motivators for
technology adoption. This might be due to the fact
that the usage of vr technology in the given context is
leisure-related and purely voluntary. Additionally, in-
terviewees were students who might not yet be able to
assess the professional benefits of the technology at the
time of the inquiry. Or, as a third explanation, the ap-
plication itself might still be too newwhichmeans that
an external motive and image has yet to develop.
In terms of effort expectancywe find that perceived
ease of use was high among the respondents. The op-
eration of the technique in a cave setting is no note-
worthy hurdle.When arguing in line with quantitative
studies (tom Dieck et al., 2018) this would shape atti-
tude and behavioural intention of vr technology in a
positive way.
Generally speaking, social interaction is a strong
motivation for many tourists according to Guttentag
(2010). Our study supports this viewpoint and reveals
the limitations of vr technology to achieve this mo-
tivational aspect. Although participants experienced
the vr application in the cave in small groups, no
perceived social interaction was voiced even though
observations conveyed a somewhat different picture.
Apparently, the setting could not provide the profound
social interaction that the partakers expect.
134 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
Finally, facilitating conditions were negatively per-
ceived mainly due to technical issues. It seems that
technical aspects are still one of the most important
aspects driving vr technology adoption. Especially,
the perceived low quality of the visual element was
one of the most frequent items mentioned to hin-
der technology acceptance. However, these shortcom-
ings might change in the future with more advanced
vr technology and eventually more social interac-
tion possibilities in vr applications. Even now, per-
ceived usefulness might be assessed more positively
with more cutting edge vr equipment, which then
offers technically viable substitutes for short getways
or short-term sightseeing tours. Interestingly, moving
pictures (Palmyra) were evaluated better than the 3d
(Christ the Redeemer) experience. On the one hand,
this might be due to the fact that more information
is transferred via the Palmyra tour which underlines
the educational aspect of vr technology. On the other
hand, it could have to do with the controller handling
of the still image of Corcovado since some partakers
experienced motion sickness while zooming through
it.
Contrasting, the absence of the naturally chang-
ing environment, such as cloud or sunlightmovement,
was not perceived as a disturbing factor. This is an in-
teresting finding since Chen et al. (2015) describe the
creation of dynamic geographic environments as one
of the most difficult issues in moving away from a sci-
entific setting to real virtual world research. To put
it in other words, in order to generate a satisfactory
tourism experience, it might not be necessary to re-
flect the real world in its entirety. The samemight hold
for other sensory stimuli. Although some participants
wished for more, it did not seem to impair the experi-
ence to a significant extent because the absence was
not criticised for the most part. Possibly, some par-
ticipants were missing something but were not able
to identify or articulate what it is. In this case, lack
of additional inducements other than visual or audi-
tive would be subconscious deficiencies that limit the
vr experience. Psychological presencemight, thus, be
a more latent existing impression rather than that it
can be proactively expressed by the users. Customer
segmentation according to their sensory preferences
could consequently be feasible (Agapito et al., 2014)
when applying vr travel substitutes.
Conclusion
The findings of our study contribute to tourism-rela-
ted vr literature by offering a more profound and dif-
ferentiated understanding of items influencing tech-
nology acceptance and use intention. Generalisation,
however, is difficult due to some limitations. First of
all, our approach is purely qualitative. While partici-
pants’ statements and comments give first indications
towards the willingness to accept and use the technol-
ogy as a travel substitute, they are nevertheless subjec-
tive individual opinions. As such they can only provide
the basis for a more detailed comprehensive analysis.
Future research should therefore test our findings in a
quantitative model to derive robust results in terms of
behavioural intention and use behaviour as dependent
variables within the utaut model.
The second limitation builds on this aspect, as
our sample is relatively small with 16 participants and
not representative because only students of a Tourism
Management bachelor degree programme were ques-
tioned. They were mainly female students of the same
age group (between 20 and 25 years). Furthermore, all
participants had similar previous experience with vr
technology and the time frame for observations was
fairly short. Again, future research should verify our
findings with larger and more representative samples
within an extended time frame.
Finally, outcome expectations and facilitating con-
ditions have been evaluated rather negatively. One
might get different outcomes with more high-end vr
technology currently and in the future, since vr tech-
nology is evolving rapidly.
