See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332819100

Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art review

Article  in  Tourism Review · May 2019

DOI: 10.1108/TR-03-2017-0049

CITATIONS READS

37 4,383

3 authors:

Julia Beck Mattia Rainoldi

Fachhochschule Salzburg Fachhochschule Salzburg
4 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roman Dr. Egger

Salzburg
73 PUBLICATIONS   527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Foucault and Milgram View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mattia Rainoldi on 01 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is the author’s final version of the following article.

Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art review

PLEASE REFER TO THE PRINTED ARTICLE AND CITE IT AS FOLLOWS:

Beck, J. Rainoldi, M. and Egger, R. (2019). Virtual reality in tourism: a state-

of-the-art review, Tourism Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0049
 Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art review
Julia Beck,
Mattia Rainoldi, and
Roman Egger

Innovation and Management in Tourism

Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria
Corresponding author: roman.egger@fh-salzburg.ac.at

Abstract
Purpose
Emerging technologies, such as Virtual Reality (VR), have been influencing both the tourism
supply side and tourists alike. The purpose of this study is to analyse VR research in tourism and
to provide a comprehensive state of the art review. As the technological connotation of the term
VR has been changing and encompasses various VR systems with different capabilities, this pa-
per aims to provide a systematic and structured overview. The overall objective of this paper is
to contribute to a thorough understanding of VR research in tourism.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper comprehensively reviews and analyses existing literature on VR in tourism, published
from 1994 to February 2018. Using a wide variety of sources, these papers were examined so as
to give a state of the art literature review and to deepen one’s understanding of the diverse appli-
cations of VR in a tourism context. This paper also presents a novel classification of different
VR systems according to the level of immersion and depicts their respective technological capa-
bilities.
Findings
The advent of new VR hardware necessitates a distinction for different VR systems applied in
the tourism sector. Research conducted during the last three years has been focusing on the ap-
plication of head-mounted displays, which reflects the temporal development of VR technology.
Regardless of the VR system, most studies examine VR as a marketing tool for promotion and
communication purposes during the pre-travel phase, focusing on behavioural aspects. Advances
in technology will yield new opportunities and application possibilities for the tourism industry.
Originality/value
The key contribution of this paper lies in its structural approach, which differentiates between
non-, semi-, and fully-immersive VR systems in tourism, as well as the proposition of respective
definitions. The concluding part of the paper proposes practical implications for tourism busi-
nesses together with directions for future studies.
Keywords: Virtual environment, Tourism, Virtual reality, VR, 360-degree, Immersive

