Smartphoned Tourists in the

Phygital Tourist Experience

MICOL MIELI
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE STUDIES | LUND UNIVERSITY
Smartphoned Tourists in the Phygital Tourist Experience

1
2
 Smartphoned Tourists in the
Phygital Tourist Experience

Micol Mieli

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
by due permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences,
Lund University, Sweden.
To be defended at Campus Helsingborg, U203. October, 14, 2022, 10.15

Faculty opponent
Professor Maria Lexhagen
Department of Economics, Geography, Law and Tourism (EJT)
ETOUR Research Centre
Mid Sweden University, Sweden

3
 Organization Document name
LUND UNIVERSITY Doctoral Dissertation

Date of issue 2022-10-14

Author: Micol Mieli Sponsoring organization

Title and subtitle: Smartphoned Tourists in the Phygital Tourist Experience

Abstract
The present thesis explores how the tourist experience is re-articulated through the mediation of
smartphones. I adopt the postphenomenological theory of mediation as the overarching ontological
position, placing the role of technologies on an ontological level, as mediators of perception and
experience. The new tourist that emerges from smartphone mediation is the smartphoned tourist, that is a
tourist whose experience is shaped by the availability and use of this technology.
The thesis focuses on two aspects: first, how smartphones mediate tourist information behaviour. It is
argued that information behaviour is a more comprehensive term than information search behaviour
because it includes a passive component of behaviour, where information is not only actively searched, but
also encountered serendipitously. The concept of planned serendipity is proposed to indicate how
smartphone-mediated information behaviour is complex and cannot be reduced to a dichotomy of
serendipity and planning. Second, how smartphones mediate tourists’ experiences of phygital worlds. The
term phygital is adopted to indicate how the technologically mediated tourist experience is neither physical
nor digital, but both. These questions are answered through conceptual and empirical work in four papers.
Paper I explores how smartphones mediate tourists’ relationships with traditional information sources, in
particular the guidebook. The study applies the theory of consumer value to understand how the guidebook
is not only used for information purposes, but is also valued as an object of consumption. The different
types of value attributed to the guidebook are preferential and relative to the smartphone.
In Paper II, after a reflection on the technological mediation of the experience on-site, a qualitative
methodology is presented, which combines the experience sampling method with semi-structured
interviews.
Paper III, offers a critical review of tourist information search behaviour literature and adopts the concept of
planned serendipity to investigate how planning and spontaneity are simultaneously reduced and amplified
through smartphone mediation.
Paper IV focuses on the question of how tourists’ time-space behaviour is mediated by the smartphone,
and how such mediation makes the experience phygital. The paper offers a new conceptualization of time
geography, adapted to the phygital tourist experience.

Key words smartphone, tourism, phygital, mediation, tourist experience, tourist information search
behaviour

Classification system and/or index terms (if any)

Supplementary bibliographical information Language

ISSN and key title ISBN

978-91-8039-350-8 (print)
978-91-8039-349-2 (electronic)

Recipient’s notes Number of pages 107 Price

Security classification

I, the undersigned, being the copyright owner of the abstract of the above-mentioned dissertation, hereby grant
to all reference sources permission to publish and disseminate the abstract of the above-mentioned
dissertation.

Signature Date 2022-09-02

4
Smartphoned Tourists in the
Phygital Tourist Experience

Micol Mieli

5
Coverphoto by Micol Mieli
Created using DALL-E OpenAI, an Artificial Intelligence tool that
generates images from a description in natural language. The cover picture
is generated from the text: “painting of woman looking at a view of
mountains and lake, she is holding a smartphone, the woman has black
curly hair”

Copyright pp 1-107 Micol Mieli 2022

Paper 1 © Routledge
Paper 2 © Emerald Publishing
Paper 3 © by the Author (Manuscript unpublished)
Paper 4 © by the Authors (Manuscript unpublished)

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Service Management and Service Studies

ISBN 978-91-8039-349-2 (electronic)

ISBN 978-91-8039-350-8 (print)

Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University

Lund 2022

6
To my family

7
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................. 10
Preface ................................................................................................. 12
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 13
1.1 Aim and research questions ..................................................... 18
1.2 Disposition of the thesis ........................................................... 19
1.2.1 Authors’ contributions ................................................ 21
2 Tourists with smartphones: technological mediation..................... 23
2.1 Philosophy of technology and Postphenomenology ................ 23
2.2 Technological mediation .......................................................... 26
2.3 Technological mediation in tourism research .......................... 31
3 Understanding tourists and the tourist experience ........................ 35
3.1 Tourists..................................................................................... 35
3.2 The tourist experience .............................................................. 36
3.3 Challenging the escape paradigm: the relationship between
everyday life and tourism .................................................................... 40
4 The phygital tourist experience ........................................................ 43
4.1 The role of smartphones in the on-site stage of the
experience ................................................................................ 46
4.2 Phygital information environment ........................................... 49
4.3 Where is the tourist? ................................................................ 50
5 Information behaviour during the trip ........................................... 55
5.1 A critical review of information search behaviour theories ..... 56
5.2 Challenging the linearity of information behaviour theories
in light of smartphone mediation ............................................. 60
5.3 Introducing “planned serendipity” ........................................... 63

8
6 Research design.................................................................................. 69
6.1 Interdisciplinary approach........................................................ 71
6.2 A study about millennials ........................................................ 73
6.3 Methods .................................................................................... 74
6.3.1 Qualitative semi-structured interviews ....................... 75
6.3.2 Experience sampling method ...................................... 76
6.4 Ethical considerations .............................................................. 76
7 Summary of papers ........................................................................... 81
7.1 Paper I: Tourist information channels as consumer choice:
The value of tourist guidebooks in the digital age ................... 81
7.2 Paper II: Experience Sampling Method in a Qualitative
Study of Tourists’ Smartphone Use ......................................... 82
7.3 Paper III: Planned serendipity: exploring tourists’ on-site
information behaviour .............................................................. 84
7.4 Paper IV: Phygital time geography: what about smartphones
in tourists’ time-space behaviour? ........................................... 85
8 Conclusions......................................................................................... 87
8.1 Limitations and future research................................................ 91
9 References........................................................................................... 93

9
Acknowledgements
I have been thinking of what to write in the acknowledgements since the first
days of my PhD. I would just daydream of the day when I would complete my
thesis and reflect back on all the people who helped me and supported me along
the way. Now that the time has come, I realise that it is not an easy task to write
down in words how incredibly grateful I am to all these people. I will give it a
try anyway.
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge and thank my supervisors. I
want to thank Malin Zillinger for believing in me and for supporting me
throughout the process of writing a PhD thesis, from start to finish and
everything in between. You were my teacher, advisor and mentor before I even
started the PhD, and you have remained that throughout these years. Thank
you, Jan-Henrik Nilsson, for always being there, for encouraging me to be
curious and explore during these years. I hope you know how greatly
supportive you both have been, I am amazed at how smooth it was to work
together. I have learned so much from you and hope to keep doing so in the
future.
My thanks go to the Department of Service Management and Service studies
for welcoming me as a Master’s student seven years ago and making me feel
welcome every day since. I have loved meeting all the people and enjoying the
environment in our Helsingborg “bubble”. I remember going to academic
seminars in my first year and being astonished at how intelligent, well-read,
and interesting everybody was. And I remember feeling lucky that everybody
was so helpful, so a big thanks goes to the administrative staff at the
department. Thanks to those who have taken the time to read my work as it
was progressing and to discuss it during seminars, and especially to the seminar
opponents in and outside of the department. Thanks to all the teachers and
colleagues with whom I’ve had excellent conversations during my time here.
Elin Bommenel, thank you for being my unofficial teaching mentor. You are
an excellent teacher and inspire me every day.
Of course, my journey would not have been the same without my travel
companions, the doctoral students that shared time, thoughts, train rides,
coffees, and wine with me. I have been lucky to look up to those who made it
to the finish line before me, Malin Andersson, Josefine Østrup Backe, Devrim
Umut Aslan, Stuart Reid. Thank you for showing me the way. And to you who
have shared the journey with me, Ida Wingren, Carin Rehncrona, Rui Liu,
Anna Spitzkat, Aurimas Pumputis, Marthe Nehl, Réka Ines Tölg, Annabell

10
Merkel, Marcus Persson. Our writing retreats will be one of the best memories
from these years. It has been a joy and an honour to be your colleague.
Aurimas, Stuart, Rui, thank you for all our interesting conversations. Marthe
and Reka, a special thanks goes to you for keeping me sane during Covid with
our morning chats. And just thank you all for being my friends.
I dedicate this thesis to my family, because they are my pillars. To my parents,
I may not say this often, but I owe all of this to you. You have taught me to be
curious, and that is the greatest gift of all. Thank you for letting me be the
person I am, for letting me go look for my own path all the way across the
world, all the way to New Zealand. I hope you are happy that at least I landed
in the same continent. To my grandparents, who have taught me resilience,
who have shown me how to always see the best in people and in life and who
have always believed in the importance of learning.
Thank you to all my friends, near and far, but in particular my best friend
Viviana. You know I miss you and appreciate your friendship more than
anything in the world.
And to my life partner, Fredrik, how can I say this in words? You have been
there from day one and have seen me at my best and my worst. Thank you for
everything, for taking this and many other journeys with me. Thank you for
literally helping make my dreams come true, from learning to woodwork to
building and travelling in a van, and finally to finishing my PhD. I love you.
Last but not at all least, I have to thank Franco (yes, he is my dog) for literally
walking next to me every step of the way.

Helsingborg, September 2022

Micol Mieli

11
Preface
Sweden, summer 2020: in the middle of a global pandemic, amidst closed
borders, travel bans and social distancing, I have not stopped travelling,
although I have decided to take a “Swecation” and travel locally. Driving along
the beautiful Swedish roads, gazing upon the breath-taking scenery of forests,
lakes and mountains, there is a guidebook of Sweden sitting on the dashboard
together with a bunch of maps and brochures raided from several tourist
information centres, and I am holding my smartphone in my hand. My travel
partner is driving and his phone is mounted on the dashboard, navigating us to
our destination.
I can hardly remember a moment in this trip when my phone was not either in
my hand or within sight. I look down on the phone and search in the app store
for new useful applications: I have just downloaded one for parking, three for
camping, two for hiking, one for the weather, one for restaurants, and one to
track our journey. I pause for a second and think of these things I am using, of
the technologies and the information that I am carrying around with me and on
which I am relying to plan and execute my trip. Artefacts, text, images that
shape whatever experience I am going to have of this trip and however I will
behave throughout it. Yet I still want to experience something new when I
finally get to my destination, I still want to be spontaneous and be surprised by
serendipitous encounters. I want to experience things on my own skin, through
all my senses, not only by reading about it on a screen. I want to be there,
immersed, present. I wonder, what would my travel be without these devices I
carry with me?
Later, sitting at my desk in front of my computer, many more questions keep
me wondering. Had I not read in my guidebook that a place was worth traveling
to, what would that place have been to me? Had I not known the lighthouses
and town squares with their churches and city halls were worthy of
appreciation, would I have appreciated them as tourist attractions? Had my
phone not signalled to me on the map that a landmark was coming up on the
road, or had I not Googled what are the most picturesque towns in Sweden,
would my travel experience have been the same? Had I not been able to keep
in touch with my family and keep track of my friends’ travels on social media,
would I have felt the same about the places I was visiting? With these and
many more questions in mind, I continued my journeys, both in my campervan
and on the white pages that would become my PhD thesis.