Despite the limitations our research offers room
for further research questions. The researchers of the
present study assumed a cave environment to pro-
vide for interaction possibilities. It was found, how-
ever, that not all participants acknowledged this aspect
and results are likely to change in other vr environ-
ments. It would therefore be feasible to, for example,
focus on more immersive vr settings or even com-
pare findings within different vr environments. In
this context, participants’ preferences for settings are
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 135
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
of interest as well. Moreover, in our research, the par-
takers participated voluntarily in the study. In terms
of commercialisation, the willingness to pay for a vr
experience as well as the marginal price are further
questions worth noting. Customer segmentation may
gain additional importance in this regard. Lastly, the
content of the vr experience was not part of the dis-
cussion in the present analysis. Participants were not
able to choose the type or subject of the experience.
As discussed and supported by our research results,
personal travel motivations and interests play an im-
portant role in the evaluation of the experience and
ultimately technology acceptance. Prospective studies
could therefore look more deeply into the question of
stakeholders’ content preferences.
References
Agapito, D., Valle, P., & Mendes, J. (2014). The sensory di-
mension of tourist experiences: Capturing meaning-
ful sensory-informed themes in Southwest Portugal.
Tourism Management, 42, 224–237.
Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-
creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hos-
pitality Marketing & Management, 18(2/3), 311–327.
Chen,M., Lin,H., Kolditz, O., &Chen, C. (2015). Developing
dynamic virtual geographic environments (vges) for ge-
ographic research. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(10),
6975–6980.
Cheong, R. (1995). The virtual threat to travel and tourism.
Tourism Management, 16(6), 417–422.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., DeFanti, T. A., Kenyon, R. V.,
& Hart, J. C. (1992). The cave: Audio visual experience
automatic virtual environment. Communications of the
acm, 35(6), 64–72.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology. mis
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
Dewailly, J. (1999). Sustainable tourist space: From reality to
virtual reality? Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 41–55.
Dinh,H.Q.,Walker,N.,Hodges, L. F., Song, C., &Kobayashi,
A. (1999). Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory
input onmemory and the sense of presence in virtual en-
vironments. In Proceedings of the 1999 ieee Virtual Re-
ality (pp. 222–228). ieee.
Disztinger, P., Schlögl, S., & Groth, A. (2017). Technology
acceptance of virtual reality for travel planning. In R.
Schegg & B. Stangl (Eds.), Information and Communica-
tion Technologies in Tourism 2017 (pp. 255–268). Springer.
Dueholm, J., & Smed, K. M. (2014). Heritage authenticities:
A case study of authenticity perceptions at a Danish her-
itage site. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 9(4), 285–298.
Feng, M., Dey, A., & Lindeman, R. (2016). An initial explo-
ration of a multi-sensory design space: Tactile support
for walking in immersive virtual environments. Proceed-
ings of ieee 3d User Interfaces (pp. 95–104). ieee.
Gibson, A., & O’Rawe, M. (2018). Virtual reality as a travel
promotional tool: Insights from a consumer travel fair.
In T. Jung & M. C. tom Dieck (Eds.), Augmented Reality
and Virtual Reality (pp. 93–107). Springer.
Griffin, T., Giberson, J., Lee, S. H., Guttentag, D., Kandau-
rova,M., Sergueeva, K., &Dimanche, F. (2017, June).Vir-
tual reality and implications for destination marketing.
Paper presented at the International Conference of the
Travel and Tourism Research Association, Quebec City,
Canada
Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Cus-
tomer co-creation of travel services: The role of company
support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation
performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483–1492.
Guillet, B. D., & Penfold, P. (2013). Conducting immersive
research in second life: A hotel co-branding case study.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Adminis-
tration, 14(1), 23–49.
Gutiérrez, M. A., Vexo, F., & Thalmann, D. (2008). Stepping
into virtual reality. Springer.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and im-
plications for tourism. TourismManagement, 31(5), 637–
651.
Hein, D. W. E., Jodoin, J. L., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ivens, B.
S. (2018). Are Wearables good or bad for society? An ex-
ploration of societal benefits, risks, and consequences of
augmented reality smart glasses. In Wearable technolo-
gies: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp.
1313–1337). igi Global.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
Holsapple, C. W., & Wu, J. (2007). User acceptance of vir-
tual worlds: TheHedonic framework. sigmis Database,
38(4), 86–89.
Huang, Y. C., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (2012). Ex-
ploring the impacts of involvement and flow experiences
in Second Life on people’s travel intentions. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 3(1), 4–23.
Huang, Y. C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L.
(2016). Exploring the implications of virtual reality tech-
nology in tourism marketing: An integrated research
framework. International Journal of Tourism Research,
18(2), 116–128.
136 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
Huang, Y. C., Backman, S. J., Backman, K., & Moore, D.