Introduction
The development of information and communication technologies
(ICTs) has been influencing many business sectors, and in particular the
tourism industry. Emerging ICTs contribute in re-engineering systems
and processes, by impacting operational, structural and strategic levels
(Buhalis and Egger, 2006). They alter the ways in which tourism prod-
ucts and services are managed, placed and promoted on the market,
which implies a corresponding change in the way travellers get inspired,
book, plan and experience travel (Buhalis and Law, 2008; Pesonen,
2013; Neuhofer et al., 2014; Rincon et al., 2017). Amongst potential
technologies that have attracted attention in recent times are cutting-edge
immersive technologies like Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality
(MR) (Yusoff et al., 2011) and Virtual Reality (VR) (Guttentag, 2010).
While AR overlays the real world view with 2D or 3D computer-gener-
ated data and information (Kounavis et al., 2012), VR can be described
as a virtual computer simulated world (Desai et al., 2014). MR differs
from AR and VR in that it combines real and virtual objects that the user
can seamlessly interact with (Yusoff et al., 2011). VR is described as a
technology with a wide range of applications which are predicted to have
a profound influence on the future of the tourism industry (Guttentag,
2010; Jung et al., 2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2017; Marasco et al., 2018;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
Scholarly interest on the application of VR in tourism finds its roots in
the 1990s (Musil and Pigel, 1994; Cheong, 1995; Hobson and Williams,
1995). Its fundamental principles, however, date back to the 1930s and
it was only in the 1980s that the notion Virtual Reality was formulated.
Hobson and Williams (1995, p.125) soon recognised the revolutionary
power of VR and described it as “potentially one of the most important
technological breakthroughs of the late 20th century”. Today, VR is still
regarded a technology in its infancy that has not yet reached mainstream
adoption (Disztinger et al., 2017). However, the emergence of new and
affordable VR devices (Disztinger et al., 2017, Marchiori et al., 2017;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018), has been boosting developments and opportu-
nities for the application of VR (Tussyadiah et al., 2017) and demand for
virtual tourism (Tavakoli and Mura, 2015). Tourism marketers can use
VR as an innovative way to provide information (Rainoldi et al., 2018;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018) and to deliver authentic experiences (Sussmann
and Vanhegan, 2000; Mirk and Hlavacs, 2015; Slater and Sanchez-
Vives, 2016). Considering the intangible nature of most tourism products
and services (Wang et al., 2017), VR promises to enrich the inspiration
and information phases of the customer journey by providing tourists the
opportunity to have “a taste” of the tourism experience and to engage
with trustworthy and rich information (Disztinger et al., 2017; Marchiori
et al., 2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2017; Rainoldi et al., 2018). The use of
VR is also predicted to have an impact on the on-site travel experience
(Cheong, 1995; Hobson and Williams, 1995; Guttentag, 2010) as well as
on the post-travel phase (Marasco et al., 2018). For example, on-site VR
experiences can be provided in museums (Loizides et al., 2014; Jung et
al., 2016) and in fact, the emergence of the first all-in-one camera rigs
will soon enable tourists to capture and share user-generated VR content
after their holiday experience.
While we are witnessing rapid developments of VR technology in terms
of hardware, software and applications (Tussyadiah et al., 2017), the the-
oretical discussion is still based on notions developed in the 1980s
(Gutiérrez et al., 2008). As Slater and Sanchez-Vives (2016) explain, the
term VR has lately been overused. In particular, VR research in tourism
has often borrowed concepts and definitions from other industries con-
cerned with the topic of VR (Guttentag, 2010). So far, little attention has
been paid to the different types of VR systems. In addition, content cre-
ation approaches have further changed and advanced. Whereas com-
puter-generated images have been commonly used (Slater and Sanchez-
Vives, 2016), nowadays photorealistic 360-degree images have been rec-
ommended for tourism purposes (Marasco et al., 2018). It is therefore
essential to evaluate research in travel and tourism (Guttentag, 2010) and
to present an up-to-date perspective, considering modifications that have
influenced the area of VR in this context. Thus, this paper aims to address
the identified research gaps by presenting a state of the art review that
not only considers but also categorises and defines different VR technol-
ogies used. This paper aims to make a meaningful contribution to theory
and professional practice by providing a new perspective on VR in tour-
ism. A structured overview, industry tailored definitions that consider
variations in technological capabilities, the acknowledgment of different
construction approaches as well as identification of new areas of interest
for future research are offered.
Methodology
This paper adopts a state of the art review analysis approach to synthesise
and comprehensively analyse current literature on a specific topic as well
as to identify priorities for future research (Grant and Booth, 2009; Law
et al., 2012). As Grant and Booth (2009, p.95) posit a state of the art
review “tend[s] to address more current matters in contrast to other com-
bined retrospective and current approaches. [It] may offer new perspec-
tives on [an] issue…”. A state of the art review is of interest for readers
who are either seeking to identify potential opportunities for contempo-
rary research or are new to an area. It should allow readers to identify the
most salient points within a topic from a single review article. As such,
a comprehensive review is of value for both tourism practitioners and
research scholars as it allows for the identification of gaps in the body of
knowledge (Grant and Booth, 2009; Law et al., 2012). A potential limi-
tation of a state of the art review can be a trade-off between scope width
and content depth (Papathanassis, 2017). To overcome such limitations
Law et al. (2012) suggest limiting the period of analysis. This is because
conducting this sort of review that takes into account research outcomes
over a lengthy period of time may fail to capture latest trends and devel-
opments. This inadequacy was also identified when it came to the topic
under research. Despite a number of studies discussing the overall topic
of VR, current literature on VR applications in a tourism context lacks
an in-depth review and analysis taking latest technological developments
into account. This paper aims therefore to address this issue.
In contrast to other studies, such as the one by Guttentag (2010) which
used various application fields as a way of subdivision, this paper adopts
a different method and distinguishes within the different VR systems
(non-, semi-, fully-immersive). It was found that most studies on VR in
tourism do not specify the availability of different VR systems, but most
commonly only describe the specific system that was researched. This
can lead to confusion and misunderstanding, as the connotation of the
term VR encompasses various systems that differ in their technological
capabilities and applications. To overcome this constraint, a classifica-
tion framework can be developed. By organising objects, things, accu-
mulated knowledge and concepts into categories, an isolated, detailed
analysis of each category can be conducted. The classification into dif-
ferent categories enables ease of access and comparison and the detection
of relationships between the categories (Groß, 2015; Gerber et al., 2017).
Therefore, a classification approach that considers the development and
alteration of VR technology over time and structures research according
to technological capabilities is offered. Based on the defined categories,
the provision of corresponding definitions for the different VR systems
applied in tourism complete the study.
For this purpose, Science Direct and Google Scholar, which are known
as two of the “largest and most popular online databases and search en-
gines” (Law et al., 2010, p.298), were used from January 2017 to Febru-
ary 2018 to search for peer reviewed articles and conference proceedings
that were published during the last 20 years (1998-2018). In searching
for resources, a range of keyword combinations, including VR tourism,
virtual reality tourism, virtual reality technology in tourism, immersive
tourism, 360-degree tourism, virtual tourism, and virtual environment in
tourism among others, were employed.
Inclusion criteria focused on substantive criteria (the references had to
be published in the context of the travel and tourism domain), publication
genre (peer reviewed conference proceedings and journal articles) and
formal criteria (it was an inclusion criterion that the studies described the
respective VR technology in its technological capabilities). According to
this framework, an exclusion criterion extended to papers that dealt with
related technologies like Augmented Reality (AR). Resources also had
to be available in full-text format.
An initial number of 59 references served as a starting point for the re-
view. Following that, duplicates and articles that did not match the in-
clusion criteria were removed. After a careful screening, a total of 27
articles remained for this study. Each of the selected articles was re-
viewed and classified according to the proposed framework of non-,
semi-, and fully-immersive VR. Table A1 (see Appendix) provides a
structured overview on the reviewed studies.
Virtual Reality
In literature the term VR is used inconsistently (Dörner et al., 2013). In
general, the term describes systems that provide synthetic experiences.
However, it is also used to refer to the experience itself (Kim, 2005) or
to a form of communication akin to language (Pujol, 2004). The term VR
is also commonly used to depict the technology in terms of its specific
devices. The rapid evolution of underlying hardware explains why this
approach might not be expedient (Steurer, 1992; LaValle, 2016; Mar-
chiori et al., 2017), as systems comprising of different key characteristics
would be condensed under the same term. Scholars have often used the
term VR to illustrate humans’ wish to escape from the real world and go
anywhere or do anything according to their desires (Ijsselsteijn and Riva,
2003; Desai et al., 2014). Following this line of thinking, Hobson and
Williams (1995, p.128) argue that “VR is the computer-generated me-
dium that gives people the feeling that they are being transported from a
physical world to a world of imagination” while Desai et al. (2014,
p.175) define VR as “a computer simulated [3D] environment that gives
the user the experience of being present in that environment”. It can,
therefore, be argued that VR conveys a sense of escapism to the user.
However, according to Guttentag (2010) VR not only enables users to
escape from their everyday life but also stimulates one’s senses and pro-
vides opportunities for virtual interaction.
VR is based on the concepts of immersion and presence, which also dis-
tinguish it from other forms of media (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016).
Immersion is an objective construct that explains the physical configura-
tion, whereas presence is a subjective construct (Gutiérrez et al., 2008;
Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Slater and Wilbur (1997) explain im-
mersion as a measurable aspect of display technology that comprises of
the following four determinants: inclusive (the degree to which the phys-