12
1 Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are transforming the way

tourists travel so much that some authors have been writing of “Travel 2.0”
(Buhalis and Law, 2008; Xiang and Gretzel, 2010) or “e-Tourism” (Xiang,
Magnini and Fesenmaier, 2015; Xiang, Fuchs, Gretzel & Höpken, 2021). In
particular, tourists have adapted and even become dependent on the use of the
internet and mobile technology (Gretzel, Zarezadeh, Li & Xiang, 2019).
Gössling (2021) points out how ICT innovations, and in particular
smartphones, have brought about unprecedented changes in human behaviour
and psychology. He offers an overview of the technological development in
the last 30 years and points out the smartphone as the most significant
hallmark, positioning its introduction in the market in 2007. After Apple
launched the first iPhone in 2007, the smartphone market took off, and
represented a major development step in the digitalisation of the tourist
experience (Zillinger, 2021).
Tourism research shows time and again that tourism is “re-articulated” through
emerging technologies (Wang, Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2016), and the fact that
they are continuously developing leaves room for new research on tourist
behaviour (Buhalis, & Law, 2008; Cohen, Prayag and Moital, 2014). Changes
in technology, in fact, also transform the tourist experience itself as well as
tourism behaviour (Wang, Xiang, & Fesenmaier, 2014; Wozniak, Schaffner,
Stanoevska-Slabeva & Lenz-Kesekamp, 2017). Research has shown that the
technological objects themselves mediate tourists’ behaviour (Ayeh, 2018;
Kah & Lee, 2014; Molz, 2012; Neuhofer, Buhalis & Ladkin, 2012; Wang, Park
& Fesenmaier, 2012; Zhang & Zhang, 2022). Such mediation has the potential
to “reconfigure the perceptions of (and interactions with) time, space, and the
physical and virtual worlds” (Lamsfus, Wang, Alzua-Sorzabal & Xiang, 2015
p.694).
Within the tourist experience, smartphones have earned a fundamental role
(Dickinson, Ghali, Cherrett, Speed, Davies & Norgate, 2014; Kang, Jodice &
Norman, 2020; Fernández-Cavia et al., 2020). The smartphone is a small hand-
held device in which several technologies converge: mobile phones, portable

13
computers, digital cameras, portable music players, and GPS-enabled
navigation systems (Benckendorff, Xiang & Sheldon, 2019). Both in everyday
life and tourism, smartphones allow people to carry out several activities while
they are on the move, including information-intensive activities and activities
that require an internet connection. Fernandez-Cavia et al. (2020), for example,
found that four out of five tourists were connected to the internet during their
trip, of which 87% used the smartphone. Chen, Huang, Gao and Petrick (2018)
found that the majority of tourists use smartphones during vacation, and about
half of them even use it for work-related tasks during the trip. Indeed, being
able to use the smartphone during a trip might even make “an otherwise
impossible trip possible” by allowing tourists to stay connected and work while
they travel without drawing a neat distinction between leisure and work time
(Tan & Chen, 2021 p.1526).
Authors have referred to mobile phones as a “catalyst” for the modern tourist
(Gretzel, 2010; Lalic & Wesmayer, 2016) or “travel buddies” (Tussyadiah,
2013). Lalic and Wesmayer (2016) even studied how tourists are “passionate”
users of smartphones. In the tourism research landscape there is an abundance
of studies on who uses smartphones, for what purposes and in what ways, as
well as which apps they prefer and how tourism service providers can use this
to improve and market their offering (Dickinson et al., 2014; Kim & Law,
2015; Law, Chan & Wang, 2018; Tussyadiah, 2016; Vallespín, Molinillo &
Muñoz-Leiva, 2017, among others). Wang et al. (2014), for example, offered
an analysis of motivations for smartphone use by tourists: there are functional
reasons, namely information searches through smartphones to learn about the
destination; hedonic reasons, that is finding innovative ways to travel, starting
to feel excited and experience local culture before the trip starts, and
experiencing it more intensely during the trip; aesthetic reasons, which means
that through the mobile phone tourists can form expectations before the trip;
and social reasons, which translate into communicating with others about the
trip before and throughout.
The effects of smartphone use on the experience are many and well-
documented. Yu, Anaya, Miao, Lehto and Wong (2018) give a
phenomenological account of how smartphones interfere with the experience
and how fundamental aspects of vacation have changed. Research has shown
that smartphone use results in a greater control of experience, better
information and decision-making for tourists, but it also results in an increase
of smartphone-mediated behaviour, reducing a sense of adventure and creating
paradoxical effects (Yu et al., 2018; Neuhofer et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2016).
In relation to information search behaviour, recent research has shown that the

14
use of smartphones influences the way people find and use information when
it comes to making spontaneous decisions, not always resulting in more
spontaneity (Kang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2018; Kang & Lee, 2022; Vaez, Burke
& Yu, 2020).
The mobility of the smartphone is a key feature of this device that allows for
the mediation of the tourist experience to happen during the trip. Early versions
of the mobile phone had already turned out to be a disruptive technology for
the understanding of society in general, accompanying various other
technological developments (in communication, infrastructure and transport)
and leading to a “mobility turn” in the social sciences, where people and
society have become defined by some kind of mobility or immobility (Adey,
2017; Hannam, Sheller & Urry, 2006; Germann Molz, 2012). Mobile phones
allowed tourists to continue their everyday life while travelling, conducting
their everyday activities regardless of where they were or where they were
going, and providing constant micro-coordination (Lamsfus et al., 2015).
The point of departure in this thesis, however, is the claim that it is not enough
to focus on the mobility of the smartphone: the smartpthone offers more than
just mobility and communication on the move. It has an internet connection,
which has recently become much more broadly accessible thanks to the
reduction or elimination of internet roaming fees (for example, within the EU)
(Magasic & Gretzel, 2020; Zillinger, Eskilsson, Månsson, & Nilsson, 2018). It
also has GPS (Global positioning system), which implies a wide range of
affordances for tourists, from giving context-relevant information, to allowing
one to determine the precise location of one’s self or others (including
attractions and activities) and provide navigation, location sharing and micro-
coordination. Finally, it is a multimedia device that allows users to access,
record and share all kinds of content, from text to images to sound and any
combination of these. Through their digital, colourful, bright screens,
smartphones act as a “wall-window” for their users, which on one hand offers
a view into a different world than the one they are physically in, and on the
other hand creates a wall around the user (and their attention), which blocks
out their perception of their physical surroundings (Wellner, 2011, 2016).
Studies focusing on the mobile phone before it became smart could not
possibly gauge the impact of these devices and their use on the tourist
experience, that is, how they mediate it. However, now 15 years have passed
since the launch of the first iPhone in 2007, so it is time to take stock of the
situation and ask: what does the smartphone do to tourists and their experience
of travel?

15
Xiang (2018) discusses a shift from digitalisation to an age of acceleration in
tourism and suggests that it is time to rethink and challenge the current
scholarly thought on the relationship between technology and tourism. Today’s
technology cannot be reduced to a mere tool for “e-Tourism”. Thanks to
ubiquitous computing and connectivity, “it has blended into our everyday life
and travel and, perhaps, has become ´amorphous´” (Xiang, 2018 p.149).
Indeed, ample literature has explored how mobile phone use during travel
contributes to blurring some defining dichotomies of the tourist experience:
home/away, leisure/work, extraordinary/mundane, and present/absent
(Hannam et al., 2006).
In this thesis, I adopt the postphenomenological theory of technological
mediation as the overarching ontological position of the thesis. Deriving its
main principles from classical phenomenology, postphenomenology
welcomes some influence from pragmatism and places the focus on the role of
specific, concrete technologies in mediating the human experience of the world
(Ihde, 1990, 2009, 2015; Rosenberger & Verbeek, 2015; Verbeek, 2001, 2005,
2016). This thesis relies on the fundamental idea that humans and technologies
cannot be thought of or studied independently by each other, and the uses of
technologies transform the tourist experience as well as tourist behaviour.
Lamsfus et al. (2015), in fact, observed the emergence of a new “class” of
tourists who heavily rely on information technology in general, and
mobile/network technology in particular, in constructing their personal and
social experiences in travel. In this thesis, I call this new class “smartphoned
tourists”. These tourists are not just connected and hypermobile tourists; they
are also informed, interactive, and immersed in different contexts all at once.
Research in the managerial stream of tourism is quite optimistic on the benefits
of using technology, emphasising the confidence, safety, connection,
flexibility, fun and convenience that tourists can gain from using digital
technologies; it considers digital technologies crucial to offering a better tourist
experience (Ayeh, 2018; Buhalis & Law, 2008). With their applications and
ubiquitous connectivity, smartphones are powerful devices considered
“inevitable partners” of tourists (Dickinson et al., 2014). They offer tools for
navigation, spatial orientation and awareness, as well as communication and
temporal alignment between travel companions and people back home
(Dickinson et al., 2014; Mascheroni, 2007; Tussyadiah 2013; Lalicic &
Weismayer, 2016).
However, negative consequences and problematic uses of smartphone use have
also been documented, for example, Lalic and Wesmayer (2016) refer to James
and Drennan’s (2005) concepts of “mobile addiction” and “phone junkies” to

16
indicate how, despite the many positive effects of integrating mobile phones
into the tourist experience, negative effects are also present. Authors from
other disciplines have also suggested different, less rosy perspectives on the
matter: for example, there is a concern that human sociality has been damaged
or radically changed by the internet and mobile devices (Turkle, 2017). Ayeh
(2018 p.35) argues that both research and practice assume that technology is
fundamental to improving the tourist experience; however, in his own research,
many deleterious effects of smartphone use emerged, leading him to claim that
“this assumption seems exaggerated and perhaps inaccurate”.
In the debate on the positive and negative effects of smartphone use in the
tourist experience, the theory of technological mediation can offer a more
complex and comprehensive view of the relationship between people and
technologies. This approach allows for an analysis of the relationship with
technologies without attributing a positive or negative value to the outcome of
such mediation, merely focusing on the interaction between people and
technologies and the effects that the latter have on how humans (in this thesis,
tourists) experience the world.
In light of these considerations, this thesis sets out to study the experience of
“smartphoned” tourists: it is not enough to study tourists “and” technologies,
or tourists “and” smartphones, rather it is important to study tourists-with-
technologies, the smartphone-tourist or tourist-smartphone as Latour would
call it; the smartphone and the tourist in their embodied, hermeneutic
relationship (Ihde, 1990). I focus my attention on the tourist’s technologically-
mediated tourist experience and behaviour, referring particularly to the
tourist’s relationship with the smartphone.
I explore the re-articulation of tourism in terms of technological mediation,
studying how tourists’ experience of the world is shaped by the devices and
the technologies they use. I focus on two aspects that emerge from the literature
as the most relevant ways in which smartphone technology mediates the tourist
experience, that is, the hybrid nature of the experience and the changes in
tourists’ information search behaviour (Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020; Wang et
al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018; Benckendorff et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016; Choe,
Fesenmaier & Vogt, 2017; Gretzel et al., 2019). Many other aspects of the
tourist experience are clearly mediated by smartphones, two of the most
obvious examples being social media and integrated cameras. Indeed, social
media and photography in the tourist experience are very well researched
topics (see, among others: Walsh, Johns & Dale, 2019; Chung & Koo, 2015;
Jansson, 2018; Munar & Jacobsen, 2014; Gretzel, 2018; Mkono & Tribe, 2017;
Munar, Gyimóthy & Cai, 2013; Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2016). However, departing

17
from information search behaviour, my thesis project focuses on those
concepts that emerged as sensitising concepts throughout the research process.
In particular, two key concepts constitute the foci of this thesis: “phygital” and
“planned serendipity”.
The first term indicates the hybrid nature of the tourist experience in which
physical and digital reality are enmeshed and result in a phygital reality. The
phygital tourist experience is something qualitatively different than either a
physical or a digital experience, as the two aspects are complementary. I
discuss this particularly in terms of spatial behaviour and spatial perceptions,
approaching the subject from the perspective of time-geography and
specifically adopting Torsten Hägerstrand’s theory of constraints, which
theorises the ways in which time and space act as constraints for human
movements (Hägerstrand, 1970; Shoval, 2012).
The second term and focus of this thesis, “planned serendipity”, refers to the
ways in which, through smartphone mediation, information search behaviour
during the trip becomes more complex and overcomes a neat distinction
between serendipity and planning. The term planned serendipity emerged from
my research on tourists’ information search behaviour in relation to
smartphones. I explored how information search and decision-making are
affected by the constant availability of a large amount of information and claim
that this smartphone-mediated behaviour results in a combination of planning
and serendipity, where the two are not opposites but complementary.
What these terms have in common is to implicitly challenge some assumptions
that are at the basis of tourism scholars’ thoughts on the tourist experience,
inviting the reader to embrace the complexity of tourists’ reality, their
behaviour and their perceptions and focus on the complementarity of
apparently opposite words: physical and digital on one hand, and planning and
serendipity on the other.