(2013). Exploring user acceptance of 3d virtual worlds
in travel and tourism marketing. Tourism Management,
36(1), 490–501.
Hyun, M. Y., & O’Keefe, R. M. (2012). Virtual destination
image: Testing a telepresence model. Journal of Business
Research, 65(1), 29–35.
Ijsselsteijn, W., & Riva, G. (2003). Being there: The experi-
ence of presence in mediated environments. In G. Riva,
F. Davide, & W. A. Ijsselsteijn (Eds.), Being there: Con-
cepts, effects and measurement of user presence in syn-
thetic environments (pp. 3–16). Ios Press.
Jacob, C., Guéguen,N., & Petr, C. (2010).Media richness and
internet exploration. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 12(3), 303–305.
Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences:
The role of telepresence. Journal of InteractiveMarketing,
17(1), 41–55.
Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., & Chasanidou,
D. (2015). Tourists responses to mobile augmented real-
ity travel guides: The role of emotions on adoption be-
havior. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 18(1), 71–87.
Lee,O., &Oh, J.-E. (2007). The impact of virtual reality func-
tions of a hotel website on travel anxiety. CyberPsychol-
ogy & Behavior, 10(4), 584–586.
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.), Infor-
mation and communication technologies in tourism 2015
(pp. 463–476). Springer.
Mascho, E., & Singh, N. (2013). Virtual tourism: Use of ‘sec-
ond life’ for destination marketing. Anatolia, 25(1), 140–
143.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical
foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Beltz.
McFee, A., Mayrhofer, T., Baràtovà, A., Neuhofer, B., Rain-
oldi, M., & Egger, R. (2019). The effects of virtual reality
on destination image formation. In J. Pesonen & J. Nei-
dhardt (Eds.), Information and communication technolo-
gies in tourism 2019 (pp. 107–119). Springer.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an in-
strument to measure the perceptions of adopting an in-
formation technology innovation. Information Systems
Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Mura, P., Tavakoli, R., & Pahlevan Sharif, S. (2017). ‘Au-
thentic but not too much:’ Exploring perceptions of au-
thenticity of virtual tourism. Information Technology &
Tourism, 17(2), 145–159.
Pantano, E., & Servidio, R. (2011). An exploratory study of
the role of pervasive environments for promotion of
tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 2(1), 50–65.
Paulo, M. M., Rita, P., Oliveira, T., &Moro, S. (2018). Under-
standing mobile augmented reality adoption in a con-
sumer context. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Tech-
nology, 9(2), 142–157.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Gouthro, M.-B. (2015).
Conceptualising customer-to-customer value co-crea-
tion in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Re-
search, 17(4), 356–363.
Rodrigues Martins, J. L. B., Gonçalves, R., Branco, F., & Bar-
bosa, L. (2017). Amultisensory virtual experiencemodel
for thematic tourism: A Port wine tourism application
proposal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Manage-
ment, 6(2), 103–109.
Slater,M., Usoh,M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in
virtual environments.Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual
Environments, 3(2), 130–144.
Sussmann, S., &Vanhegan,H. (2000). Virtual reality and the
tourism product substitution or complement? In Pro-
ceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Informa-
tion Systems (pp. 1077–1083). ecis.
tom Dieck, D., tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T., & Moorhouse, N.
(2018). Tourists’ virtual reality adoption: An exploratory
study from Lake District National Park. Leisure Studies,
37(4), 371–383.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., & Jia, C. (2017). Virtual reality
and attitudes toward tourism destinations. In R. Schegg
& B. Stangl (Eds.), Information and communication tech-
nologies in tourism 2017 (pp. 229–239). Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M.
C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change:
Empirical evidence from tourism.TourismManagement,
66, 140–154.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. B., &Davis, F. D. (2003).
User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing:
Fantasy, feeling and fun. International Journal of Con-
temporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482–495.
Williams, P., & Hobson, J. P. (1995). Virtual reality and
tourism: Fact or fantasy? Tourism Management, 16(6),
423–427.
Wiltshier, P., & Clarke, A. (2017). Virtual cultural tourism:
Six pillars of vct using co-creation, value exchange and
exchange value. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(4),
372–383.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt,
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 137
Marion Rauscher et al. Virtual Reality in Tourism
C., Schramm,H., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Ravaja,N., Gouveia,
F. R., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jäncke, L., Baumgartner, T., &
Jäncke, P. (2007). A process model of the formation of
spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9, 493–
525.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: A
systematic literature review on virtual reality and aug-
mented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in
Tourism, 22(17), 2056–2081.
138 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020