ical reality is omitted), surrounding (extent to which the display allows a
panoramic view), extensive (variety of sensory modalities accommo-
dated), and vivid (aspects such as resolution and fidelity). Presence is a
product of the mind which is not bound to any specific technology and
describes the feeling of “being there” (Ijsselsteijn and Riva, 2003). The
user should forget about the physical world and experience the VE as the
more engaging one (Slater and Wilbur, 1997). Research shows that the
more sophisticated the VR technology, the higher the degree of immer-
sion and the level of presence (Dörner and Steinicke, 2013; Diemer et
al., 2015). It can be summarised that the intensity of the immersion in
the VE and the level of involvement and interactivity in it are crucial for
the realisation of presence (see also Heeter, 1992; Steurer, 1992; Slater
and Usoh, 1993; Ijsselsteijn and Riva, 2003; Kim, 2005).
VR in tourism – a comprehensive overview
The potential of VR to revolutionise and redefine the tourism industry
has long been recognised (Hobson and Williams, 1995; Williams and
Hobson, 1995). Today, as virtual digital worlds increasingly permeate
the lives of tourists, their use is becoming pivotal to the tourism industry
(Mura et al., 2017). In tourism, VR finds application in multiple areas
including planning and management, marketing and information ex-
change, entertainment, education, accessibility and heritage preservation
(Guttentag, 2010; Wiltshier and Clarke, 2016).
A widely-discussed topic is the application of VR to complement or even
substitute tourism products (Musil and Pigel, 1994; Hobson and Wil-
liams, 1995; Williams and Hobson, 1995; Gutiérrez et al., 2008; Gut-
tentag, 2010; Huang et al., 2015; Mura et al., 2017). This is because in a
VR environment all variables could be modified in the attempt to con-
struct the perfect virtual tourist experience (Slater and Sanchez-Vives,
2016). Although it is difficult to forecast to what extent VR will substi-
tute tourism in the future, it is important to acknowledge that VR could
constitute a threat for countries depending on the revenue generated by
the tourism industry (Cheong, 1995). On the other hand, VR can contrib-
ute to sustainability as it constitutes a low cost and environmentally
friendly way of travelling (Wiltshier and Clarke, 2016). Through VR
tourists have the possibility to visit protected or dangerous tourism sites
that cannot be visited, to experience sites and attractions that do not exist
anymore (Hobson and Williams, 1995; Sussmann and Vanhegan, 2000;
Egger, 2016) or even to immerse themselves in places that simply do not
exist at all, as for instance fantasy worlds (Cheong, 1995). Furthermore,
VR removes accessibility barriers for elderly or disabled travellers (Hob-
son and Williams, 1995; Salter and Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Questions
have been raised about the authenticity of virtual travel (Hobson and
Williams, 1995; Dewailly, 1999). In this regard, it has been found that
the acceptance of VR as a tourism substitute largely depends upon the
receptivity of the individual tourist (Guttentag, 2010). Even though au-
thenticity can be experienced within VEs, virtual forms of tourism are
considered to be less authentic than real travel experiences (Mura et al.,
2017). To conclude, virtual travel can be understood as an alternative
type of tourism or a way to enhance tourism experiences (Musil and Pigel
1994; Hobson and Williams, 1995; Sussmann and Vanhegan, 2000; Gut-
tentag, 2010; Mura et al., 2017; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016) rather
than a proper travel substitute.
Irrespective of the travel phase and purpose of the VR application, im-
mersive images for tourism purposes can be conceptualised as simulated
(3D) models of both real and imaginary places (Cooper and MacNeil,
2008; Tavakoli and Mura, 2015). As the reproduction of reality is not
necessarily considered the goal of VR (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016),
both synthetically generated and real-captured images can be used to cre-
ate VEs. Historically, VR has been based on computer-generated virtual
worlds. However, in recent years real-world spherical panoramic 360-
degree images and videos, also known as 360-degree VR (Slater and
Sanchez-Vives, 2016), has gained momentum in the creation of VR con-
tent and VR experiences (LaValle, 2016). Multiple overlapping images
are stitched together to create 360-degree panoramic views, enabling the
user to change viewing perspective allowing for a sense of verisimilitude
(Cooper and MacNeil, 2008). However, while synthetic environments
enable the user to move freely inside the simulated space, 360-degree
VR offers limited interaction and movement possibilities within the VE
(Fineschi and Pozzebon, 2015). Despite limited interaction possibilities,
360-degree virtual content is still regarded as VR (Slater and Sanchez-
Vives, 2016). 360-degree VR is particularly applicable for large-scale
scenes and distant objects (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016), such as for
the provision of realistic views and walk-throughs of outdoor scenes or
accommodation establishments (Cooper and MacNeil, 2008). Even
though it has been argued that the reproduction of reality is not essential
for the provision of a VE, realistic and authentic content is crucial for the
tourism industry. From this perspective, Marasco et al. (2018) suggest
the creation of photorealistic 360-degree virtual content to provide pro-
spective travellers a sneak-preview of a destination or access to a virtual
heritage site.
Both synthetic and 360-degree content has been the subject of scholarly
inquiry over the covered time span of this study. Taking recent techno-
logical developments into consideration, it is apparent that studies re-
searched different VR output devices for displaying the VR content. Ac-
cording to the criteria regarding the concept of immersion and the tech-
nical capabilities, particularly enabling visual immersion, the consensus
among scholars is a differentiation of three systems: fully-, semi-, and
non-immersive VR.
Carrozzino and Bergamasco (2010) incorporate the level of invasiveness
in order to ascribe VR systems to a category, whereby non-wearable de-
vices are considered less invasive than wearable ones and, therefore,
more immersive. Hence, VR systems, such as cave automatic virtual en-
vironments (CAVEs) are considered more immersive than head-
mounted displays (HMDs). There is little corroboration elsewhere in lit-
erature that supports the views of Carrozzino and Bergamasco (2010).
Indeed, scholars seem to have found a consensus about the idea that the
less the user can perceive of the real world on the outside, the more im-
mersive the system (Kim, 2005; Gutiérrez et al., 2008; Slater and
Sanchez-Vives, 2016). This is also in accordance with the aforemen-
tioned determinants of display technology explained by Slater and Wil-
bur (1997) that state the higher the degree to which physical reality is
omitted, the more inclusive is the technology, implying that CAVE sys-
tems are to be categorised as semi-immersive.
In line with this view, HMDs are to be considered fully-immersive sys-
tems, as they enable a complete isolation of the user from the real world.
On the contrary, in semi- and non-immersive VEs the user still has some
contact with the real world (Gutiérrez et al., 2008), which is also true for
other immersive technologies such as AR or MR, where digital infor-
mation augments real-life contexts (Azuma et al., 2001). Virtual experi-
ences with an HMD are often designed as single user experiences (Gut-
tentag, 2010) in which users are isolated from external stimuli while the
visual field constantly updates according to one’s movements (Slater and
Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Desai et al. (2014, p.175) describe HMDs ena-
bled virtual experiences as “a new form of human machine interaction
that is beyond keyboard, mouse or even touch screen for that matter. It
is a means by which one can interact with full visual immersion”.
On the other hand, semi-immersive systems consist of a large screen
monitor or multiple projection screens that project images onto the walls
and the floor of a room which are often accompanied by 3D sound. Semi-
immersive VR systems are generally designed with the purpose of
providing a multi-user experience. Non-immersive VR systems, also
known as desktop-based VR, represent the most common, simplest and
easiest way of accessing VR applications (Gutiérrez et al., 2008; Carroz-
zino and Bergamasco, 2010; Dörner et al., 2013). With a conventional
computer screen, a 3D space is simulated and the user can observe and
interact with the virtual world via a mouse, keyboard or other external
devices (Dörner et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016).
Huang et al. (2015) emphasise that results from studies examining non-
immersive systems may not be applicable to other VEs. Slater and
Sanchez-Vives (2016, p.37) argue that the term “VR has been overused,
when scientific papers are often simply talking about a PC display with
a mouse”. This is supported by Guttentag (2010) who states that many
tourism providers offer “VR-type technologies” (p. 641) that are not gen-
uine VR. While Steurer (1992) raises the concern that a device-driven
definition of VR might not be acceptable, the advent of high-resolution
and low-cost portable wireless VR headsets with built-in head tracking
(Munster et al., 2015; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Disztinger et al.,
2017, Marchiori et al., 2017; Tussyadiah et al., 2018) requires a classifi-
cation of VR systems depicting their technological capabilities. While
most of the aforementioned studies dealing with the topic of VR in tour-
ism provide a general definition for VR, they fail to define VR in a tour-
ism context. Hence, according to the level of immersion, general defini-
tions for VR (Hobson and Williams, 1995; Gutiérrez et al., 2008; Gut-
tentag, 2010; Desai et al., 2014; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016), and
the consideration that technologies are used along the whole customer
journey (Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2009; Guttentag, 2010; Neuhofer
et al., 2012; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Wiltshier and Clarke,
2016), a tourism tailored definition of VR is provided. To this end the
overall concept of VR in tourism in the present contribution is discussed
with the following definition offered:
Virtual Reality (VR), in a tourism context, creates a virtual environment
(VE) by the provision of synthetic or 360-degree real life captured con-
tent with a capable non-, semi-, or fully-immersive VR system, enabling
virtual touristic experiences that stimulate the visual sense and poten-
tially additional other senses of the user for the purpose of planning,
management, marketing, information exchange, entertainment, educa-
tion, accessibility or heritage preservation, either prior to, during or af-
ter travel.
Following this definition, Figure 1 presents a classification framework
depicting the level of immersion, which also provides a structure for the
subsequent review. A comprehensive and structured overview of rele-
vant studies for non-, semi-, and fully-immersive VR in tourism is given
in Table A1 in Appendix. This overview offers a structured picture of (a)
specifications of the VR system studied and type of content applied, (b)
used methodology, (c) independent and dependent variables as well as
(d) major findings. In the following sections, corresponding definitions
for the different VR systems in a tourism context are given, before find-
ings focusing on practical implications for tourism practitioners are dis-
cussed.
Fig. 1. Classification framework for VR applications in tourism.