1.1 Aim and research questions

The aim of the thesis, therefore, is to explore the role of smartphones in
mediating the tourist experience, and in particular in mediating tourists’
information behaviour (Papers I and III) and the spatio-temporal dimensions
of their experience (Paper IV). I do so through four papers that challenge
dichotomies and linear thought in tourism theory by focusing on the

18
abovementioned aspects of the tourist experience and by answering the
following questions:
RQ1: What is the role of smartphones in mediating tourists’ information
behaviour?
Following this research question, I first explore how tourist information
channels are valued by tourists when they can constantly access information
through their smartphones. Then, against the same backdrop, I use the concept
of planned serendipity to investigate how tourists balance planning and
serendipity in their information search behaviour.
RQ2: What is the role of smartphones in mediating tourists’ experience of
phygital worlds?
To answer this question, I first reflect on the boundaries between everyday life
and the tourist experience and how they are mediated by smartphone use. Then,
I analyse how time-space constraints are reconfigured when tourists have
access to the internet and the computing capabilities of the smartphone
throughout the trip.

1.2 Disposition of the thesis

The thesis is comprised of eight chapters which include four papers. The first
six chapters offer an introduction to the four papers and contextualise them
within the field of tourism studies. The seventh chapter offers a summary of
the papers. The last chapter is a conclusive discussion on the results and
contribution of the whole thesis. In Chapter 2, Tourist with smartphones:
technological mediation I will offer an overview of the ontological position of
this thesis, presenting postphenomenology as the philosophical approach to the
thesis and the theory of mediation as the framework within which I approach
the research. In chapter three, Understanding the tourist and the tourist
experience, I review some fundamental concepts used in the thesis, briefly
summarising the debates and definitions of “tourist” and “tourist experience”
and then moving on to a critical reflection on the escape paradigm in tourism
theory. Chapter four, The phygital tourist experience, offers a discussion of the
term phygital as used in this thesis and connects it to the subjects of tourists’
information search and spatial behaviour, which are the foci of the three
empirical articles. Chapter five, Information behaviour during the trip, then
moves on to critically review existing literature on information search

19
behaviour, challenge its assumptions, and then proposes a new concept that
embraces the complexity of tourists’ information behaviour in the phygital
world. The sixth chapter presents reflections on the research design and
interdisciplinary approach of the thesis, and then briefly describes the methods
used in the empirical articles.
The themes presented in the first five chapters are studied empirically and
conceptually through four articles. In the first paper, Tourist information
channels as consumer choice: The value of tourist guidebooks in the digital
age (henceforth: Tourist information channels or Paper I), my co-author and I
investigate how the uses and value of travel guidebooks are mediated by the
availability of information through smartphones. Following the guiding
question “why do some tourists still prefer guidebooks?”, the paper analyses
tourists’ perception and evaluations of guidebooks through Holbrook’s (1999)
consumer value typology.
In the second paper, Experience Sampling Method in a Qualitative Study of
Tourists' Smartphone Use (henceforth: Experience sampling method or Paper
II), I focus on the methodological and epistemological questions of how
everyday life and tourist experience become enmeshed through the use of
smartphones as well as how smartphones can help researchers access new sites
of inquiry. The paper is a chapter for an anthology on contemporary methods
for tourism research where I describe in detail how I developed and applied a
qualitative methodology that combines an adapted version of the experience
sampling method with semi-structured qualitative interviews.
In the third article, Planned serendipity: exploring tourists’ on-site information
behaviour (henceforth: Planned serendipity or Paper III), I set out to analyse
tourists’ mediated information behaviour by challenging the linear thought of
existing theories of information search, proposing the concept of planned
serendipity, which I explain and illustrate with the support of the empirical data
collected with the method presented in paper two.
In the fourth article, Phygital time geography: what about smartphones in
tourists’ time-space behaviour? (henceforth: Phygital time geography or Paper
IV), I, together with my co-authors, illustrate conceptually and empirically
how space and spatial constraints become phygital when tourists interact
constantly with their smartphones throughout the trip. We use Torsten
Hägerstand’s (1970) theory of time geography and try to adapt it to the
technologically mediated tourist who travels in a phygital world.

20
1.2.1 Authors’ contributions
Paper I: Tourist information channels as consumer choice: The value of tourist
guidebooks in the digital age
Micol Mieli: research design; data collection; literature review;
conceptualization (lead); analysis (lead); writing – original draft; writing –
review and editing (lead).
Malin Zillinger: conceptualization (supporting); analysis (supporting);
writing–review and editing (supporting)

Paper IV: Phygital time geography: what about smartphones in tourists’ time-
space behaviour?
Micol Mieli: research design; data collection; literature review (lead);
conceptualization (lead); analysis (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing
– review and editing (lead).
Malin Zillinger: literature review (supporting); conceptualization (equal);
analysis (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review
and editing (supporting)
Jan-Henrik Nilsson: conceptualization (supporting); analysis (supporting);
writing–review and editing (supporting)

21
22
2 Tourists with smartphones:
technological mediation

I will now turn the attention to the overarching ontological position of my

study, that is, how the tourist and the experience are to be understood in relation
to technology. The protagonists of this thesis, in fact, are the smartphoned
tourist and the phygital tourist experience. That is, a technologically-mediated
tourist whose experience and behaviours are influenced and shaped by their
use of technology. In this chapter I will introduce the philosophical school of
thought called postphenomenology and the theory of technological mediation.
The smartphone, like any technology, has the potential to mediate the tourist
experience. The fundamental idea in this thesis is that “it is impossible to see
the human subject and machinic technology as particularly separate things”
(Thrift, 1996 p.112). By adopting mediation as the ontological approach of the
thesis, this inability to distinguish the two becomes an asset, and not a
weakness. It becomes the focus of the inquiry, as the argument about mediation
is that technologies cannot be neatly distinguished from their human users.
Instead, it is necessary to focus on how users use technologies and what
behaviour results from the interactions between humans and technologies. In
order to do so, I will now turn the attention to philosophy of technology and
the postphenomenological school of thought.

2.1 Philosophy of technology and

Postphenomenology
The field of philosophy of technology has a long tradition of philosophers
trying to grapple with the relationships between technology and technologies,
society, humans and reality. A philosophical reflection on technology can be
traced back to the first western philosophers in ancient Greece such as
Aristotle, Plato and Democritus with their concerns about technè (Franssen,

23
Lokhorst & van de Poel, 2009). However, the first generation of philosophers
to make technology a central theme in their thought comprised thinkers like
Martin Heidegger, Hans Jonas and Jacques Ellul (Achterhuis, 2001). However,
these classical philosophers of technology offered only a limited analysis of
the consequences of technology on society, as their philosophies were
transcendental, only focusing on the conditions that made technology possible.
In fact, they often offered grim, dystopian views on the effects of technology
on humans and society, understanding technology as a single, reified thing
(Ihde, 2009).
Contemporary philosophy of technology, instead, emerged from an “empirical
turn” (Achterhuis, 2001). The empirical turn led philosophers of technology
“away from the transcendental orientation toward a more practical, contextual
interpretation of artifacts and machines” (Kaplan, 2009 p.1). Verbeek (2005)
explains the empirical turn as a change in perspective about technology, where
technology is not reduced to its conditions of possibility anymore, but the focus
shifts to specific technologies and the way they affect our experience of the
world. From this empirical turn emerged the school of thought called
“postphenomenology”, whose founding figure is the American philosopher of
technology Don Ihde (cf. Ihde, 1990, 2009, 2015). In this thesis, I adopt Don
Ihde’s postphenomenological views of technology, posing questions on how a
concrete technological artefact, the smartphone, mediates a specific instance
of human existence and experience, that is, the tourist experience.
Postphenomenology, as the name suggests, takes classical phenomenology as
its point of departure, but moves beyond phenomenology and combines it with
pragmatism. The phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl and
Maurice Merleau-Ponty and the pragmatism of William James, Charles
Sanders Pierce and John Dewey, in fact, not only developed at the same time
historically, they all placed experience at the centre of their investigations, a
characteristic that postphenomenology inherited (Ihde, 2009). Moreover, both
phenomenology and pragmatism are based on a relational ontology, that is, an
ontology that rejects the Cartesian division between subject and object and
instead focuses on the relationship between them (Ihde, 2009; Moran, 2000).
Postphenomenology owes to classical phenomenology three of its cardinal
tenets, although also breaking with the classical tradition on each of them in
terms of methods and analytical orientations (hence the “post” prefix)
(Ølgaard, 2022). First, phenomenology aimed at overcoming the Cartesian
dichotomy between subject and object and posited that the two cannot be
thought of independently from each other, but only in their relation (Moran,
2002). The subject is a subject in-the-world and the object is an object

24
perceived by a human: they can only be thought of in their relation with each
other (Verbeek, 2001). From this relational ontology one key concept of
phenomenology is derived: intentionality. In Husserl’s phenomenology,
intentionality means that humans’ experience of the world is not an abstract
“consciousness” but is embedded in the context within which it is experienced
(Crowell, 2006; Moran, 2000). For Husserl, all consciousness is consciousness
of something. Ihde maintains this relational ontology but includes the
technological element, contending that through technology, consciousness
itself is mediated (Ihde, 2009). Technology, therefore, is not something that
one is conscious of, but it mediates consciousness itself.
Second, classical phenomenology conducted the analysis of experience
through a method called variation analysis or eidetic reduction (Føllesdal,
2006; Moran, 2000). The analysis of variations was aimed at discerning the
essence of things by isolating all the elements that would vary or not vary
between instances of the same experience or thing (variants/invariants). Ihde
(1990, 2009, 2012) finds that an attempt at variation analysis of the
technologically mediated reality showed something different than Husserl’s
“essences” or “essential structures”: things do not have one essence but are –
what Ihde calls – “multistable”. According to a postphenomenological view of
technological artefacts, technologies cannot be separated from their uses and
thus have no “essence” of their own: technologies cannot be spoken about
independently from the uses humans make of them (Ihde, 2009; Verbeek,
2005). Therefore, technologies only gain their “stability” in their use, and since
many uses can be made of any technological artefact, these are multistable
(Ihde, 2009; Verbeek, 2005).
The smartphone is a clear example of this: it can be used as a source of
information, a photo camera, a communication device, a map, a gaming
console, a music player, and more. This is not only due to the multitude of
software applications that can be installed on smartphones, but also to the
complex hardware that contains many different pieces of technology in one
device: a camera, GPS, light and movement sensors, microphone, loudspeaker,
telephone, step counter, internet browser and so on. Moreover, the uses that
people can make of smartphones are not limited to those intended by the
manufacturers: for example, it can be used as a phone, as a paperweight, or to
push a button in the elevator to avoid infection with a contagious virus. The
contribution of pragmatism to phenomenology lies in this recognition that the
experience is embedded in the physical and material world as much as the
cultural and social reality in which it is experienced (Ihde, 2009).