Non-immersive VR in tourism
According to the literature review, the working definition of non-immer-
sive VR in tourism goes as follows: Non-immersive VR (niVR) displays
synthetic or 360-degree real-life captured content on a conventional
(computer) screen, enabling virtual touristic experiences that stimulate
the visual sense and potentially other senses of the user for the purpose
of planning, management, marketing, information exchange, entertain-
ment, education, accessibility or heritage preservation, either prior to,
during, and/or after travel.
Nine research studies undertaken from 2007 to 2015 were included in
the review dealing with niVR. Table 1 gives an overview about the stud-
ies in focus, providing the (a) the names of the author(s), (b) the year of
publication and (c) the methodology adopted.
Author(s) Year Methodology
Huang et al. 2015 Experiment and online questionnaire
Participant observation, online inter-
Tavakoli and Mura 2015
views, online chats
Huang et al. (a) 2013 Experiment and online questionnaire
Huang et al. (b) 2013 Experiment and online questionnaire
Huang et al. 2012 Experiment and questionnaire
Hyun and O'Keefe 2012 Web survey
Lee and Ahn 2012 Experiment and online questionnaire
Chiou et al. 2008 Experiment
Wan et al. 2007 Experiment and questionnaire
Table 1. Overview of studies addressing non-immersive VR in tourism.
niVR systems, such as Second Life (Huang et al., 2013a) or web-based
virtual tours (Wan et al., 2007; Lee and Ahn, 2012), can be employed by
destination marketing organisations, hotels or other tourism stakeholders
for communication and attention-capturing purposes (Hyun and
O´Keefe, 2012). They enable the virtual tourist to “experience” the des-
tination prior to the actual visit and transform experiential attributes into
searchable ones. For example, research on theme parks has demonstrated
that virtual tour experiences lead to better advertising effects when com-
pared with traditional brochures (Wan et al., 2007). Chiou et al. (2008)
suggest that consumers’ cognitive preferences are decisive when it
comes to the advertising effects of brochures in comparison to virtual
experiences. Whereas verbalisers prefer the traditional use of brochures,
virtual experiences are preferred by visualisers. Hyun and O´Keefe
(2012) also compared two different types of information. Studying the
concept of presence, they found that web-mediated virtual information
has a positive impact on presence, whereas offline information does not.
Furthermore, they identified presence as an influencing variable on the
virtual cognitive but not on the virtual affective image. When it comes
to travel security concerns, evidence was found suggesting that an em-
bedded virtual tour on a website may result in greater psychological re-
lief for travellers and positively influences trust and risk-taking (Lee and
Ahn, 2012). However, Wan et al. (2007) draw attention to the fact that
an arbitrary employment of new media types for advertisement purposes
may not always be the correct strategy. A wide range of factors such as
budget or promoted targets also need to be carefully considered.
The “process of an optimal experience” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1977) can be
described with the flow theory. Huang et al. (2012) investigated this the-
ory for virtual experiences and found that it supports the understanding
of users’ experiences while navigating a VE. Flow is a mediating varia-
ble between involvement and people’s travel intentions. It has been
demonstrated that the achievement of flow leading to an enhancement of
virtual tourists’ flow experience may result in the development of travel
intentions. The key factors contributing to the achievement of flow are
the users’ perceived levels of skill, interactivity and experienced pres-
ence in the virtual world (Huang et al., 2012).
For a better understanding of the tourists’ use of the VE and its influence
on travel intentions, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is con-
sidered another useful and practical framework (Huang et al., 2013a;
Huang et al., 2015). Positive emotions, emotional involvement and the
experience of flow during the virtual exploration can be on the one hand,
enhanced by perceived ease of use and usefulness and on the other hand,
influence one’s intention on whether to visit the actual site or not (Huang
et al., 2013a).
After a scrutiny of the Self-Determination theory, it was found that a
greater perception of autonomy as well as relatedness while experiencing
a 3D touristic VE, has a twofold positive influence on travel intention
and the enjoyment of the virtual experience (Huang et al., 2015). Those
variables are also positively related to intrinsic motivation in educational
tourism VEs. Higher levels of student interest in online activities as well
as a greater level of perceived connectedness with others can enhance
learning motivation (Huang et al., 2013b). Furthermore, niVR systems
also provide a tool for educational and training purposes for tourism pro-
fessionals and educators. Real-world simulations, social interactions or
collaborative spaces can be depicted within a VE (Huang et al., 2013b).
In niVR, tourists have the opportunity to choose an avatar to represent
themselves within the virtual tourism destination. The choice of an avatar
can be a time-consuming but important process, as the avatars’ appear-
ance is considered as crucial. To a certain degree, travelling within VEs
can be regarded as a form of escapism from ordinary routines. Cultural
and religious values play an important role while visiting a virtual desti-
nation. However, niVR provides the opportunity to challenge certain ste-
reotypes (Tavakoli and Mura, 2015).
The most recent study concerning niVR covered in this review is from
the year 2015. Hence, latest technological developments for capturing
360-degree footage and its application for niVR in tourism should be
addressed in further research efforts.
Semi-immersive VR in tourism
Derived from the literature review, the following definition of semi-im-
mersive VR in tourism is suggested: Semi-immersive VR (siVR) projects
synthetic or 360-degree real-life captured content onto large screen
monitors or the walls, and optional also to the floor, of a room, enabling
multi-user virtual touristic experiences that stimulate the visual sense
and potentially other senses of the user the purpose of planning, man-
agement, marketing, information exchange, entertainment, education,
accessibility or heritage preservation, either prior to, during, and/or af-
ter travel.
Studies published from 1998 to 2014 are considered pertinent to this re-
view. It was found that the distinction between niVR and siVR is not
always clear. Groß (2015) mentions that an explicit assignment of each
article might not be possible with a classification approach and hence
some articles could be assigned to more than one category. While it could
be argued that some studies assigned to siVR (such as Pantano and
Servidio, 2009, 2011; Zarzuela et al., 2013) could also be classified as
niVR, every application that goes beyond the utilisation of a conven-
tional computer screen and also includes the possibility of a multi-user
application was assigned to siVR.
Most of the reviewed studies concerning siVR (see Table 2) deal with
on-site applications for heritage (be it cultural or ecological) preservation
or presentation. Pantano and Servidio (2009, 2011) focus on pervasive
environments that employ virtual 3D reconstructions of destinations. It
was found that study participants were inclined to visit the actual place,
mainly to compare the reconstructed site with the real one. Participants
saw the potential of siVR as a marketing and promotional tool and con-
sider it better than traditional guides that are based on static content (Pan-
tano and Servidio, 2011). Interactivity of the siVR system as well as
quality of 3D imagery was considered an important aspect. This is con-
firmed by the study done by Loizides et al. (2014), which compares a
semi-immersive with a fully-immersive VE in a museum context. Hence,
Pantano and Servidio (2011) conclude that quality of images, ease of in-
teraction and interaction modality are essential factors for the efficient
provision of digital tourism information.
Author(s) Year Methodology
Loizides et al.* 2014 Experiment, think aloud protocol, ques-
tionnaire, semi-structured interviews
Zarzuela et al. 2013 Experiment
Pantano and Servidio 2011 Experiment and questionnaire
Carozzino and Bergamasco 2010 In-depth surveys, questionnaires, own
experience
Pantano and Servidio 2009 n.a.
Refsland et al. 1998 n.a.
*Study deals with semi- and fully-immersive VR.
Table 2. Overview of studies addressing semi-immersive VR in tourism.
Designing eBrochures or eCatalogues as siVRs could influence potential
tourists in their evaluation of tourism destinations, by enabling them to
virtually try out the tourism experience in advance. Pervasive environ-
ments provide an increased level of authenticity, which could minimise
the risks of making a flawed decision related to destination choice (Pan-
tano and Servidio, 2011).
Studying semi-immersive and fully-immersive VEs, Loizides et al.
(2014) found that participants spent more time within the semi-immer-
sive VE. However, they indicate that with a more developed HMD that
provides higher resolution, results might change. Independent of the VR
system, they conclude the following practical implications for the provi-
sion of VR in a museum context. First, the application of keyboards for
navigation is not recommended. Second, when incorporating videos in a
virtual experience, it is crucial to include a pause button and indicate the
duration of the video. Third, in the design of the VE it is important to
understand that virtual items, once seen, are rarely re-visited.
Carrozzino and Bergamasco (2010) suggest that pleasant and significant
virtual experiences are provided by CAVE systems that allow natural
interaction without involving too many cognitive resources. Such sys-
tems are often complex and require not only large spaces and additional
maintenance but also substantial financial and human resources. There-
fore, it is of importance to analyse target group, aims, and available re-
sources before taking the decision to invest in siVR.
Refsland et al. (1998) suggest using semi-immersive installations for en-
vironmental preservation purposes, which facilitate visitors with an im-
mersive discovery tool. By connecting the real environment to the virtual
one, a sense of authenticity is conveyed. It is further argued that behav-
ioural realism, and in particular autonomy of avatars, is of importance
for virtual tourists. A complex interactive environment can be created by
facilitating two-way interactivity, meaning that visitors interact with
computer-generated subjects and the other way around.
Researching the topic of education from a tourist perspective, Zarzuela
et al. (2013) developed a VR Serious Game for tourism promotion. In-
teraction with the VE did not happen via mouse or keyboard, but rather
with a Kinect device, used for motion capturing. Their approach demon-
strates that siVR can be used to provide a fun and entertaining learning
experience. As the system is not only intuitive but also relatively
economical and uncomplicated in terms of installation, they recom-
mended the usage of this application to tourist information offices.
The authors would suggest that future research could focus on investi-
gating technology-related models, such as the TAM, and VR-specific
constructs, such as the concept of presence. Further research fields, like
the application of siVR during the post-travel phase, are discussed in the
section “Major findings, recommendations and future perspectives”.
Fully-immersive VR in tourism
Fully-immersive VR in tourism is hereinafter defined as the following:
Fully-immersive VR (fiVR) isolates the user completely from the real
world by providing synthetic or 360-degree real-life captured content
with a VR headset, facilitating full visual immersion, and enabling vir-
tual touristic experiences that potentially stimulate additional other
senses of the user for the purpose of planning, management, marketing,
information exchange, entertainment, education, accessibility or herit-
age preservation, either prior to, during, and/or after travel.
The reviewed studies dealing with fiVR (see Table 3) were published
from 2016 to 2018. Research by Loizides et al., which also covered
siVR, was conducted in 2014. In order to fully understand and interpret
studies concerning fiVR systems, a further distinction within this domain
is necessary. Three types of VR headsets are differentiated: (a) wired
HMDs, such as the Oculus Rift or HTC Vive (b) wireless HMDs, such
as the Samsung Gear VR, and (c) low-immersion HMDs, such as Google
Cardboard (Munster et al., 2015; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). This distinc-
tion is also depicted in Table A1 in Appendix. Study results by
Tussyadiah et al. (2017) and Tussyadiah et al. (2018) suggest that the
application of less sophisticated devices, such as low-immersion head-
sets, lead to experiences comparable to those offered by wireless HMDs.
However, no matter which type of VR headset is used, the provision of
aesthetically pleasing imagery is recommended (Tussyadiah et al.,
2016).
A widely discussed topic is the use of fiVR in tourism marketing. While
Tussyadiah et al. (2016) found that traditional travel guides are consid-
ered more powerful than fiVR experiences, other studies show that fiVR
is an effective tool in tourism marketing. It can lead to a stronger interest,
positive attitude towards the destination and positive influence on the
decision-making process (Griffin et al., 2017; Jung et al., 2017;
Tussyadiah et al., 2017; Marasco et al., 2018; Rainoldi et al., 2018;
Tussyadiah et al., 2018). This is also supported by Marchiori et al.
(2017), who explain that fiVR in tourism marketing is capable of creat-
ing curiosity and willingness to view the fiVR promotional experience.
Similarly, Beck and Egger (2018) found that most study participants be-
lieve that fiVR is the future of tourism marketing. The intent to share the
advertisement experience with others or to recommend the destination is
greater if the destination is promoted in VR rather than on a website with
static photos or 2D videos (Griffin et al., 2017). The provision of target-
group relevant VR content to positively influence self-reported emotions
and decision-making is further recommended (Beck and Egger, 2018).
Additionally, Jung et al. (2016), elaborate on how fiVR can be used as a
substitute for tourism experiences on-site, but also as a tool to enhance
the tourist’s experience. VR can be applied for interactive provision of
information to visitors or for site enrichment, which then offers added
value to the tourist (Potter et al., 2016).
Author(s) Year Methodology Type of HMD
Beck and Egger* 2018 Experiment, questionnaire Wireless
Marasco et al. 2018 Pilot test, questionnaire Wired
Rainoldi et al. 2018 Experiment, questionnaire Wireless
Tussyadiah et al. 2018 Experiment, questionnaire Wireless, low-im-
mersion
Disztinger et al. 2017 Questionnaire Different HMDs
Griffin et al.* 2017 Experiment, questionnaire Wired
Marchiori et al. 2017 Experiment, questionnaire Wired
Tussyadiah et al. 2017 Experiment, online question- Wireless, low-im-
naire mersion
Jung et al. 2017 Experiment, semi-structured Wireless
interview
Jung et al. 2016 Experiment, questionnaire Wireless
Potter et al. 2016 Experiment Low-immersion
Tussyadiah et al. 2016 Experiment, focus group/in- Low-immersion
terviews
*Study deals with fully- and non-immersive VR.
Table 3. Overview of studies addressing fully-immersive VR in tourism.
Further research efforts by Jung et al. (2016), Tussyadiah et al. (2016,
2017), Rainoldi et al. (2018) and Tussyadiah et al. (2018), examined the
concept of presence. A certain level of presence, which can be enhanced
by including easily recognisable artefacts or presenting destinations in a
creative way, is necessary to support the persuasive power of fiVR (Tus-
syadiah et al., 2016). Compared to a traditional brochure, fiVR enables
a greater degree of interactivity and hence, generates a stronger sense of
“being there” (Rainoldi et al., 2018). The higher the level of attention
allocation to the fiVR experience, the greater the level of perceived pres-
ence (Tussyadiah et al., 2017). Spatial presence was studied by the di-
mensions of departure (being somewhere other than the actual environ-
ment) and self-location in a VE (Tussyadiah et al., 2017) as well as by
the dimensions of possible actions and again self-location (Tussyadiah
et al., 2018). Spatial presence not only has a positive effect on the enjoy-
ment of the VR experience, but also positively impacts post-VR attitude
change toward tourism destinations. Results show that it further also pos-
itively affects the intention to visit the destination, for both first time vis-
itation and revisit intention. Social presence is a strong predictor of four
realms of Experience Economy in mixed environments (VR and AR).
Except for aesthetics, education, escapism, and most notably entertain-
ment, significantly influence visitor experience, which in turn influences
the intention to re-visit the (real) museum (Jung et al., 2016).
After examining the TAM, results showed that general interest for the
fiVR technology is the strongest predictor of behavioural intentions. En-
joyment of the technology and the level of immersion influence the in-
tention to use fiVR for travel planning (Disztinger et al., 2017). Research
findings also suggest that perceived comfort and ease of use are key char-
acteristics having an influence on the adoption of HMD VR devices
(Jung et al., 2017). Besides considering time spent within VEs and be-
havioural intentions, studying biophysical data revealed that an increase
in heart rate tended to correspond to the most deeply impressionable
scenes, such as scenes that were characterised by an unusual horizon per-
spective (e.g. flight on hot air balloon). Other media characteristics, such
as animated elements in the scene or sound effects, could support the
ability to recall a scene experienced in VR (Marchiori et al., 2017). This
is supported by Jung et al. (2017), who emphasise that sound is a crucial
element of the overall virtual experience. In order to enrich tourists’
overall experience within a VE, avatars and 3D animations (Jung et al.,
2016) as well as the aforementioned unusual horizon perspectives are
considered appropriate methods. Also, Marasco et al. (2018) emphasise
the importance of visually attractive VR experiences, as the visual appeal
positively influences the virtual tourists’ intention to visit the destination.
Having analysed subjective and objective emotional reactions for a 360-
degree destination video with either a fiVR or a niVR system, it was
found that fiVR leads to more intense physiological emotions (e.g. heart
rate and electrodermal activity). However, no differences were found for
subjective self-report measures (Beck and Egger, 2018), indicating that
the type of VR system would not be considered an influencing variable.
Interestingly, results of a study conducted by Griffin et al. (2017) show
that participants viewing a destination video with a HMD rated the af-
fective destination image higher than those viewing the video on a 2D
level or visiting a website with static photos, which might be attributed
to a possible novelty effect. They suggest combining VR in tourism mar-
keting with a more traditional call to action marketing. Investigating
emotional involvement during the virtual experience, Marasco et al.
(2018) found that it is positively influenced by the perceived visual ap-
peal of the virtual experience.
Finally, motion sickness (Williams and Hobson, 1995), also referred to
as cyber sickness (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016) or simulator sick-
ness, which is described as fatigue or sickness resulting from VR expe-
riences that overwhelm the senses and brain, have often been attributed
to sub-optimal VR hardware variables or improperly designed content
(LaValle, 2016). Regarding content presentation, both real captured 360-
degree footage as well as synthetic reconstructions can be used (Mar-
chiori et al., 2017). The occurrence of motion sickness was only men-
tioned in the studies by Loizides et al. (2014), Potter et al. (2016) and
Jung et al. (2017), as a cause for concern. Loizides et al. (2014) also
investigated time spent within the VE but did not find a correlation with
motion sickness.
Participants who took part in the study by Loizides et al. (2014) had no
time restrictions for exploring the semi- and fully-immersive VE. Other
studies did not consider exposure time as a dependent or independent
variable. Therefore, further research focussing on the time spent within
fiVR in a tourism context and its consequences would be of importance,
to give tourism practitioners a piece of advice on the duration of their
VR experiences.
Another interesting field of research would be the field of travel security
concerns, as studied by Lee and Ahn (2012) for niVR. As fi-VR is of
particular relevance in the areas of education and training (Guttentag,
2010; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016), the influence of its’ application
in a travel and tourism context could be investigated. Further research
areas, dealing with fiVR, but also niVR and siVR, are addressed in the
next section.
Major findings, recommendations and future perspectives
VR is rapidly becoming a creator of new tourism experiences aiming as
a source of information, entertainment, education, accessibility and her-
itage preservation. At the same time, the technological development of
VR, in all its forms, provides opportunities for destinations, hospitality
business and attractions along all phases of the customers’ journey.
In this perspective, this state of the art review contributes to theory and
professional practice by providing a structured understanding of the use
of VR in the tourism field and proposing a novel classification and of
VR systems accompanied with tailored definitions. By shedding light on
the fundamental characteristics of niVR, siVR and fiVR, the findings of
this study will serve as a framework for future studies in the area and as
a guideline for industry practitioners in integrating VR as a tool that is
part of their value proposition. The applied classification approach
should support practitioners in first, understanding the differences of
available VR systems and second, to assist them in identifying the po-
tential of VR technologies in shaping tourists’ behaviour and travel de-
cision making. By creating a link between VR typologies, application
areas and outcomes (see Table A1), this state of the art review poses a
base for a timely and informed development of tourism products and ser-
vices. While the results are useful to better understand the role of differ-
ent VR technology in tourism, they also evidenced a number of areas for
scholarly and practical advancement.
The temporal development of VR systems is reflected in the conducted
research. Whereas research up to the year 2013 focuses mainly on niVR,
studies conducted from 2016 to 2018 focus on fiVR, which is attributable
to recent advances in VR technology and the advent of low-cost HMDs.
Most studies for niVR used Second Life as a VE. It has been suggested
that other virtual world platforms should be included as well, such as
Active World or OpenSim (Huang et al., 2013b), to generate a greater
understanding on the topic. Research on siVR in a tourism context is
scarce and focuses on heritage or environmental preservation and presen-
tation. Application and research of VR experiences on-site provide nu-
merous examples in a museum context, but investigation of other appli-
cation fields is lacking. Pioneering tourism businesses could profit from
integrating VR as a tool that is part of their value proposition. They
should, however, decide on the appropriate VR technology according to
the resources available and the customers’ needs.
To date, there has been only limited research on VR applications for tour-
ism planning, management and education. Although it has been argued
that the application of VR in the area of education is vast (Slater and
Sanchez-Vives, 2016), VR research in tourism in an educational context
is rare, particularly for fiVR. Research has most commonly examined the
pre-travel phase, using VR as a marketing tool for promotion and com-
munication purposes and therefore end up investigating variables such
as travel planning, behavioural intentions or attitude. Study results sug-
gest that VR, regardless of whether it is non-, semi- or fully-immersive,
is capable of positively influencing the individual motivation to actually
visit a place. Conducted experiments rarely used techniques, such as
treadmills or exoskeletons, to track physical user motion. Loizides et al.
(2014) do not recommend the utilisation of keyboards for navigating in
semi-immersive VEs. Other studies did not focus specifically on the ap-
plication and usability of input devices such as mouse, keyboards or con-
trollers. It is therefore recommended that future studies investigate dif-
ferent input devices for the different VR systems. Furthermore, experi-
ments were seldom designed as field experiments and the majority em-
ployed convenience sampling, which does not allow one to generalise
the findings. Behavioural intentions or decision-making has been com-
monly researched; however, studies directly at the point-of-sales could
reveal different results. VR systems might in fact develop into supple-
mentary point-of-sales for tourism businesses. Therefore, future research
should focus on studies conducted at the point-of-sales, which would be
of value for both tourism researchers and professionals. In this context,
resources needed for the provision of VR in tourism are important. While
Carrozzino and Bergamasco (2010) indicate substantial financial, human
and space resources, Zarzuela et al. (2013) mention modest financial and
human resources for siVR. For niVR, Wan et al. (2007) point out that
the budget available has to be considered. Hence, a study on resource
investments for the different VR categories would be considered valua-
ble for tourism practitioners.
Associated with this proposed research area is also the design of VEs, as
they can either be designed for experience-based or transaction-based
purposes (Cho et al., 2002). According to Cho et al. (2002), tourism mar-
keters should consider computer skills involved and challenges users
might face. In particular, a high degree of involvement and flow may end
up being distracting in purchase-related activities within (non-immer-
sive) VEs. Usability studies ought to be done, with a focus on researching
the interaction with fiVR systems as the display technology is fully in-
clusive. It would be crucial to investigate purchase-related activities not
only from a user perspective, but also from a tourism provider perspec-
tive. An examination of distribution channels for VR tourism content and
implementation of call to action strategies in marketing will move re-
search in this area forward.
Recurring research fields are for instance the TAM and the concept of
presence, which has been studied for niVR and fiVR. The ease of use is
a determining variable. It has been suggested that VR applications ought
to be designed in an intuitive way that allows users a convenient handling
and does not require many cognitive resources. This can positively influ-
ence the level of enjoyment. Involvement and interactivity are variables
contributing to a higher level of presence within the VE. Additionally, if
the virtual tourism environment is perceived as useful, users are more
likely to use the VR technology for travel planning and/or behavioural
intentions to visit the destination. As for fiVR general interest in the tech-
nology is the strongest predictor of behavioural intentions for usage,
hence it is crucial for tourism managers and marketers to investigate if
their target groups show interest in VR.
Additionally, to further promote the acceptance of VR, and particularly
fiVR, in tourism, it is important to provide high quality images to avoid
motion sickness, which could lead users to prefer traditional media such
as travel guides or brochures. Other media characteristics, such as an un-
usual perspective, should be considered when designing a VR experi-
ence. Guttentag (2010) also indicates that the nature of the VR experi-
ence must be taken into account, as designing a VE in which the virtual
tourist is an observer may be easier to realise than one in which a touristic
activity must be re-created. For tourism purposes, low-immersion or
wireless headsets can be employed, even though they are considered less
sophisticated than wired headsets. Also, both synthetic computer-gener-
ated content and 360-degree footage of actual environments can be em-
ployed. Reviewed studies for niVR and siVR show that synthetic content
was more commonly used, whereas fiVR used 360-degree footage. Fu-
ture studies comparing HMDs and different content could focus on the
customer journey, investigating which type of HMD and which type of
content can be best applied at different stages of the journey.
While the application of fiVR during the pre-travel phase (e.g. in travel
agencies or at travel fairs) and on-site (e.g. in museums or in amusement
parks) is becoming more and more commonplace, VR experiences dur-
ing the post-travel phase are still rarely offered. Pioneers who embrace
the transformations that mainstream adoption of VR systems will pro-
duce have the chance to add value to their operations by enhancing and
prolonging the customers’ experience. VR technologies might be
adopted as a medium to store and share rich travel memories. At this
point, one postulates that the fast dissemination of 360-degree VR, sup-
ported by the capacity to upload and view 360-degree videos on plat-
forms such as YouTube or Facebook (Munster et al., 2015), is grounded
on the latest HMD developments. It has also been hypothesised that with
easier methods for content creation, more user-generated content will be
produced and shared online (for example on rating platforms), which
constitutes another field of research. This is supported by Guttentag
(2010), who points out that online travel communities could adopt
(ni)VR.
To provide more authentic tourism experiences and improve the sense of
presence, several challenges need to be addressed and overcome. First,
VR systems should aim for a complete stimulation of the five senses,
which, as of today, is still largely limited to vision and hearing (Gut-
tentag, 2010; Mura et al., 2017; Wiltshier and Clarke, 2016). Moreover,
travelling enables social and cultural interactions, which cannot be de-
livered with today’s technology. It has been found that a lack of social
experience reduces the virtual tourist’s level of presence (Tussyadiah et
al., 2016). Social interactions or collaborative spaces, which play an es-
sential role in tourism experiences, have been studied for niVR, but not
for siVR or fiVR. With the advances in technology, shared fiVR that
allow for real-time full facial capture, eye tracking, real-time rendering
of subtle emotional changes and the possibility of physical contact might
be developed, which could influence virtual travel (Slater and Sanchez-
Vives, 2016), as the provision of an avatar in a VE, social interactions
and as a consequence thereof the perception of relatedness, all contribute
to the tourists’ overall virtual experience. The provision of a VR experi-
ence supported by an improved sense of presence might provide
marketers and tourism managers large benefits in the promotion of their
product and services.
Reviewing the studies pertinent to this paper, it was found that literature
provides no precise definition for VR in tourism. Furthermore, various
related terms such as virtual tourism (Mura et al., 2017), 3D virtual tour-
ism (Huang et al., 2015), virtual tourist destinations (Tavakoli and Mura,
2015), or cybertourism (Dewailly, 1999) are employed interchangeably.
Mura et al. (2017) included in their definition of virtual travel, types that
are driven by fantasy and imagination without the application of techno-
logical devices. Bowman et al. (1997) explain virtual travel as the control
of user viewpoint motion within a VE, which is not to be confused with
navigation or wayfinding. Even though they employ the term virtual
travel, it is not related to tourism as such, but rather to the movement
within a VE. Thus, it is suggested that future research should compare
and contrast different terms related to VR in tourism and conclude with
precise definitions.
Conclusion and limitations
This paper offers a comprehensive state of the art review of prior re-
search in the area of VR in tourism. It contributes to the literature in this
area by providing a novel classification of VR in tourism according to
three levels of immersion – non-immersive, semi-immersive and fully-
immersive – and suggesting corresponding definitions. VR technology
is still in its infancy. Several challenges in the current field of application
need to be overcome and gaps in the literature need to be bridged.
The rapid improvements in VR technology and its flourishing fields of
application demonstrate the need for further research in a tourism con-
text. This paper has contributed to creating a state of the art understand-
ing of the overall topic of virtual environments in tourism and the use of
different VR systems throughout the customer journey. Towards this
aim, it has however become clear that while much research has been con-
ducted focusing on the effects of VR on the pre-travel and on-site phases,
research analysing the implementation of VR in holistic marketing strat-
egies and the post-travel phase, is lacking. As the development of VR
continues, research should be conducted to provide guidance about how
to use it towards the achievement of organisational goals. Furthermore,
in the course of the review it has become evident that further work and
critical analysis discussing issues related to VR content creation is
needed. In particular, topics such as software development, user
interfaces or user movement within the virtual tourism environment, just
to mention a few, further analysis is required especially for all three cat-
egories of niVR, siVR and fiVR (see: Bowman et al., 1997; Lepouras et
al., 2004; Fineschi and Pozzebon, 2015; Komianos et al., 2015; Mirk and
Hlavacs, 2015; Noordin et al., 2015; Fernández-Palacios et al., 2016; Liu
et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2016). As results are assumed to be of relevance
for practitioners and researchers, an in-depth examination of the creation
of both synthetic and 360-degree real-captured content is recommended.
VR represents only one type of immersive technology that has attracted
scholarly attention. In fact, technologies such as AR and MR, which
share characteristics with niVR and siVR, are gaining increasing im-
portance in the tourism industry as demonstrated by the related growing
body of literature (see: Kounavis et al., 2012; Yovcheva et al., 2012; Han
et al., 2014; Leue et al., 2015; Hammady et al., 2016; Neuburger and
Egger, 2017, Zach and Tussyadiah, 2017). Thus, as the contribution of
this paper was limited in terms of developing a comprehensive under-
standing of the state of the art of VR research in tourism, one suggests
pursuing an analysis of other immersive technologies in tourism. Future
research discussing and comparing the applications of VR, MR and AR
may allow tourism service providers to leverage the full capabilities of
each technology. As immersive technologies will advance and research
will evolve, it is therefore paramount to understand the opportunities and
challenges that are lying ahead, in order to guide tourists and industry
practitioners to optimally utilise what the virtual world offers.