25
The third takeaway from classical phenomenology is Maurice Merleau-
Ponty’s attention to embodiment, that is the role of perceptual and “praxical”
experience (Ihde, 2009; Merleau-Ponty, 2012). Although embodiment was
already part of Husserl’s analysis, Merleau-Ponty offers a much richer concept,
which Ihde brings into his postphenomenology. Merleau-Ponty discusses how
perception is praxical, meaning that the phenomenal body is not defined by its
position in objective space but by a “system of possible actions”, by the tasks
and situations that the context offers: “my body is wherever it has something
to do” (Merleau-Ponty, 2012 p. 298). The body, for Merleau-Ponty (2012), is
indispensable to the existence of consciousness: the body is there to perceive
and experience one’s presence in the world. Moreover, Merleau-Ponty also
acknowledged that bodily movement may incorporate a technology: a woman
who is wearing a feather on her hat might move in a way that keeps the feather
away from things that might break it, or a blind man with a cane perceives the
world through the cane: the artefact is incorporated into the man’s perception
(Ihde, 2009; Merleau-Ponty, 2012). Postphenomenology maintains this
attention to perception and experience, placing the mutual relationship
between humans and world within experience (Ihde, 1990; Verbeek, 2001).
Such experience in postphenomenology is analysed through the theory of
technological mediation.

2.2 Technological mediation

Historically, two views have dominated the thought around technology:
instrumentalism and determinism. These two views offer opposite answers to
the question of whether technology is neutral, “meaning that it has no
preference as between the various possible uses to which it can be put”
(instrumentalism); or whether it has some inscribed purpose which it will fulfil
with its existence (determinism) (Feenberg, 2006 p.9). In the instrumentalist
view, technology is only a tool, an instrument that humans use for their own
purpose, and it is humans who decide the purpose of the technologies they use
and develop. In the determinist view, on the contrary, technology and
technological development have some kind of autonomy, and technological
development determines how society evolves (Selinger, 2006).
Postphenomenology offers a third way: technological mediation. In this view
technologies are understood in terms of how they mediate the relationship
between humans and world, amongst human beings and between humans and

26
technology itself and thus “can no longer be pigeonholed simply as either
neutral or determining.” (Verbeek, 2005).
For postphenomenology, experience plays a central role, because that is where
the mutual relationship with the world can be localised (Verbeek, 2001). Ihde
discusses experience in terms of perception and proposes a structure of
perception in terms of technological mediation, which consists of three
elements: I – Technology – World (Ihde, 1990). Within this relationship, the
role of technology is to be a mediator of reality. The ways that such relational
ontology can be investigated is through the macro-theory of technological
mediation (Ihde, 1990, 2009, 2015; Verbeek, 2005, 2016). The theory of
mediation aims to conceptualise “various ways in which the boundaries
between the human and the technological are fading and how the concept of
mediation can help to analyse human-technology relations.” (Verbeek, 2016
p.190). The theory tries to understand both how specific technologies mediate
human existence and how humans interpret or appropriate these mediations
and understand the reality around them. The core idea is that mediation does
not just affect the reality of humans and technologies and their relations, but
that those realities are constituted in the act of mediation: they do not exist
before and independently of each other and the process of mediation.
A typical example of mediation brought forward by postphenomenologists is
that of the sonogram (see, for example, Rosenberger & Verbeek, 2015;
Verbeek, 2005). The invention of the sonogram has redefined not only the
image of the foetus throughout the pregnancy, it has also reconfigured what it
means to be a doctor and a patient, and what it means to be a parent and a child.
It has brought along new responsibilities for parents, who find themselves
responsible to decide for the life of their children, for example, in case of some
prenatal condition that can impact the future child’s quality of life. See, for
example, the rare (but philosophically interesting) cases of children suing their
parents or doctors for not terminating the pregnancy upon discovering a
disability the child would develop. A technology, the sonogram, has turned the
foetus into a patient, because now not only the mother is the doctor’s patient,
the foetus is too. At the same time, it has virtually created a “right to sue for
being born” and “wrongful birth tort” (Ahuja, 2011; Eaton, 2002). As in this
thesis I explore the mediating effects of smartphones in the tourist experience,
smartphones are not merely tools used by tourists to achieve goals and
complete tasks. Rather, they transform the tourist into a smartphone-mediated
tourist and the whole experience into a phygital experience.
Verbeek (2005) attempted a synthesis of Ihde’s ideas on mediation with those
of Bruno Latour. Although more closely related to Science and Technology

27
Studies (STS) than postphenomenology, Bruno Latour also adopted the
concept of technical mediation as the basis for his actor-network theory and
holds an anti-essentialist and relationalist approach to the study of technology
(Feenberg, 2009; Latour, 1994; Verbeek, 2005). In his 1994 paper “On
technical mediation” he brings forward the example of the citizen with the gun:
it is not the gun nor the citizen that shoots, it is the citizen-with-the-gun, the
gun-citizen or citizen-gun, a third actor that emerges from the technical
mediation of the gun. The gun-man then is not the same as the man without a
gun. The two views, however, differ fundamentally in that Latour proposes a
flat ontology, where relationships are exactly symmetrical, and the gun has just
as much agency as the citizen, since the actant is in fact the gun-citizen or the
citizen-gun. Therefore, in Latour’s theory the focus is not only on the
relationships between actants but on the network itself.
In Ihde’s postphenomenological view, the focus is instead on the hermeneutic
dimension of mediation, that is, its understanding, experience and perception
from the human’s perspective. Moreover, Latour’s and Ihde’s philosophies of
technology have different foci: while the former focuses on the constituting
processes of subjects and objects through mediation, the latter puts the
spotlight on the experiences of the already constituted subjects and objects
(Feenberg, 2009). In the present thesis, the methodological approach focuses
on the tourists’ perceptions of smartphone use and how they mediate the
experience. The ontology is not flat, as the focus is on the humans, but it is
relational, in that the tourists’ experience can only be understood as an outcome
of the mediation between tourists, smartphones and the world within the
temporal and spatial limits of their tourist experience, that is, the world in
which they are tourists, or in other words, their lifeworld (Ihde, 1990).
Mediation organises this relationship in different ways. Ihde (1990) identifies
four ways in which humans can relate to technologies, through four human-
technology relations. 1) Embodiment relationship: like glasses, technology is
something we wear; we do not look at it but through it. 2) Hermeneutic
relationship: like a thermometer, when a technology gives us an interpretation
of the world. The thermometer does not give us a sensation but a number which
we must read and interpret to understand the world. 3) Alterity relationship:
like the ATM machine, technology can be something we interact with. In this
relationship, the world behind the machine does not matter much. 4)
Background relationship: like electric lights, technology may not be an
experience in itself but it contextualises other experiences. Here the technology
is simply in the background.

28
These relations can be easily recognised in tourists’ interaction with their
smartphones: smartphones are metaphorically an extension of tourists’ bodies,
and the integrated cameras are more literally lenses they can look through
(embodiment). They give constant information about the world, within or
outside of the destination, while integrated cameras and social media quite
literally offer filters to alter how reality appears (hermeneutic). Tourists
interact with their phones and at times are very conscious of the alterity of the
device, for example, when intentionally putting it away while on vacation or
spending quality time with one’s partner (alterity). Smartphones are in the
background of other interactions as well: in using a guidebook, for example,
tourists know they can retrieve the information online from their phones at any
time but choose to use the book nonetheless (background).
Galit Wellner (2016), in her Postphenomenological inquiry of cell phones,
analyses the different mediating capabilities of cell phones by reconstructing a
genealogy of the cell phone through three historical variations: “talking heads”
(Motorola’s StarTAC 3000 – launched in January 1996), “texting-at-hand”
(Nokia’s 5110 from March 1998), “the kingdom of multimedia applications”
(Apple’s iPhone from January 2007). Mobile phones, in fact, are direct
descendants of the stationary telephone: in their inception phase they were
primarily a talking device, focused on voice and oral communication. In their
first variation (the first generation of mobile phones which could only make
phone calls while on the move), Wellner recognises new forms of embodiment,
for example through the vibration of the phone. At this stage, the phone is
already a quasi-other with which humans establish an alterity relation, it offers
companionship and changes what is considered appropriate public behaviour.
Moreover, already with the first variation of the mobile phone spatial
distinctions between places (home/office) start “melting down” (Wellner, 2016
p.29), and the same goes for notions of being alone or together. Lyons and Urry
(2005) observed that already with the first mobile phones, travel time stopped
being considered “wasted” time, since people could work and communicate on
the move.
In the second historical variation, “texting-at-hand”, textual communication
became the prominent feature. At this point, cell phones could also function as
a gaming console, calculator and clock, besides being telephones and “cellular
writing machines” (Wellner, 2016). Wellner also noted that at this stage the
cell phone already had a different hermeneutic, which thanks to the adoption
of emoticons went beyond alphanumeric discourse. A different embodiment
also emerged, in which the thumb assumed a central role in the interaction with
the phone – and therefore with others. Again, ideas of proper social behaviour

29
keep changing with the evolution and adoption of the technology. For example,
as Wellner (2016) observes, it becomes acceptable to inform someone at the
last minute via text that we are about to be late for a meeting and adjust the
time of the meeting accordingly. Moreover, in this variation, the cell phone
starts also being a non-communication device, since it allows one to make
notes for one’s self, to-do lists and memos, as well as play games (like the
game Snake on Nokia cell phones).
Finally, the latest evolution of the mobile phone resulted in another variation
“the kingdom of multimedia applications”: the phone can now not only let us
talk, write, play simple games and check the time (indeed, talking is not even
the main function of the phone anymore), it also offers a multitude of functions.
Through the touch screen and the absence of a physical keyboard, a different
embodied relation with the phone is established. The phone is a quasi-other
just as much as other people become mediated others, a combination of a
person and a phone (as well as the complex infrastructure that allows remote
communication). Another consequence of this multifunctionality of the phone
is the elimination of “everyday carry”, that is, things like watches, notebooks,
recorders, cameras, diaries, and so on, which one would usually carry before
the smartphone integrated all their function within an ”application paradigm”
(Wellner, 2016). This is particularly evident in the case of tourism, where
objects like guidebooks and photo cameras have – if not disappeared – changed
their meaning, value and uses, which is the theme explored in the first paper
(Mieli & Zillinger, 2020).
Wellner (2016) analyses how the inclusion of a built-in photo camera in the
cell phone results in a hermeneutic extension that increases the capabilities of
a person to understand and interpret the space around them, which becomes
augmented by layers of digital information. Moreover, the built-in GPS
functions blur the distinction that de Certeau (1984) made between maps and
city plans as theory, versus walking as practice: walking with GPS is a
mediated practice where the map (theory) is combined with the walking
(practice) (Wellner, 2016). These new hermeneutics and new embodiments
give place to new forms of mobility (Wellner, 2016).

30
2.3 Technological mediation in tourism research
Although postphenomenology is not commonly used as a framework for
tourism research, the postphenomenological and mediation literature offers
useful concepts that can help analyse the relationship between tourists and
technologies and how this shapes the tourist experience. With its relational
ontology, postphenomenology focuses the attention on how concrete
technologies mediate reality for humans, that is, how they help co-constitute
it. Indeed, theories of mediation do appear in tourism, although not always
explicitly (see, for example: Liu, Wang & Gretzel, 2022; Germann Molz &
Paris, 2015; Neuhofer et al., 2012; Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016; Wang et al.,
2012; Yu et al 2018; Zhang & Zhang, 2022). In tourism, in fact, like in any
other instance of life, two interrelated processes take place between humans
and technologies: on one hand, technologies are created by humans in order to
carry out tasks for them, namely they do what humans program them to do and
fulfil the roles that humans give them; on the other hand, technologies also
impose behaviours on people, as they affect people’s behaviours and humans
become dependent on them (Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016).
These ideas and the concept of technical mediation have permeated research
about tourist behaviour in relation to smartphones (Wang et al., 2012).
Tussyadiah and Wang (2016), in their study of tourists’ attitude towards
proactive smartphone systems, recognised within the mediated tourist
experience the paradox suggested by Verbeek (2005), where the amplification
and reduction of certain aspects of the experience co-exist. Due to the
technological mediation of the experience, they observe, tourists will have
“increased capacity to engage with the world in a particular way that is
accompanied by a reduced capacity to engage with it in other ways”
(Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016 p. 503). Liu et al. (2022 p. 4) explored the
smartphone mediation of vacation contexts, showing how smartphone use
“turned the physical world into a multi-dimensional phygital context”.
Multistability is a useful concept for the analysis of tourist objects. Other
tourist-specific objects like a travel guidebook, a suitcase or, to a certain extent,
a camera are also multistable: a guidebook, for example, can also be a device
to signal the tourist identity to other tourists, or a keepsake to display in one’s
bookshelf at home (Mieli & Zillinger, 2020). However, the multistability of
smartphones is even more interesting from a tourism perspective because these
devices are used regularly both in everyday life and in tourism (Wang et al.,
2016). Smartphones can fulfil the roles of many of those tourist-specific

31
objects, but in all its many uses, the object is the same; it is not tourist-specific.
When it is used to fulfil tourism-specific functions, it also contains the potential
to be used for non-tourist-specific activities, raising questions concerning how
it can mediate the way tourists “have access to their world by the roles that
such things play in human experience” (Verbeek, 2005 p.119).
The concept of mediation is at the core of the questions that I ask in each of
the papers in this thesis. In the first paper, Tourist information channels, it
functions as the backdrop of the investigation: smartphones are not only a
substitute of the guidebook because they offer on-site, updated information,
they also have a multitude of other functions that the tourist relies on. Tourists
bring smartphones on their trips for all kinds of functions: from photography
to keeping in touch with family and friends, entertainment, buying, storing and
retrieving tickets and other travel documents. Here, the relationship with the
smartphone is clearly a background relation in which the smartphone exists,
and the guidebook is valued against the backdrop of the smartphone’s
capabilities, yet in using guidebooks tourists do not engage directly with the
smartphone. The paper shows that tourists do attribute some value to the
limited uses you can make of a guidebook, especially in relation to the
smartphone: the book is a less expensive object; it can be kept after the trip as
a memento; it can signal unequivocally to other tourists that the holder of the
guidebook is a tourist herself; it can even signal what kind of tourist they are.
In this sense, guidebooks are also multistable.
The second paper, Experience Sampling Method, also shows how,
methodologically, different things are possible and new sites of inquiry
become accessible because of mobile technologies, leading researchers to ask
new questions about the experiences of tourists at the destination. As Ihde
(2009) shows, science is not chronologically, logically or ontologically prior
to technology: it is technoscience, that is to say, technology and science are
interrelated and depend upon each other. Here I argue that the smartphone
should not only be the object of research but also a tool for research, and I show
how it can be done in practice. The paper also hints at a theme later developed
in Paper IV, that is, what happens to the tourist experience when activities and
functions of everyday life can be carried over into the time-space dimensions
of the tourist experience thanks to mobile, internet-enabled technologies.
Ontologically, just like the distinction between different places “melts down”
(Wellner, 2016), it becomes superfluous to distinguish between everyday life
and tourism.
In Paper III, Planned serendipity, I explore mediation regarding tourists’
information search behaviour. Due to the pervasive use of smartphones, it is

32
not only the accessibility to information that has changed and the behaviour of
tourists vis-à-vis information. Rather, it is the whole meaning of the
experience. Being an independent traveller, for example, used to mean that one
was not relying on organised trips and making bookings and finding
information by themselves. Nowadays, many more people are able to do that,
and finding your own information and booking your own travel,
accommodation and activities has become the norm for many travellers,
especially in the age group of the study, that is, “millennials” or generation
“Y”. The juxtaposition between planning and serendipity in this digitalised
context does not suffice anymore to describe tourist information behaviour,
and the consequences of such behaviour on the experience can only be
understood if we can point our finger at the phenomenon.
In the fourth paper, Phygital time geography, my co-authors and I explore how
the experience itself can be described as a hybrid of physical and digital
through the term phygital, which is analysed in relation to space. Here the
experience is understood in two ways: both in the phenomenological sense, in
close connection to perception, and in the general sense used within tourist
studies as the temporal and spatial context within which the tourist travels.
Through smartphone mediation, several contexts blend into the vacation
context, creating hybrid spaces that can be defined phygitally.
Epistemologically, new ways of gaining knowledge about such a complex and
hybrid reality become possible and new questions arise. For example, the
questions “where is the tourist?” and “where can the tourist be” become
fundamental to defining what a tourist experience is when it is mediated by
various technologies.

33
34
3 Understanding tourists and the
tourist experience

In this chapter I will present an overview of some fundamental concepts that

are used in this thesis, which are often subject to debate and
misunderstandings. In particular, I will discuss the terms tourist and tourist
experience and how they are used in this thesis, including some reflections on
why I believe they are worthy of being studied. After defining the terms, I will
elaborate on the relationship between everyday life and the tourist experience,
which is further discussed in Paper II, and I will then turn attention to the on-
site stage of the experience, which is the focus of the empirical material
collected for the research.

3.1 Tourists
Twenty years ago, Dann (2002) wrote of the tourist as a metaphor for a
changing social world. The author surveyed several examples where the tourist
was used as a metaphor for the postmodern human, “connotative of a dilettante
life of fun in the sun and hedonism ad libitum” in the “unbridled pursuit of
individualism sans frontières” (p.6). At the same time, the author wondered if
the metaphor still worked in an ever-changing and technological world.
In his preface to the 2013 edition of The Tourist, MacCannell reflects on the
impact and ambitions of his work, referring to the tourist as “a cipher of a
changing world” (MacCannell, 2013 pp.xviii-xix). Originally, he chose to
study tourists to write “an ethnography of modernity” because tourists were
moving around and exploring the changing world “more thoroughly and more
avidly than social scientists” and in doing so they were changing the world
around them, or rather the “world was rapidly remaking itself in the tourists’
image of it” (MacCannell, 2013 p. xviii).

35
MacCannell (2013) writes of an isomorphism between the tourist and the
internet, which mutually mirror their fundamental features. He draws a parallel
between the tourist site and the web site, the visitor of a tourist attraction and
that of an internet site, the exploration of the world and the exploration of the
web. “Tourists were among the first non-specialists to make use of new digital
and internet-based technologies” and “while increasing the efficiency of
international tourism”, information technologies have not changed “the
underlying motivational structure of tourism or the sightseeing event […] the
‘tourist moment’” (MacCannell, 2013 pp.xxi-xxv).
The “liquid modernity” sociologist Zygmunt Bauman used tourism as a
metaphor for contemporary life in western societies (Franklin, 2003) and
termed it “tourist syndrome”. For Bauman, the tourist experience “grasps in a
purified form what in ordinary life is mixed and obscured” (Franklin, 2003
p.208). The tourist is the exemplification of the characteristics of the
contemporary (western) human: looseness of ties with the places where their
experience takes place, a presumption of temporariness, a “pure” relationship
with places, which they “consume” or “graze” only for pleasurable
consumption, only to move onto the next place once the satisfaction wanes. In
contemporary sociology, Gössling, Cohen and Hibbert (2018) have defined
tourism as a necessity to maintain sociality and construct, affirm or alter one’s
identity, a social necessity for shaping a liquid identity.
Finally, I agree with MacCannell (2013 p.xix) that “tourists have always been
a subjective blank slate. They are as smart and as stupid, as well- and ill-
informed, as gentle and brutal, generous and stingy, curious and closed-minded
as any random sample” but at the same time they also “occupy a privileged
place in the sociotheoretical landscape” as “they are the last remaining class
that exhibits consciousness for itself”. In this sense, tourism can be a useful
site of access to gain knowledge about society at large, through investigations
of this peculiar, metaphorical creature that is the tourist.

3.2 The tourist experience

If the tourist can be a metaphor for the contemporary human, and the tourist
experience is the context within which the tourist exists and behaves, then the
tourist experience is a somewhat controlled environment that encompasses
several stages and several situations that correspond to the everyday life of the
non-tourist human. McCabe (2002) argues that the tourist experience is not

36
only a metaphor for everyday life, but it exactly replicates and mirrors it.
However, it is an easier context to study due to its episodic nature and because
it is generally un- (or less) constrained by everyday norms, duties and social
roles, as well as the fact that it is clearly situated in a limited time and space.
Tourist experience is a popular term in tourism studies, which has been used
to indicate the different concepts and foci of tourism research (Pearce, 2019).
Volo (2009) highlights how the tourist experience is a complex phenomenon,
and research has not yet reached a definition or an agreed upon understanding
of what it is and what it entails. The author even wonders how tourists perceive
tourist experiences and whether they do indeed have a mental framework for
understanding them or if it is research that tries to impose one. Ultimately,
Volo (2009) agrees with Chhetri, Arrowsmith, and Jackson (2004) that there
is no one single theory that can explain tourism experiences, although many
authors have tried to come up with models and definitions. However, in
general, in tourism research the term experience is used broadly to capture the
lived psychological realities of travelling (Pearce, 2019).
One main sense in which the term entered the tourism academic jargon, within
the management/marketing field, is in reference to the so-called “experience
economy”, which refers to a new form of economy theorised in 1998 by Pine
and Gilmore (Pearce, 2019; Pine & Gilmore, 1998). In 1998, Pine and Gilmore
introduced the very successful concept of ‘experience economy’ in a paper that
claimed that firms do not deliver a service but engage their customers through
staged events; the actual offering in the marketplace is the experience itself
(Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Volo, 2009). These authors believe that an experience
is created when a company uses services and goods as stage and props to create
a memorable event for customers, where they can engage (Pine & Gilmore,
1998). Following this, a managerial approach to the tourist experience
developed in tourist studies, which focuses on companies and service
providers, putting the emphasis on how they can create experiences for their
customers and engage them. Since the 1990, in fact, tourism studies have been
moving from the classical approach of services towards an experience design
approach (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014).
Quan and Wang (2004) make a distinction between the different ways in which
the tourist experience is understood in the social sciences, on one hand, and
marketing/management on the other. In their review, Quan and Wang (2004)
find that while management studies usually equate the tourist experience with
“consumer experience”, the social sciences study it in terms of “peak
experience”. Moreover, some sub-approaches within the social sciences can
also be identified: 1) the tourist experience can be studied phenomenologically

37
as the subjective experience of the tourist from a common-sense perspective;
2) it can be seen as a pilgrimage, an escape which assumes “sacred”, or spiritual
connotations; 3) it can be a subjective psychological process to study
quantitatively and therefore objectively; and 4) it can be an object of critical
studies (Quan & Wang, 2004). The approach I adopt in the present thesis is
inspired by phenomenology or, more precisely, postphenomenology, and it
therefore falls within Quan and Wang’s (2004) first category.
From a sociological perspective, the tourist experience has been studied by
several authors, from Boorstin’s (1964, ed. 1992) view of such experience as
frivolous and superficial, to MacCannell’s (1973) idea of tourism experiences
as a pure quest for authenticity and Cohen’s (1979) phenomenological view of
different tourist experience modes for different people. Boorstin (1992) was
the first sociologist to put the spotlight on the tourist experience per se as a
sociological phenomenon, using it as an example of the contemporary
(American) human. Although his analysis is more generally about American
culture, he points out how the “art of travel” has been lost, and the modern
tourist does not experience “reality” but merely an artificial, staged spectacle
(Boorstin, 1992; Cohen, 1998). Boorstin’s critique of the modern tourist is
based on his observation that they are satisfied with “pseudo-events” and their
experiences lack authenticity. McCannell (1973), on the other hand, adopted
an opposite but equally totalising view of the tourist experience as a
meaningful modern ritual, which is primarily aimed at reaching authenticity
(Uriely, 1997).
Cohen (1979), however, claimed that it was reductive to define the tourist
experience as either a superficial and frivolous pursuit of meaningless
experience (Boorstin, 1992) or a deep search for authenticity and meaning
(MacCannell, 1973). According to the author, such definitions could not grasp
the nature of tourism and the reasons why people travelled (Cohen, 1979).
Borrowing from religious studies, Cohen (1979) used the concept of ‘centres’
as loci – not necessarily geographical – that hold the ultimate meaning for the
individual. Cohen (1979) criticised the structuralist view of the tourist
experience, which saw it as a recreational activity that allows individuals to
appease the tensions that arise from the attempt to conform to society and its
centres. Instead, he claimed that the modern individual can have several
different attitudes towards these centres: from not looking for a centre at all, to
seeking to experience authenticity vicariously through others or making the
quest for the centre the purpose of their life, even believing that the centre lies
in a different place or culture (Cohen, 1979). The author claimed that,
depending on an individual’s attitude to the centre, the tourist experience can