References
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., and MacIntyre, B. (2001),
“Recent advances in augmented reality”, IEEE computer graphics and applica-
tions, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 34-47.
Beck, J. and Egger, R. (2018), “Emotionalise me: Self-reporting and arousal measure-
ments in virtual tourism environments, in Stangl, B. and Pesonen, J. (Eds.), In-
formation and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2018 Proceedings of
the International Conference in Jönköping, Sweden, January 24-26, 2018,
Springer, Cham, pp. 3-15.
Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008), “Progress in information technology and tourism man-
agement: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet - the state of eTourism re-
search”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 609-623.
Bowman, D.A., Koller, D. and Hodges, L.F. (1997), “Travel in immersive virtual en-
vironments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques”, in
 Proceedings - IEEE 1997 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 1-5, 1997, IEEE Computer Society Press,
Los Alamitos, pp. 45-52.
Buhalis, D. and Egger, R. (2006), “Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien
als Mittel zur Prozess- und Produktinnovation für den Unternehmer“, in Peters,
M. and Pikkemaat, B. (Eds.), Innovationen im Tourismus, Dt. Ges. f. Touris-
muswissen, Berlin, pp. 163-176.
Carrozzino, M. and Bergamasco, M. (2010), “Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing
immersive virtual reality in real museums”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol.
11 No. 4, pp. 452-458.
Cheong, R. (1995), “The virtual threat to travel and tourism”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 417-422.
Chiou, W.B., Wan, C.S. and Lee, H.Y. (2008), “Virtual experience vs. brochures in the
advertisement of scenic spots: How cognitive preferences and order effects in-
fluence advertising effects on consumers.”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No.
1, pp. 146-150.
Cho, Y., Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2002), “Searching for Experiences: The
Web-Based Virtual Tour in Tourism Marketing”, Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Cooper, M. and MacNeil, N. (2008), “Virtual reality mapping revisited: IT tools for the
divide between knowledge and action in tourism”, in Kisielnicki, J. (Ed.), Infor-
mation Communication Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Ap-
plications, IGI Global, Hershey, pp. 1896-1908.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, Jossey-Bass, San Fran-
cisco.
Desai, P.R., Desai, P.N., Ajmera, K.D. and Mehta, K. (2014), “A Review Paper on
Oculus Rift-A Virtual”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Tech-
nology (IJETT), Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 175-179.
Dewailly, J.M. (1999), “Sustainable tourist space: from reality to virtual real-
ity?”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Diemer, J., Alpers, G.W., Peperkorn, H.M., Shiban, Y. and Mühlberger, A. (2015),
“The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: A review of
research in virtual reality”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1-9.
Disztinger, P., Schlögl, S. and Groth, A. (2017), “Technology Acceptance of Virtual
Reality for Travel Planning”, in Schegg, R. and Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference in Rome, Italy, January 24-26, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp.
255-268.
Dörner, R. and Steinicke, F. (2013), “Wahrnehmungsaspekte von VR“, in Dörner, R.,
Broll, W., Grimm, P., and Jung, B. (Eds.), Virtual und Augmented Reality
(VR/AR), Springer, Berlin, pp. 33-63.
Dörner, R., Jung, B., Grimm, P, Broll, W. and Göbel, M. (2013), “Einleitung“, in Dör-
ner, R., Broll, W., Grimm, P., and Jung, B. (Eds.), Virtual und Augmented Rea-
lity (VR/AR), Springer, Berlin, pp. 1-32.
Egger, R. (2016), “Virtual Reality in Tourism. A short introduction.”, Presentation at
the VR-Summit Salzburg, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria,
October 5.
Fernández-Palacios, B.J., Morabito, D. and Remondino, F. (2016), “Access to complex
reality-based 3D models using virtual reality solutions”, Journal of Cultural
Heritage, Vol. 23, pp. 40-48.
Fineschi, A. and Pozzebon, A. (2015), “A 3D virtual tour of the Santa Maria della Scala
Museum Complex in Siena, Italy, based on the use of Oculus RIFT HMD”,
in 2015 International Conference on 3D Imaging (IC3D), Liège, Belgium, De-
cember 14-15, 2015, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 1-5.
Gerber, A., Baskerville, R. and van der Merwe, A. (2017), “A Taxonomy of Classifi-
cation Approaches in IS Research”, in 23rd Americas Conference on Infor-
mation Systems 2017 (AMCIS 2017): A Tradition of Innovation, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, USA, August 10-12, 2017, Curran Associates, Red Hook, pp.3000-
30009.
Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review
types and associated methodologies”, Health Information & Libraries Jour-
nal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 91-108.
Griffin, T., Giberson, J., Lee, S. H. M., Guttentag, D., Kandaurova, M., Sergueeva, K.
and Dimanche, F. (2017), “Virtual reality and implications for destination mar-
keting”, in Travel & Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Re-
search Globally. 2017 TTRA International Conference, Québec, Canada, June
20-22, paper 29.
Groß, M. (2015) "Mobile shopping: a classification framework and literature re-
view", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 No.
3, pp.221-241.
Gutiérrez, M.A.A., Vexo, F. and Thalmann, D. (2008), Stepping into Virtual Reality,
Springer, London.
Guttentag, D.A. (2010), “Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 637-651.
Hammady, R., Ma, M. and Temple, N. (2016), “Augmented Reality and Gamification
in Heritage Museums”, In Joint International Conference on Serious Games,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia, September 26-27, Springer, Cham, pp. 181-187.
Han, D.I., Jung, T. and Gibson, A. (2014), “Dublin AR: implementing augmented re-
ality in tourism”, in Xiang, Z. and Tussyadiah, I. (Eds.), Information and Com-
munication Technologies in Tourism 2014 Proceedings of the International
Conference in Dublin, Ireland, January 21-24, 2014, Springer, Cham, pp. 511-
523.
Heeter, C. (1992), “Being there: The subjective experience of presence”, Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 262-271.
Hobson, J.S.P. and Williams, A.P. (1995), “Virtual Reality: A new horizon for the tour-
ism industry”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 125-135.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, S.J. and Backman, K.F. (2012), “Exploring the impacts of in-
volvement and flow experiences in Second Life on people’s travel intentions”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-23.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, S.J., Backman, K.F. and Moore, D. (2013a), “Exploring user
acceptance of 3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism marketing”, Tourism Man-
agement, Vol. 36, pp. 490-501.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, S.J., Chang, L.L., Backman, K. F. and McGuire, F. A. (2013b),
“Experiencing student learning and tourism training in a 3D virtual world: An
exploratory study”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Educa-
tion, Vol. 13, pp. 190-201.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. and Chang, L.L. (2015), “Exploring the
Implications of Virtual Reality Technology in Tourism Marketing: An Inte-
grated Research Framework”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.
18 No. 2, pp. 116-128.
Hyun, M.Y. and O'Keefe, R.M. (2012), “Virtual destination image: Testing a
telepresence model”, in Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Ijsselsteijn, W.A. and Riva, G. (2003), “Being There: The experience of presence in
mediated environments”, in Riva G., Davide F. and Ijsselsteijn W.A. (Eds.), Be-
ing There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic
Environments, Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp. 4-16.
Jung, T., tom Dieck, M.C., Lee, H. and Chung, N. (2016), “Effects of virtual reality
and augmented reality on visitor experiences in museum”, in Inversini, A. and
Schegg, R. (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2016 Proceedings of the International Conference in Bilbao, Spain, February
2-5, 2016, Springer, Cham, pp. 621-635.
Jung, T., tom Dieck, M.C., Moorhouse, N. and tom Dieck, D. (2017), “Tourists' expe-
rience of Virtual Reality applications”, IEEE International Conference on Con-
sumer Electronics (ICEE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, January 8-10, 2017, IEEE, pp.
208-210.
Kim, G.J. (2005), Designing virtual reality systems: The structured approach,
Springer, London.
Kounavis, C.D., Kasimati, A. E. and Zamani, E.D. (2012), “Enhancing the Tourism
Experience through Mobile Augmented Reality: Challenges and Prospects”, In-
ternational Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp 1-
6.
Komianos, V., Kavvadia, E. and Oikonomou, K. (2015), “Cultural heritage recommen-
dations and user navigation in large scale virtual environments”, International
Journal of Computational Intelligence Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 151-172.
LaValle, S.M. (2016), “Virtual Reality”, Cambridge University Press.
Law, R., Leung, D. and Cheung, C. (2012), “A systematic review, analysis, and evalu-
ation of research articles in the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly”, Cornell Hospi-
tality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 365-381.
Law, R., Qi, S. and Buhalis, D. (2010), “Progress in tourism management: A review of
website evaluation in tourism research”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 297-313.
Lee, O. and Ahn, J. (2012), “Embedded Virtual Reality for Travel Security”, in Inter-
national Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA), Suwon,
South Korea, May 23-25, 2012, pp. 1-6.
Lepouras, G., Katifori, A., Vassilakis, C. and Charitos, D. (2004), “Real exhibitions in
a virtual museum”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 120-128.
Leue, M.C., Jung, T. and tom Dieck, D. (2015), “Google glass augmented reality: Ge-
neric learning outcomes for art galleries”, in Tussyadiah, I. and Inversini, A.
(Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference in Lugano, Switzerland, February 3-6,
2015, Springer, Cham, pp. 463-476.
Liu, Y., Liu, H., Choi, C. and Chen, R. (2016), “An Exploration of Digital Tourism
Design Based on Virtual Reality”, International Journal of Simulation--Sys-
tems, Science & Technology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 151-156.
Loizides, F., El Kater, A., Terlikas, C., Lanitis, A. and Michael, D. (2014), “Presenting
Cypriot cultural heritage in virtual reality: A user evaluation”, in Ioannides, M.,
Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Fink, E., Zarnić, R., Yen, A.Y. and Quak. E. (Eds.),
Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation,
and Protection. 5th International Conference, EuroMed 2014, Limassol, Cy-
prus, November 3-8, Springer, Cham, pp. 572-579.
Marasco, A., Buonincontri, P., van Niekerk, M., Orlowski, M. and Okumus, F. (2018),
“Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination mar-
keting”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, (in Press).
Marchiori, E., Niforatos, E. and Preto, L. (2017), “Measuring the Media Effects of a
Tourism-Related Virtual Reality Experience Using Biophysical Data”, in
Schegg, R. and Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies
in Tourism 2017 Proceedings of the International Conference in Rome, Italy,
January 24-56, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp. 203-215.
Mirk, D. and Hlavacs, H. (2015), “Virtual tourism with drones: Experiments and lag
compensation”, DroNet’ 15: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Micro Aerial
Vehicle Networks, Systems, and Applications for Civilian Use, Florence, Italy,
May 18, 2015, ACM, New York, pp. 45-50.
Munster, G., Jakel, T., Clinton, D. and Murphy, E. (2015), “Next Mega Tech Theme
Is Virtual Reality”, available at: https://piper2.bluematrix.com/sellside/Email-
DocViewer?encrypt=052665f6-3484-40b7-b972-
bf9f38a57149&mime=pdf&co=Piper&id=reseqonly@pjc.com&source=mail
(accessed 02 February 2017).
Mura, P., Tavakoli, R. and Sharif, S.P. (2017), “‘Authentic but not too much’: Explor-
ing perceptions of authenticity of virtual tourism”, Information Technology &
Tourism, Vol. 17 No 2, pp. 1-15.
Musil, S. and Pigel, G. (1994), “Can tourism be replaced by virtual reality technol-
ogy?”, in Schertler, W., Schmid, B., Tjoa A.M. and Werthner, H. (Eds.), Infor-
mation and Communications Technologies in Tourism Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference in Innsbruck, Austria, 1994, Springer, Vienna, pp. 87-94.
Neuburger, L. and Egger, R. (2017), “An Afternoon at the Museum: Through the Lens
of Augmented Reality”, in Schegg, R. and Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 Proceedings of the International
Conference in Rome, Italy, January 24-26, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp. 241-254.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2012), “Conceptualising technology en-
hanced destination experiences”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Manage-
ment, Vol. 1 No. 1-2, pp. 36-46.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., Ladkin, A. (2014) “A Typology of Technology-Enhanced
Tourism Experiences”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No.
4, pp. 340-350.
Noordin, M.R.B.M., Ismail, I.B. and Yahya, M.N.A.B.M (2015), “Virtual Tourism Ap-
plication through 3D Walkthrough: Flor De La Mar”, in ICIT 2015: The 7th In-
ternational Conference on Information Technology, Amman, Jordan, May 12-
15, 2015, pp. 603-611.
Pantano, E. and Servidio, R. (2009), “Pervasive environments for promotion of tourist
destinations”, in Vrontis, D., Weber, Y., Kaufmann, R. and Tarba, S. (Eds.),
Managerial and Entrepreneurial Developments in the Mediterranean Area. 2nd
Annual EuroMEd Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business. Salerno,
Italy, October 26-28, 2009, EuroMed Press, pp. 1336-1345.
Pantano, E. and Servidio, R. (2011), “An exploratory study of the role of pervasive
environments for promotion of tourism destinations”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 50-65.
Papathanassis, A. (2017), “Cruise tourism management: state of the art”, Tourism Re-
view, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp.104-119.
Pesonen, J.A. (2013), “Information and communications technology and market seg-
mentation in tourism: a review”, Tourism Review, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 14-30.
Potter, L.E., Carter, L. and Coghlan, A. (2016), “Virtual reality and nature based tour-
ism: An opportunity for operators and visitors” Proceedings of the 28th Austral-
ian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Tasmania, Australia, Novem-
ber 29 – December 2, ACM, New York, pp. 652-654.
Pujol, L. (2004), “Archaeology, museums and virtual reality”, Digithum, Vol. 6, pp. 1-
9.
Rainoldi, M., Driescher, V., Lisnevska, A., Zvereva, D., Stavinska, A., Relota, J. and
Egger, R. (2018), “Virtual Reality: An Innovative Tool in Destinations’ Market-
ing”, The Gaze: Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Refsland, S.T., Ojika, T., Defanti, T., Johnson, A., Leigh, J., Loeffler, C. and Tu, X.
(1998), “Virtual Great Barrier Reef: A theoretical approach towards an evolv-
ing, interactive VR environment using a distributed DOME and CAVE system”,
in Heudin, J.-C. (Ed.), International Conference on Virtual Worlds, Paris,
France, July 1-3, 1998, Springer, Berlin, pp. 323-336.
Rincon, F.O., Tommasini, E., Rainoldi, M. and Egger, R. (2017), “The Future of Wear-
able Devices On-Site: A Scenario Technique Approach” in Schegg, R. and
Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2017 Proceedings of the International Conference in Rome, Italy, January 24-
26, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp. 285-299.
Sherman, W.R. and Craig, A.B. (2003), Understanding Virtual Reality. Interface, Ap-
plication, and Design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco.
Slater, M. and Usoh, M. (1993), “Representations systems, perceptual position, and
presence in immersive virtual environments”, Presence, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 221-
233.
Slater, M. and Wilbur, S. (1997), “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments
(FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments”, Pres-
ence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 603-616.
Slater, M. and Sanchez-Vives, M.V. (2016), “Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive
Virtual Reality”, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol. 3, pp. 1-47.
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence”,
Journal of Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Sussmann, S. and Vanhegan, H.J. (2000), “Virtual Reality and the Tourism Product:
Substitution or Complement”, Proceedings of the European conference on in-
formation systems (ECIS), Vienna, Austria, pp. 1077-1083.
Tavakoli, R. and Mura, P. (2015), “‘Journeys in Second Life’ – Iranian Muslim
women’s behavior in virtual tourist destinations”, Tourism Management, Vol.
46, pp. 398-407.
Tan, B., Cai, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Chen, Y. and Yang, B. (2016), “Virtual reality
continuum for heritage at Haw Par Villa in Singapore”, Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on VR Culture and Heritage - Volume 2, Zhuhai, China, December 3-4,
2016, ACM, New York, pp. 71-74.
Tussyadiah, I.P. and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009), “Mediating the tourist experiences ac-
cess to places via shared videos”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 24-40.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D. and Jia, C.H. (2016), “Exploring the Persuasive Power of
Virtual Reality Imagery for Destination Marketing”, in Travel & Tourism Re-
search Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 2016 ttra Interna-
tional Conference, Colorado, USA, June 15-17, Paper 25.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D. and Jia, C.H. (2017), “Virtual reality and attitudes toward
tourism destinations”, in Schegg, R. and Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 Proceedings of the International
Conference in Rome, Italy, January 24-26, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp. 229-239.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., and tom Dieck, M. C. (2018), “Virtual reality,
presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism”, Tourism Man-
agement, Vol. 66, pp. 140-154.
Wan, C.S., Tsaur, S.H., Chiu, Y.L. and Chiou, W.B. (2007), “Is the Advertising Effect
of Virtual Experience Always Better or Contingent on Different Travel Desti-
nations?”, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Wang, T.L., Tran, P.T.K. and Tran, V.T. (2017), “Destination perceived quality, tourist
satisfaction and word-of-mouth”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 392-410.
Williams, P. and Hobson, J.P. (1995), “Virtual reality and tourism: Fact or fantasy?”
Tourism Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 423-427.
Wiltshier, P. and Clarke, A. (2016), “Virtual cultural tourism: Six pillars of VCT using
co-creation, value exchange and exchange value”, Tourism and Hospitality Re-
search, SAGE Publications, pp. 1-12.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D. and Gatzidis, C. (2012), “Smartphone Augmented Reality
Applications for Tourism”, e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 10 No.
2, pp. 63-66.
Yusoff, R.C.M., Zaman, H.B. and Ahmad, A. (2011), “Evaluation of user acceptance
of mixed reality technology”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1369-1387
Zach, F.J. and Tussyadiah, I.P. (2017), “To catch them all - the (un) intended conse-
quences of Pokémon GO on mobility, consumption, and wellbeing”, in Schegg,
R. and Stangl, B. (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tour-
ism 2017 Proceedings of the International Conference in Rome, Italy, January
24-26, 2017, Springer, Cham, pp. 217-227.
Zarzuela, M.M., Pernas, F.J.D., Calzón, S.M., Ortega, D.G., & Rodríguez, M.A. (2013),
“Educational tourism through a virtual reality platform”, Procedia Computer
Science, Vol. 25, pp. 382-388.