38
have a different role and meaning: it could be a diversion, a form of recreation,
a way to seek experiences or to experiment, and it can also be existential
(Cohen, 1979).
The concept later developed towards a more postmodern approach where new
theories have introduced complementary concepts to expand earlier modernist
views, rather than to exclude them (Uriely, 2005). Uriely (2005) highlights the
role of subjectivity in current understandings of the tourist experience: while
earlier conceptualisations focused on the object provided by the tourism
industry, more recent literature has shifted the attention to the subject and their
negotiation of meaning as a determinant of the tourist experience. However,
the subjective approach of postmodernist theorists can be incomplete in the
sense that it tends to ignore external opportunities and constraints, while future
research should try to focus more on the interaction between the subject and
the object that constitute the tourism experience (Uriely, 2005). In fact, I argue
that in order to understand the role of technologies in the tourist experience, it
is necessary to overcome the subject-object dualism and focus on the
relationship between the objects and the tourist, and how the tourists’
experience of reality is mediated by the technologies they have access to
throughout the trip.
In this thesis, the term experience is used not only as an outcome but also as a
process, as the process of experiencing is itself the precursor to experiences
(Gnoth and Matteucci, 2014). Gnoth and Matteucci (2014 p.4) define tourists’
experiencing as ‘‘the conflux of what is sensually perceived, how it is
processed, and how it is retained in the resulting experience’’. I would like to
focus on tourist experience in a (post)phenomenological sense, that is, how
tourists experience the world when they travel, especially when the world is
full of technologies. In a postphenomenological sense, in fact, experience is
where the relationship between humans, technologies and the world can be
located and therefore studied (Ihde, 1990.; Verbeek, 2001). In this thesis I
focus on different experiences and different aspects of the tourist experience:
a value experience, a behaviour within the experience and its consequences for
the experience itself, the technologically mediated experience (as perception)
of space and place, and the methodological challenges and opportunities of
studying on-site experiences.

39
3.3 Challenging the escape paradigm: the
relationship between everyday life and tourism
Throughout the thesis, and in particular in the second paper, Experience
Sampling Method, I explore the boundaries between everyday life and the
tourist experience, questioning the distinction between the two and reflecting
on the epistemological and methodological implications of such a distinction.
Uriely (2005) identifies de-differentiating the experience as one of the trends
in the more recent development of the concept: earlier authors emphasised the
difference between tourism and everyday life, making this difference the
essence of tourism. Although the tourist experience is often seen within an
“escape paradigm” (Germann Molz, 2012), several authors have shown how
such experience is intertwined with everyday life (Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020;
Larsen, 2008, 2019).
In Urry’s seminal text The tourist gaze (1990), the author wrote that tourism is
the result of a fundamental “binary division between the ordinary/everyday and
the extraordinary” (Urry, 1990 p.11). His very concept of a tourist gaze is
based on the idea that such a gaze has a different object from the ordinary and
everyday life. However, such a notion has been challenged by postmodern
authors, some of whom went as far as to say that people are always tourists
and tourism is a metaphor for contemporary life in western societies (see
Bauman’s interview in Franklin, 2003). Larsen (2008; 2019) calls for a de-
exoticisation of the tourist experience, arguing that all aspects of social life,
including the tourist experience, are infused with elements of everyday life. In
fact, the author argues that tourism practices are “fuelled” by everyday
practices and that, in turn, tourism has a real impact on the everyday life of the
host communities (Larsen, 2019). While mainstream tourism research tends to
neglect the everyday life quality of the tourist experience, research in practice
theory and everyday studies generally neglect to study the tourist experience
(Larsen, 2019).
Quan and Wang (2004) claim that although the tourist experience is often
studied as a “purified” experience, in stark contrast with everyday life, it is
misleading to exclude the everyday from the tourist experience, a point also
put forward by McCabe (2002). In fact, the tourist experience, according to the
authors, consists of both a peak experience – that is, the extraordinary activities
and events for which people travel – and a supporting experience – that is, all
the daily activities that tourists perform during travel like sleeping, eating,
playing (Quan & Wang, 2004). While the peak experience is indeed usually in

40
stark contrast with everyday life, the tourist’s overall evaluation relies on both
types of experience, which reinforce each other (Quan & Wang, 2004). The
tourist experience is made up of “tourist moments”, and these moments can be
both extraordinary and ordinary (Edensor, 2001; Cary, 2004; Larsen, 2008). In
the thesis, I refer to the peak experience as the extraordinary (serendipitous)
moments and the supporting experience as the ordinary moments. However, it
is important to reiterate that these different moments are not temporally or
logically distinguishable; they happen contextually.
I argue that technologies play a significant role in this de-differentiation of
everyday life and tourism, in particular mobile technologies such as
smartphones, which can be “carried over” from everyday life into the tourist
experience, allowing tourists to carry out many everyday activities while
travelling (Lamsfus et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). As Larsen (2019 p…)
points out, on one hand “tourism is no longer a bounded activity” and on the
other “the everyday can be mobilised and performed on the move”. In Paper
IV, my co-authors and I explore how everyday life is performed on the move
through the use of smartphones and how the tourist experience becomes
differently bounded or constrained according to Torsten Hägerstrand’s (1970)
theory of time geography.

41
42
4 The phygital tourist experience

In this thesis, I adopt the term “phygital” to indicate how ICT mediate the
experience: not just physical and/or digital, but something qualitatively new, a
phygital experience. The term “phygital” is a portmanteau of the words
physical and digital, indicating the condition in which an experience is not only
physical nor only digital, but a hybrid of both (Mieli, 2022a).
Research tends to distinguish physical and digital experiences as two separate
things that can be studied independently of each other: Belghiti, Ochs,
Lemoine and Badot (2017) suggest a paradigm shift from the prevailing
dichotomous logic to a ubiquitous one, where experiences are neither physical
nor digital, but are both physical and digital at the same time, that is, phygital.
In a phygital experience, space or object, physical and digital do not replace
each other, nor do they only complement each other: physical and digital
reinforce each other and become deeply and seamlessly intertwined (Andrade
& Dias, 2020; Lo Turco & Giovannini, 2020; Nofal, Reffat & Vande Moere,
2017; Zurlo, Arquilla, Carella & Tamburello, 2018). Thus, they assume new
meanings and values (Lo Turco & Giovannini, 2020). The emergence of
phygital realities is linked to the pervasiveness of ubiquitous technologies and
internet connectivity, which Belghiti et al. (2017) have also termed
“ATAWADAC”: anytime, anywhere, any device, any content. Smartphones
and other mobile devices, wireless connectivity, wearable devices such as
smart watches, haptic technologies, Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR and
VR) are important factors in the phygital experience (Mieli, 2022a).
The first appearance of the term phygital in an academic publication was in a
2007 paper on phygital maps: the paper presented a software application that
could integrate physical maps with digital information through a smartphone
application (Nakazawa & Tokuda, 2007). The authors did not define the term
phygital beyond stating that it came from the words physical and digital
(Nakazawa & Tokuda, 2007). Until 2017 the term appeared sporadically in
academic texts in different fields, from urban planning, to gaming, marketing
and retail, until around 2017 when the term became rather established in the
academic jargon, especially in marketing and retail research and in connection

43
with omnichannel marketing (Belghiti et al., 2017; Lo Turco & Giovannini,
2020; Vel, Brobbey, Salih & Jaheer, 2015). A study by Neuburger, Beck and
Egger (2018) used the term phygital in the tourism context to explore AR and
VR in the tourist experience. Ballina, Valdes and Del Valle (2019) also focused
on the field of tourism, studying the phygital experience in smart tourism
destinations. Both papers use phygital as an adjective to referr to the tourist
experience; however, Gretzel et al. 2019 refer instead to tourists’ information
environments in the age of digitalisation. In most cases, the term is used as an
adjective, most often associated with an experience. Nevertheless, Klaus
(2021) suggests the noun “phygitality” as it describes the concept more
precisely.
Klaus (2021), however, proposes a critique of the term, questioning whether it
is just the “emperor’s new clothes”. The author reiterates that physical and
digital elements of customer experience cannot be separated and studied
individually but wonders whether the term phygital is itself useful. The critique
is based on the argument that customer experience must be seen as a holistic
construct, but it is exactly because phygital is a holistic and, according to the
author, too vague concept that it is of little use and guidance to management
practitioners. Klaus (2021) argues that the term adds too little to the
understanding of customer experience to be a useful theory, thus remaining an
idle speculation (Klaus, 2021). However, although it may not be useful for
marketing practitioners, the term might still help to address a different type of
question, an ontological one, relevant to understanding the world we live in, to
give academics and society a better suited vocabulary to discuss reality.
In marketing and management discourse, the concept of “smart” tourism is
particularly close to the concept of “phygital”. However, Gretzel, Sigala,
Xiang and Koo (2015) observe how smart tourism research focuses on the
integration of digital technologies in infrastructure and often translates into
trivial projects such as promoting free wi-fi or the development of mobile
applications. The authors note that the concept lacks definitional clarity,
“suddenly everything is smart” and the concept becomes “fuzzy”, often being
used to drive specific political agendas and to sell technological solutions
(Gretzel et al., 2015 p.180). Moreover, the term “smart” holds a certain
normative connotation, implying that smart is better and often offering a
utopian view of happy collaboration among various actors in a self-regulating
ecosystem (Gretzel et al., 2015). Unlike “smart tourism”, the term phygital
refers to the ontological aspect of the experience, pointing to how there is no
neat distinction between the physical and digital dimensions of the experience.
Although it has been used in marketing and management literature, particularly

44
in reference to omni-channel marketing, the term is not necessarily normative,
and therefore it opens up the discussion for critical thinking. It is not implied
that phygital is better or worse than physical, and the focus is on how it is
qualitatively different.
According to Gaggioli (2017), phygital refers to a concept of space: “a new
concept of space that originates from the increasing convergence of the
physical dimension and the virtual dimension” (p. 774). The digital
transformation that is happening in all contexts of life leads to a blurring of the
distinction between physical and digital and to defining our living space as a
“digitally enriched” environment (Gaggioli, 2017). Other authors have used it
in reference to phenomena, objects, places, environments and experiences. In
a humanistic sense, the term can also refer to “a generation of people for whom
the real world and the digital world overlap” (Lo Turco & Giovannini, 2020
p.3). In this thesis, I refer mainly to and expand on Gaggioli’s (2017) spatial
definition. I propose to adopt the term phygital as a way to focus on both the
physical and digital and challenge the distinction between the physical and
digital dimensions of the tourist experience. Challenging such distinction also
means challenging the distinction between the mundane lifeworld that tourists
leave behind when they travel and the liminal lifeworld to which they travel.
As Lamsfus et al. (2015) observed, mobile technologies enable tourists to
travel both on and with the internet. Here Wellner’s (2011, 2016) concept of
the wall-window is helpful to understand what happens to the tourist
experience when tourists travel with and on the internet through their
smartphones. In Wellner’s (2011, 2016) analysis, the phone, as a window,
opens a view into some other space, but it also creates a wall between the user
and their physical surroundings. The space accessed by the tourist through the
window is the mundane world of everyday life, while the surrounding from
which the phone use raises a wall is the destination of their travel and what
happens there. Tourism scholars have acknowledged that mobile technologies
cause time, space, physical and virtual worlds to be reconfigured (Lalicic &
Wesmaier, 2016). In this thesis, I explore how such reconfigurations happen
for the tourist and what that means for their behaviour and their experience.