Further reading
Sherman, W.R. and Craig, A.B. (2003), Understanding Virtual Reality. Interface, Ap-
plication, and Design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco.
Paper details VR specified
a) Classification of VR
b) VR system
c) Type of content
Beck, J. & Egger, R. a) Fully- and non-immersive
(2018) b) Wireless HMD (Samsung
Gear VR); Desktop PC
c) Real captured 360-degree
Marasco, A., Buonin- a) Fully-immersive
contri, P., van Niekerk, b) Wired HMD (Oculus Rift)
M., Orlowski, M. & c) Real captured 360-degree
Okumus, F. (2018) 3D and synthetic
Rainoldi, M., Driescher, a) Fully-immersive
V., Lisnevska, A., b) Wireless HMD
Zvereva, D., Stavinska,
c) Real captured 360-degree
A., Relota, J. & Egger,
R. (2018)
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, a) Fully-immersive
D., Jung, T.H. & tom b) Wireless and low immersion
Dieck, M.C. (2018) HMD (Samsung Gear VR,
Google Cardboard)
c) Real captured 360-degree
Disztinger, P., Schlögl, a) Fully-immersive
S. & Groth, A. (2017) b) HMDs (Google Cardboard,
HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, etc.)
c) Real captured 360-degree
Griffin, T., Giberson, J., a) Fully- and non-immersive
Lee, S.H.M., Guttentag, b) Wired HMD (Oculus Rift);
D., Kandaurova, M., Desktop PC
Sergueeva, K. & Di- c) Real captured 360-degree
manche, F. (2017) (for the 2D presentation with
the desktop PC 360-degree ele-
ment was removed)
Methodology
a) Data collection
b) Sample
a) Experiment and online question-
naire
b) 101; Undergraduate and graduate
students
a) Pilot test and questionnaire
b) 450; Randomly selected individu-
als
a) Experiment and online question-
naire
b) 101; Undergraduate and graduate
students
a) Experiment and questionnaire
b) 202; Undergraduate and graduate
students / 724; Festival goers
a) Questionnaire
b) 148; n.a.
a) Experiment and questionnaire
b) 121; Undergraduate students
Variables
a) Independent variable(s)
b) Dependent variable(s)
a) Type of marketing stimulus (HMD vs.
Desktop PC)
b) Intensity of triggered emotions (Heart
rate; Electrodermal activity; Self-report
measure); Decision response (Product In-
terest; Purchase Immediacy)
a) Behavioural intentions to visit/revisit
the cultural heritage site
b) Perceived visual appeal; Emotional in-
volvement of the user
a) Type of information provided (VR vs.
paper-based brochure)
b) Tourist’s information search process;
Tourist’s decision-making process;
a) Sense of presence (Self-Location, Pos-
sible Actions) (1); Enjoyment of VR expe-
rience (2); Post VR Attitude toward the
destination (3);
b) Enjoyment of VR experience (1); Post
VR Attitude toward the destination (1; 2);
Intention to visit destination (3);
a) Perceived ease of use; Perceived use-
fulness; Perceived enjoyment; Interest,
Personal innovativeness; Accessibility;
Scepticism; Technology anxiety; Per-
ceived immersion
b) Behavioural intention to use VR tech-
nology for travel planning
a) Type of stimulus (HMD vs. 2D video vs.
Website with pictures)
b) Affective destination image; Conative
destination image (Intention to visit within
the next 5 years; Intention to seek infor-
mation; Intention to suggest destination to
others; Intention to tell others about the
ad); Attitudes towards the advertisement;
Major findings
Appendix
The fully-immersive VR system triggered more intense emo-
tions in terms of heart rate and electrodermal activity. No statis-
tical significant difference between the two groups for the self-
report measure was found. Existing interest in HMDs cannot
necessarily be translated into product interest or purchase imme-
diacy.
The results show that the perceived visual appeal of virtual real-
ity experiences with HMDs have a positive and significant effect
on the behavioural intention towards the promoted site. The per-
ceived visual appeal has also a positive effect on the emotional
involvement.
VR has a positive influence on tourist’s information search pro-
cess as well as decision-making process within the customer
buying cycle. The type of promotional material provided to the
users influenced the desire to visit the destination, suggesting
that VR has a stronger impact.
The sense of presence within the virtual tourism environment
leads to an increase of the enjoyment of the VR experience as
well as to a positive post-VR Attitude toward the destination. A
positive attitude change also leads to a higher intention to visit
the destination.
Perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, perceived immer-
sion as well as interest showed strong effects on the behavioural
intention to use VR technology for travel planning.
Participants of the fully-immersive VR group rated the affective
destination image to be higher than those evaluating the website
and the 2D video. However, they are not more likely to visit the
destination in the next five years. The intention to seeking fur-
ther information about the destination was higher for the HMD
group than for the website group. Participants of the HMD group
are more likely to suggest the destination to others as well as to
share the advertisement experience with others than participants
of the other two groups.
Marchiori, E., Nifora- a) Fully-immersive
tos, E. & Preto, L. b) Wired HMD (Oculus Rift)
(2017) c) Real captured 360-degree
and synthetic
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang. a) Fully-immersive
D. & Jia, C. (2017) b) Wireless and low immersion
HMDs (Samsung Gear VR,
Google Cardboard)
c) Real captured 360-degree
Jung, T., tom Dieck M. a) Fully-immersive
C., Moorehouse, N. & b) Wireless HMD (Samsung
tom Dieck, D. (2017) Gear VR)
c) Real captured 360-degree
Jung, T., tom Dieck M. a) Fully-immersive
C., Lee, H. & Chung, b) Wireless HMD (Samsung
N. (2016) Gear VR) (and application of
Augmented Reality)
c) n.a.
Potter, L.E., Carter, L. a) Fully-immersive
& Coghlan, A. (2016) b) Low-immersion HMD
(Google Cardboard)
c) n.a.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang. a) Fully-immersive
D. & Jia, C. (2016) b) Low-immersion HMD
(Google Cardboard)
c) Real captured 360-degree
Huang, Y.C., Backman, a) Non-immersive
K.F., Backman, S. & b) Second Life (SL)
Chang, L.L. (2015)
c) Synthetic
a) Experiment and questionnaire
b) 23; n.a.
a) Experiment and online question-
naire
b) 202; Undergraduate and graduate
students
a) Experiment and semi-structured in-
terview
b) 35; n.a.
a) Experiment and questionnaire
b) 163; Individual museum visitors
a) Experiment
b) 16; Individual passengers and re-
search team
a) Experiment and focus group / In-
terviews
b) 12; Students / 19; Students and
professionals
a) Experiment and online question-
naire
b) 186; College students and experi-
enced Second Life users
a) Different scenes of the VR experience
b) Heart rate; VR media characteristics;
Memory recall
a) Spatial ability; Attention allocation;
Type of VR stimuli; Prior visitation to des-
tination
b) Spatial presence; Post VR attitude
change
- Participants show a positive attitude towards the use of VR due
a) Social presence (1); 4 realms of Expe-
rience Economy (2); Visitor's overall ex-
perience (3)
b) 4 realms of Experience Economy (1);
Visitor's overall experience (2); Revisit
intention (3)
a) n.a.
b) n.a.
a) Spatial presence
b) Attitude toward destination; Behaviour
toward destination
a) Perceived ease of use; Perceived useful-
ness; Perception of autonomy; Perception
of competence; Perception of relatedness
b) Travel intentions; Enjoyment
Detected increase of heart rate tended to correspond to the most
recalled scenes. Scenes that were most often reported and re-
called were characterised by an unusual horizon perspective
(e.g. flight on hot air balloon).
The higher the level of attention allocation to the VR experience,
the greater the level of perceived presence. Spatial presence is
determined by the two dimensions of departure (being some-
where other than the actual environment) and self-location in a
VE. Spatial presence positively impacts post-VR attitude change
toward tourism destinations. Different VR devices led to differ-
ent results (however, these results were not statistically signifi-
cant).
to a fully immersed tourism experience, which influences the
behavioral intention to visit the destination in the future.
Social Presence is a strong predictor of four realms of Experi-
ence Economy in mixed environments. Education, escapism,
and most notably entertainment, but not aesthetics, significantly
influence visitor experience. The overall visitor experience in-
fluences the intention to re-visit the museum.
HMDs provide opportunities for tourism operators to give infor-
mation more directly to visitors and engage them more inten-
sively with the content provided. Interactivity as well as enter-
tainment offer added value to the tourist.
A certain level of presence, which can be enhanced by including
easily recognisable artefacts or presenting destinations in a cre-
ative way, is necessary to support the persuasive power of VR.
Spatial presence is influenced by factors such as (dis)continuity
within the VR experience, social experience or destination im-
age.
Perceived usefulness is positively related to the experience of
enjoyment and is a predictor of behavioral intentions. Perception
of relatedness as well as autonomy positively influence the ex-
perience of enjoyment and behavioural intentions.
Tavakoli, R. & Mura P. a) Non-immersive a) Participant observation, online in- a) n.a. Choosing an avatar in SL is a long and complex decision pro-
(2015) b) SL terviews, on-line chats b) n.a. cess, even longer than the choice of virtual tourist destination to
b) 10 interviews, n.a. visit. Women wanted their avatars to resemble their appearance
c) Synthetic
as closely as possible, however it was observed that this was in
fact not the case. Ethnicity, nationality, and age are other rele-
vant factors for the choice of avatars. For the destination choice,
famous mass-tourism destinations and beaches, clubs, as well as
'romantic' sites were preferred. Different representation of the
'self' lead to an increased level of perceived freedom and safety.