45
4.1 The role of smartphones in the on-site stage
of the experience
The tourist experience is not only situated in space but also in time (Hall, 2012;
Zillinger, 2007). Traditionally, the timeline of the tourist experience is divided
into distinct phases, generally between three and five: pre-trip, travel to site,
on-site, return trip, post-trip (Leiper, 1990; Prebensen, Chen & Uysal, 2018;
Zillinger, 2007). Each phase has typically been associated with certain
activities (e.g., information search, sightseeing, reminiscence, etc.). The pre-
trip stage typically involved anticipation, information search and planning; the
on-site stage is the experiential stage, and the post-trip stage was mainly about
reflection and sharing (Wang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014). However, thanks
to mobile technologies, many of these activities can be conducted on-site:
tourists can search for information, book services, share instant memories, stay
in touch with family and friends, work and manage their everyday life through
their smartphone while they are at the destination. The activities of the three-
stage understanding of travel have now converged into the on-site stage
(Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016)
Smartphones allow tourists to continue everyday-life activities when on their
trip and micro-coordinate with travel partners and other people (Lamsfus et al.
2015; Wang et al., 2016). In this sense, the use of smartphones can transform
tourists’ interactions with places, activities, other tourists and locals. Authors
have commented on how this digital elasticity can displace the concept of
liminality, mitigating the effects of travelling to a new place like cultural shock
(Pearce, 2011), and “removing some of the magic and sense of escape created
by travel” (Beckendorff et al., 2019). Kirillova and Wang (2016) also found
that using the smartphone, often for activities related to work, reduced the
sense of recovery that is often sought in leisure travel. Wang et al. (2016) wrote
of a “spill over effect” by which tourists carry out everyday functions and
activities while on vacation through their smartphones.
During the tourist experience, the smartphone can have different functions:
from socialising, which includes messaging, telephony, and social media; to
informing, which includes information about attractions and destinations,
timetables and schedules, currency conversion, QR codes and virtual guides
(Benckendorff et al., 2019; Dickinson et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Overall,
the smartphone is a very useful tool for information search, problem solving,
communication, and entertainment (Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016). Finally, the
smartphone enables a number of activities that are not specifically travel-

46
related such as many forms of entertainment, work, and everyday chores
(Wang et al., 2014; Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020).
The smartphone also offers context awareness to tourists: it gives access to
real-time and location-based information, updates, tracking and tagging
(Benckendorff et al., 2019; Dickinson et al, 2014; Yu et al., 2018.). Through
recommendation systems, trip planning, scheduling, and facilitating personal
interactions, this device also allows for a personalisation of the experience;
while other services such as text or voice translations further facilitate it
(Benckendorff et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2014). Benckendorff et al. (2019) also
mention how the smartphone can augment the experience by overlaying the
real world with digital content and facilitate reflection by capturing travel
experiences for future enjoyment.
Through constant communication via mobile telephony and the internet, social
networks have become stretched across space, and they do not necessarily rely
on physical proximity to exist. Instead, they increasingly rely on mediated
communications, transport and access to physical and virtual mobilities
(Germann Molz, 2012). Social media, which are some of the main functions
enabled by the smartphone, allow tourists to stay connected despite the
distance and allow for “co-presence”, a form of mediated presence that enables
the tourist to be physically in one place and virtually in another (Gössling,
2017).
Because they can assist the tourist throughout the anticipatory, experiential,
and reflection stages of the tourist experience, several authors have suggested
that the use of mobile devices has “muddled” or “blurred” the boundaries
between the different stages (Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2016;
Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020) or “unlocked” the traditional three-stage view of
the tourist experience (Wozniak et al., 2017). I prefer the latter definition, since
I believe that the stages still logically exist. However, I agree that activities
typical of the pre-trip and post- trip stage are performed during the trip (for
example, information search and sharing photos) (Wozniak et al., 2017).
Therefore, saying that the boundaries between the stages are indistinguishable
is not entirely accurate, while it makes more sense to say that the stages have
been “unlocked” in the sense that activities can be carried out at different stages
and in particular many activities have converged to the on-site stage.
According to Kang et al. (2020), smartphone use during travel means that
information behaviour should be understood beyond the three phases of pre-,
during and post- trip. The authors claim that, since tourists have the possibility
to use the internet when they are already at their destination, traditional

47
information search behaviour literature may not apply to the on-site trip stage
(Kang et al., 2020). In fact, research has traditionally assumed that travellers
decide an itinerary prior to their trip and follow it more or less to the letter,
failing to recognise the dynamic nature of the travel experience, “whereby the
trip actually evolves throughout its course from planning, actual travel and
remembrance” (Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011). Thanks to mobile technologies,
the information search phase has been extended and therefore decision-making
can best be defined as a flexible, temporal and successive process (Kah & Lee,
2014).
Besides information behaviour, other activities belonging to other stages of the
trip as well as to everyday life can be conducted on site. Wang et al. (2016)
write of a “spillover effect” of functions and activities related to smartphones
from everyday life into travel. Activities that traditionally belonged to the post-
trip phase have now shifted to the on-site stage of the trip. The most obvious
example is sharing photos, videos, text and other media with people that are
not in the travel party, in particular through social media and multimedia
messaging services such as Whatsapp, Messenger, Telegram, and more. Zhang
and Zhang (2022), in their study of the relationship between “escape” and
“return” in travel, view everyday life and travel as “interlaced” due to the use
of smartphone technology. Instead of defining the tourist experience according
to the dichotomy connected/disconnected, plugged/unplugged, they explore
the concept of “selective unplugging” as a more complex view of tourists’
relationship with their smartphone during the trip (Zhang & Zhang, 2022).
Such changes are particularly enabled by mobile and internet-enabled
technology, as “from booking and ‘reading up’, to writing down and
reminiscing, most stages of a traveller’s trip today are framed by the digital
environment” (Arthur & van Nuenen, 2019 p. 504). The information
environment of the modern tourist is deeply changing due to the continuous
evolution of digital technologies, and thanks to mobile technologies, tourists
can carry with them their own digital information environment in whatever
physical situation they may be. In this sense, the on-site stage of the trip
becomes a phygital experience, where physical and digital worlds are entirely
enmeshed.
The papers in this thesis focus particularly on the on-site stage of the trip. The
mobile nature of information technologies such as the smartphone and the
guidebook are interesting in how they move together with the tourist and
accompany the tourist along the whole trip. The on-site phase, however, is
traditionally harder to explore than pre- and post-trip simply because of the
accessibility to researchers of people who travel, while they travel. However,

48
the pervasiveness and ubiquity of smartphone use have made this stage ever so
important to study and understand, and the tourist experience takes place
largely on-site.
The issue that this thesis attempts to overcome, however, is not with the phases
themselves but with a linear conceptualisation of the three or five phases
(Gretzel et al., 2019). Such linearity results in an under-exploration of the on-
site stage, which instead becomes increasingly important and varied, with
activities that are ever more diversified. In Paper II, Experience Sampling
Method, I reflect on the importance of developing methodologies that allow
one to study the on-site stage of the experience and show how smartphones can
be a useful tool for doing so.

4.2 Phygital information environment

MacCannell (2013) theorised that for a tourist attraction to be such, there needs
to be a marker, that is, a piece of information pointing to it and indicating that
it is a tourist attraction indeed. For MacCannell (2013 p.41), a tourist attraction
is “an empirical relationship between a tourist, a sight and a marker”. Without
a marker (may it be a guidebook, a brochure, a sign in the street or a post on
social media) and without a tourist to look at it, a place would not be a tourist
attraction. Along the same line of thought, it could also be argued that without
a sight or a marker, a person would not be a tourist.
Nowadays, reality is dominated by an abundance of information and the
omnipresence of mobile internet-enabled devices that are constantly flooding
users with markers of every kind: from the social media post about a beautiful
destination, to an advertisement about a certain hotel, software applications
that can make a better traveller, and photos and videos of close and far
acquaintances enjoying exciting experiences. What a place is for the tourist,
therefore, is mediated by what information they can access about it and what
they know about it. Location based services (LBS) relying on a Global
positioning system (GPS) locate users in physical space and provide
information about it. Thus, layers of spatialised information are added onto
physical space, which allow people to create their own personalised maps
(Frith, 2012). Information that is personalised real-time augments the physical
environment, and the maps that represent the physical space become
individualised and personal (Besmer, 2014; Frith, 2012).

49
While the experience of space is personalised and differentiated from anyone
else’s, Frith (2012 p.140) notes that “information not in the database need not
exist”: that is, a place that is not on an online map is not a place that tourists
will know about and therefore visit. By providing information about the place,
MacCannell’s traditional semiological system of tourist-sight-market is
mediated. The information retrieved through the smartphone acts as a marker,
and what is not visible on the map or accessible through search engines and
social media is not a tourist attraction for the tourist. The layers of information
provided by the map are overlaid on the physical reality, thus creating a hybrid
reality where markers, too, are phygital.

4.3 Where is the tourist?

What makes the term phygital useful is that it does not only refer to what is
digital, as the “physical” part of the concept is still fundamental. Dickinson et
al. (2014) note that, given the ability of smartphones to connect people
constantly and the capacity to transport them to different social settings, it has
become harder to distinguish which place people are in, between digital and
physical places. While digital devices and platforms can penetrate the tourists’
perception of space, they will still physically be somewhere, that is, the
destination. This begs the question: where is the tourist when she or he travels
with the smartphone?
A tourist can be at the destination and at work at the same time; they can be
interacting with locals during their travels and with their family back home or
with their friends on the other side of the world through videos, photos and
captions posted on social media. Smartphones connect tourists with both
physical and digital, virtual and informational contexts at the same time
(Lemos, 2014). The argument I put forward in this thesis, however, is that such
contexts should not be considered separately: through the smartphone, tourists
are in several contexts simultaneously. When tourists are constantly using their
smartphone, with ubiquitous access to information, communication, and
various forms of media, how can a line be drawn between the physical and the
digital experience of the tourist? Where does the physical end and the digital
begin? Smartphones relate people to both at the same time; physical and digital
are not separated but a third, mediated environment exists that incorporates
both, a phygital place.