Loizides, F., El Kater, a) Fully- and semi-immersive a) Experiment, think aloud protocol, a) Type of VR The semi-immersive VE kept participants engaged for longer
A., Terlikas, C., Lanitis, b) Wired HMD (Oculus Rift); questionnaire and semi-structured in- b) Time engaged; Items viewed; HMD ex- periods of time, which was most likely influenced by the capa-
A. & Michael, D. Powerwall (stereoscopic dis- terviews perience and Powerwall experience (over- bilities of the HMD. The number of items viewed did not vary
(2014) play with 3D capabilities b) 12; n.a. all, memorability, learnability, navigation greatly between the VR systems. Navigation and viewing was
through passive type glasses) use, viewing, physical wellbeing) rated better for the semi-immersive VE. The HMD experience
resulted for a few participants in motion sickness. A lack of im-
c) Synthetic
mersion was noted for the semi-immersive museums.
Huang, Y.-C., Back- a) Non-immersive a) Experiment and online question- a) Perceived ease of use (1); Perceived Perceived usefulness is positively related to behavioural inten-
man, S.J., Backman, b) SL naire usefulness (1); Enjoyment (2); Positive tions to visit the site. Perceived ease of use as well as usefulness
K.F. & Moore, D. b) 198; Novice (university students) emotions (2); Emotional involvement (2); are positively related to the four hedonic constructs (enjoyment
c) Synthetic
(2013) and experienced SL users Flow experience (2) while experiencing the virtual tourism destination, positive emo-
b) Travel intentions (1;2); Enjoyment (a); tions, emotional involvement, flow experience). All but one (en-
Positive emotions (1); Emotional involve- joyment) of the hedonic constructs are positively related to be-
ment (1); Flow experience (1) havioural intentions to visit the destination.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, a) Non-immersive a) Experiment and online question- a) Perception of competence (1); Percep- During an educational session in SL, satisfaction of the psycho-
S., Chang, L.L., Back- b) SL naires tion of autonomy (1); Perception of relat- logical needs of autonomy and relatedness are positively related
man, K.F. & McGuire b) 105; Students edness (1); Positive emotions (2) to intrinsic motivation. This indicates that higher levels of stu-
c) Synthetic
F.A. (2013) b) Intrinsic motivation (1; 2); Positive dent interest in online activities and a greater perception of feel-
emotions (1) ing connected with others can enhance intrinsic learning moti-
vation. Results did not support prior research findings concern-
ing the association between competence and intrinsic motiva-
tion. Positive emotions experienced had positive and significant
impacts on students’ intrinsic motivation during learning in the
3D virtual world.
Zarzuela, M.M., Pernas, a) Semi-immersive a) Experiment and questionnaire a) n.a. VR Serious Games provide an opportunity for educational tour-
F.J.D., Calzón, S.M., b) 3D TV, or 3D projector, Ki- b) 10; n.a. b) n.a. ism promotion. Tourism organisations or tourist information
Ortega, D.G. & nect device centres could offer information in a fun and entertaining yet ed-
Rodríguez, M.A. (2013) ucational way.
c) Synthetic
Huang, Y.-C., Back- a) Non-immersive a) Experiment and questionnaire a) Antecedents of flow (challenges, skills, The achievement of flow experience within the VE is positively
man, S.J. & Backman, b) SL b) 42; Undergraduate students interactivity, tele-presence); Involvement influenced by the dimension of skills, tele-presence and interac-
K.F. b) Flow; Travel intentions tivity. Flow experience on the virtual destination had signifi-
c) Synthetic
(2012) cantly positive effects on the travel intention to take an actual
trip, whereas the effects of involvement on travel intention was
not significant. Flow served as a mediator in the relationship be-
tween involvement and travel intentions.
Hyun, M.Y. & O'Keefe, a) Non-immersive
R.M. (2012) b) 3D virtual tour (and other
virtual information) provided
on a website
c) Real captured (not neces-
sarily 360-degree, also regular
videos and photos)
Lee, O. & Ahn, J. a) Non-immersive
(2012) b) 3D virtual tour provided on a
website
c) Real captured (not neces-
sarily 360-degree, also regular
videos and photos)
Pantano, E. & Servidio, a) Semi-immersive
R. (2011) b) Screen with polarized
glasses for stereoscoping view-
ing
c) Synthetic
Carrozzino, M. & Ber- a) Semi-immersive
gamasco, M. (2010) b) Different interactive and
non-interactive systems
(CAVE, stereo powerwall,
handheld trackball, etc.)
c) Synthetic and real-captured
Pantano, E. & Servidio, a) Semi-immersive
R. (2009) b) Wide screen, tracking sys-
tem, 3D workstation, polarized
glasses for stereoscoping view-
ing
c) Synthetic
Chiou, W.-B., Wan, C.- a) Non-immersive
S. & Lee, H.Y. (2008) b) Virtual experience (in gen-
eral panoramic views, anima-
tion, and interactive photos, but
not further specified which one
was chosen for the experiment)
a) Web survey a) Offline travel information (1); Web-
b) 328; Visitors to the Tasmania Tour- mediated virtual information (1);
ism website Telepresence (2); Virtual cognitive image
(3); Virtual affective image (4)
b) Telepresence (1); Virtual cognitive im-
age (2); Virtual affective image (2; 3);
Virtual connotation (2; 3; 4)
a) Questionnaire a) Trust-shaping factors (ability, benevo-
b) 200; n.a. lence, integrity) (1); Trust (2); Type of VR
website (with or without narrative video
clip) (3)
b) Trust (1); Risk-taking (2); Trust-shap-
ing factors, trust, risk-taking (3)
a) Experiment and questionnaire a) n.a.
b) 26; Individuals at university b) n.a.
a) In-depth survey; Questionnaires; a) n.a.
Own experience b) n.a.
b) 50 (for questionnaire); Individuals
a) n.a. a) n.a.
b) n.a. b) n.a.
a) Experiment a) Cognitive preference;
b) 104; College students / 136; Col- b) Advertising attitude; Brand attitude;
lege students Purchase intent
It has been found that web-mediated virtual information posi-
tively influences the feeling of telepresence, whereas offline in-
formation does not. Telepresence positively influences virtual
cognitive image as well as virtual connotation, but not virtual
affective image. The formation of a virtual cognitive image in-
fluences the formation of an affective image, which in turn af-
fects virtual conation. Results suggest a direct relationship be-
tween telepresence and conation, and indirect relationship
through the cognitive image.
Ability, benevolence, and integrity as trust shaping factors pos-
itively influence trust, regardless of whether the embedded VR
is with or without a narrative video. Trust, shaped by website
embedded VR, positively influences risk-taking. Differences
were found among the trust-shaping factors, depending if a nar-
rative video was applied or not. The study shows that the em-
bedded VR website with a narrated video clip results in more
psychological relief than the embedded VR website without nar-
rated video clips.
The following clustered codes were identified: visit real place,
affecting decision making, communication, satisfied by the vir-
tual experience, quality of 3D images and system properties. The
intention to visit the real place was found as the most important
code. Quality of 3D images and satisfaction with the virtual ex-
perience are the only factors that show a meaningful correlation.
Classification of VR installations, specifically for cultural herit-
age applications, based on the level of immersion and interactiv-
ity. The more immersive and the more interactive, the more val-
uable the experience for the museum visitor. Challenges for the
realisation of semi-immersive VR systems in a museum setting
are costs, required space and human resources, reluctance of vis-
itors to wear VR equipment, VR as a single-user experience or
in general the non-acceptance of VR as a sophisticated technol-
ogy.
Virtual environments provide tourists with an interactive and
immersive experience. VR can influence tourists during the de-
cision-making process, as they can first test the product in ad-
vance and second develop the wish to visit the reconstructed
places in reality. Pervasive environments are particularly suita-
ble tools in the promotion of historical and archaeological sites.
Advertising effects of brochures or virtual experiences are con-
tingent on consumers' cognitive preferences. Whereas verbalis-
ers prefer the traditional use of brochures, visualisers prefer vir-
tual experiences. Verbalisers tend to use fewer images, but rely
mostly on verbal material, whereas visualisers tend to remember
better from visual material and not from verbal material.
 c) n.a.
Wan, C.-S., Tsaur, S.- a) Non-immersive
H., Chiu, Y.-L. & b) Virtual experience (not
Chiou, W.-B. (2007) specified)
c) n.a.
Refsland, S. T., Ojika, a) Semi-immersive
T., Defanti, T., Johnson, b) CAVE and DOME (dome-
A., Leigh, J., Loeffler, based video projection envi-
C., & Tu, X. (1998) ronments) systems; Interactive
walls; Shutter glasses; Wired
and wireless localized gloves
c) Synthetic and real-captured
(live and pre-recorded)
Table A1. Overview of studies dealing with VR in tourism.
View publication stats
a) Experiment and questionnaire a) Method of presentation (Virtual experi-
b) 100; Students ence vs. Brochure); Type of destination
(Natural park vs. Theme park); Infor-
mation involvement; Prior visiting experi-
ence
b) Advertising effect (Advertisement atti-
tude; Brand image; Purchase intent)
a) n.a. a) n.a.
b) n.a. b) n.a.
The advertising effects were not related to information involve-
ment or prior visiting experiences. It is suggested that advertis-
ing is more effective when the way of information presentation
corresponds to the type of travel destination, hence the choice of
media influences the advertising effect.
Behavioural realism is crucial for virtual tourists. Interactivity
of an immersive installation allows visitors to construct the ex-
perience for themselves. A complex interactive environment can
be created by facilitating two-way interactivity, meaning that
visitors interact computer-generated subjects and the other way
around. It is suggested to give visitors some kind of artefact as a
memory for the virtual experience.