50
In tourism and mobility research, the phenomenon of engaging with different
contexts simultaneously through the mobile phone has been defined in various
ways: distracted gaze, doubling, digital elasticity, e-lienation, and co-presence
(Ayeh, 2018; De Souza e Silva, 2006; Pearce, 2011; Tribe & Mkono, 2017;
Urry, 2002). The notion of “doubling” has been used to explain what happens
when tourists’ attention is split between their digital context and their physical
one, and therefore in some way tourists are present simultaneously in two
places (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Lamsfus et al., 2015; Lalicic & Weismayer,
2016). Concepts like enfolded space and doubling, however, still allude to
some separation of the two aspects of the experience: enfolding implies
overlapping, while doubling implies that the experience is somehow split,
multiplied. De Souza e Silva (2006) argues that a better term is “hybrid”
because the borders between the two types of space cannot be clearly defined.
Frith (2012) also stresses that the digital has not replaced the physical but has
become part of it. Phygital, then, can usefully represent this hybridity and
complementarity. Hybrid is a general term that can indicate a mix of any two
things, while phygital is specific to digital and physical.
Moreover, previous conceptualisations focus entirely on perception, attention
and the mind. They lack focus on the embodied, spatial experience of the
tourist. They do not ask the question of “where is the tourist” and, even more
importantly, “where can the tourist be”. Although it is outside the scope of this
thesis to define what tourism is, most definitions would at least agree about the
importance of space and movement in tourism, implying that tourism is about
being somewhere else and involves a displacement. If being a tourist is about
being somewhere else, the question of where becomes relevant when mobile
technologies challenge the notion of being in space. The question is an
ontological one: by asking “where is the tourist?” I want to situate the tourist’s
experience of the world in space, and ultimately investigate the ontological
nature of this experience. With this question, I invite geographical thought into
the discussion, and lend my ear to theories of geography, space and time to
understand the issue at hand. By asking about where the tourist can be,
moreover, I focus the attention on one aspect of space and movement within
space, that is, the constraints that determine and limit how a person can move
in space (Hägerstrand, 1970).
In Hägerstrand’s (1970) time geography, people’s movement in space is
limited by three types of constraints: capability, coupling and authority
constraints. Capability constraints consist of those physical limitations given
by biology or the ability to use tools (e.g., sleeping, eating, transport
technology); coupling constraints define “when, where and for how long the

51
individual has to join other individuals, tools and materials” (Hägerstrand,
1970 p.14); and authority constraints are those constraints given by some
private or public authority that can limit or regulate access to a location
(Shoval, 2012). Shoval (2012), Hall (2005), Zillinger (2007), among few
others, have adapted and applied time geography to the tourism context.
Tourists’ stay at the destination, and the length of visit is, in fact, determined
by several capability constraints, including food, sleep, transport type (Shoval,
2012). Shoval (2012) notes that the geographic range of tourists’ activities will
be very different depending on whether they are independent travellers or
travel in a group, as such configuration determining coupling constraints for
tourists’ spatial activity. Authority constraints are also present for tourists in
terms of, for example, opening hours of attractions, as well as visas and other
national and international limitations to mobility (Shoval, 2012). Through the
phygital concept in paper IV, Phygital time geography, my co-authors and I
seek to adapt the theory further, not only to tourists’ spatial behaviour but to
the smartphoned tourists’ spatial behaviour. In fact, new and different
constraints exist when people use technology on the move (Thulin &
Vilhelmson, 2018).
The focus on the spatial dimension of the tourist experience is based on two
main reasons. First, tourism is essentially a spatial phenomenon; it is about
people travelling and therefore moving in space (Dickinson et al., 2014).
Second, the smartphone is a mobile technology; its peculiarity is its portability
in space, and this therefore begs the question of “where” one is when being on
the phone. Philosopher Maurizio Ferraris (2005), in his ontological exploration
of the cell phone, claims that “where are you?” in relation to the mobile phone
is a philosophical grundfrage. He explains that the question “where are you?”
captures the essence of the transformation caused by the mobile phone, which
is not just a telephone without wires and cables. The mobile phone can be many
things: it can be a writing machine, a communication device, be used to make
payments, take photographs, and so on. This multistability of the smartphone
makes it “philosophically interesting” (Ferraris, 2005). Given the shared
mobility of the tourist and smartphone, the question of where the tourist is
when they are on their smartphones becomes even more philosophically
interesting.
Applying the concept to space helps answer a call for a paradigm shift coming
from several directions. Like Belghiti et al. (2017) in marketing, several
authors in the field of geography have noted how the dichotomous paradigm
of physical as separated from digital is anachronistic in the age of mobile
technologies (Crang, 2009). Telecommunications, smart devices and mobile

52
telephones have made physical mobility unnecessary for spatial interaction
(Adey, 2017; Crang, 2009; Hanson, 2009). What is more, virtual technologies
are blurring the boundaries between the real and the virtual geographical
worlds, thus requiring new critical approaches to geography that do not rely on
a priori distinctions between real and virtual (Graham, 2009). On the other
hand, Adey (2017) suggests that, rather than a substitution of physical
displacement by virtual mobilities, the case is that “complementarity” should
be the key word: virtual and telecommunication technologies not only augment
physical journeys, they can also create new ones. In this thesis, and in
particular in Paper IV, I add on to this argument by showing how these
technologies can not only augment and create physical journeys, they also
constrain them.

53
54
5 Information behaviour
during the trip

Searching, finding and using information is arguably one of the crucial aspects
of a tourist experience as tourism is an information-intensive industry
(Benckendorff et al., 2019). Whether it is a bus timetable, the historical
description of a royal palace, the opening hours of a theme park or the location
of a stylish café, a piece of information can have a very important role in the
creation of a tourist experience. Tourist information search behaviour literature
places a particular emphasis on typologies of information sources, information
needs, strategies and hierarchies, with most of the seminal texts dating to the
pre-smartphone era (see in particular Fodness & Murray, 1997; 1998; 1999;
Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002). However, Zarezadeh,
Benckendorff and Gretzel (2019) noted that there is a tendency to cite this
literature without engaging critically with it and suggest that tourist
information search models need to be reviewed more holistically and critically.
While traditional research focuses on predicting tourists’ information search
behaviour through the core concepts of information sources, needs, strategies
and hierarchies; more recent research suggests the importance of unplanned
behaviour, spontaneity and the general “information will find me” attitude of
the younger generations (Schultz et al., 2019). In fact, information is not
always searched, it is also encountered and received, for example through push
recommendation systems (Kah & Lee, 2014; Tussyadiah, 2016; Wilson,
2000). For these reasons, in the present thesis I refrain from referring to the
theoretical framework as “tourist information search behaviour”, as is usually
done, and simply call it “tourist information behaviour”: the active search
component is not always present (Kah & Lee, 2014; Wilson, 2000).
“Information behaviour” includes both active and passive information seeking
and information use (Wilson, 2000), and is therefore the preferred term in this
thesis.
Tourism scholarship has, of course, also considered unplanned behaviour and
on-site information search; however, spontaneity has usually been considered

55
separately from, and as an alternative to, planning (Hwang & Fesenmaier,
2011; Hyde, 2004; Huang, Norman, Hallo, McGehee, McGee & Goetcheus,
2014). More recent trends in literature focus on the holistic view of tourist
behaviour and the tourist experience, where opposites and dichotomies are
overcome to consider things together in light of technological mediation
through smartphones (Liu et al., 2022; Tussyadiah & Wang, 2016; Wang et al.,
2012; Yu et al., 2018; Kang et al., 2020). In the following review of the
literature, I will attempt a more critical analysis of existing theories of
information behaviour with a focus on the junctions between information
search and planned, unplanned, spontaneous and serendipitous behaviour, with
particular focus on the consequences of smartphone use for tourist information
behaviour.

5.1 A critical review of information search

behaviour theories
The advent and increasing popularity of smartphones in the past fifteen years
has challenged many of the core assumptions of previous tourism information
literature. Sources, needs, strategies and hierarchies have all changed due to
the smartphone’s mobility and internet connectivity. Tourists use different
sources and channels of information, both internal or external: internal
information relies on memory and previous knowledge, while external
information is gathered through various information channels (Fodness &
Murray, 1999; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Moutihno, 1987). External channels
include static and dynamic information, depending on how likely the
information is to change in the short-term (Benckendorff et al., 2019). For
example, maps, product descriptions and transportation routes are not likely to
change in the short term, while product availability, schedules and weather
conditions can change quite often. Static information does not require
electronic channels of information to be kept up-to-date and communicated to
tourists, while dynamic information does (Table X) (Benckendorff et al.,
2019).
Different channels used to be associated with different phases of the trip.
However, as discussed above, the overlap between activities carried out in the
different stages of the trip extends to the channels of information that can be
used in each stage because of internet access through mobile technologies.
Therefore, channels such as websites, word-of-mouth, social media, internet

56
booking engines, photo and video sharing platforms and review-based sites can
all be used during the trip. Although travel-related information is one of the
most popular content areas on the internet, according to Tan and Chen (2012),
online resources have not substituted offline ones: instead, travellers use both
and are therefore ‘hybrid’ users (Beritelli, Bieger & Laesser, 2007; Tan &
Chen, 2012; Zillinger, 2020).
Many existing distinctions between sources do not contribute to a better
understanding of tourist behaviour because the smartphone has either replaced
or incorporated them. Apps and websites have easily incorporated guidebooks
and brochures and replaced physical tourist information centres (Kim, Xiang
& Fesenmaier, 2015; Lyu & Hwang, 2015; Zillinger, 2020). Social media and
instant messaging services have transformed word of mouth (WOM) into
electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Iaquinto, 2012; Pourfakhimi, Duncan &
Coetzee, 2020; Xiang & Gretzel, 2010); and travel agencies have been replaced
by online travel agencies (OTAs) (Benckendorff et al., 2019; Talwar, Dhir,
Kaur & Mäntymäki, 2020).

Table. 1 Types of tourism information channels, from Benckendorff et al. (2019 p.9)

Trip stage Static Dynamic

Pre-trip Brochures, guidebooks, fax, photos, Phone, email, websites, social media,
videos, websites internet booking engines, Global
distribution Systems

On-site Brochures, guidebooks, signs, maps, Phone, fax, email, websites, social media,
kiosks, TV channels in hotels, mobile apps mobile apps

Post-trip Brochures, guidebooks, photos, videos Blogs, social media, photo and video
sharing, reviews

A large part of the literature in the field of travel information search behaviour
has focused on information needs, and particularly functional ones, as the main
drivers of information search behaviour (Choi, Lehto, Morrison & Jang, 2012;
Chung & Buhalis, 2008; Gretzel, Fesenmaier & O’Leary, 2006; Gursoy &
McCleary, 2004; Hyde, 2009; Kah & Lee, 2016; Kang, Kim & Park, 2021;
Vogt and Fesenmaier, 1998; Vogt, Fesenmaier & MacKay, 2008; Wang et al.,
2012; Wong and Liu, 2011; Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020). In Vogt and
Fesenmaier’s (1998) expanded model, travel information is mainly collected
and used for functional reasons; however, other needs exist. Vogt and
Fesenmaier (1998) identify five types: functional needs (product knowledge,
reducing uncertainty, maximising utility or value and efficiency), hedonic
needs (phenomenology, experiential, sensory and emotional), innovation

57
needs (novelty seeking, variety seeking, creativity), aesthetic needs (imagery
and fantasising), and sign needs (symbolic expression and social interaction).
More recent research shows that information needs are also changing (Choe et
al., 2017; Vogt et al., 2008; Lamsfus et al., 2015). In revising Vogt and
Fesemaier’s 1998 expanded model of information search, Choe et al., (2017)
found that hedonic, innovation, experiential and sign needs are becoming
increasingly important. Korneliussen (2014) advanced the idea that
information search has experience value itself, particularly as a do-it-yourself
(DIY) activity. Xiang and Fesenmaier (2020) also supported the view that
information search can be an enjoyable process.
The emergence of new sources of information and media has had an impact on
travel information search portfolios and strategies (Beritelli et al., 2007; Tan
& Chen, 2012). Tourists employ strategies for finding travel-related
information (Fodness & Murray, 1999; Snepenger et al., 1990). A landmark
text in tourist information search research is Fodness and Murray’s 1999
article, which constructed a model for tourist information search behaviour on
the abovementioned assumption that tourists employ strategies for finding
information. The authors built a model of tourist information strategies, which
result from a dynamic process in which tourists combine several sources of
information on the basis of internal and external contingencies (Fodness and
Murray, 1998; 1999). Tourists, Fodness and Murray (1997) had claimed, could
be segmented according to their information search strategies, isolating
different segments on the basis of the time they spent planning and the number
of sources they used. According to the authors, tourists’ information search
strategies could be categorised according to three dimensions: spatial (internal
or external search), temporal (timing of the searching activity), and operational
(which sources were used) (Fodness and Murray, 1998; 1999). The data for
Fodness and Murray’s model, however, was collected in the 1990s, and
therefore it could not have captured the impact of digital information sources
on tourism. Nevertheless, according to Zarezadeh et al. (2019), after the model
was published, researchers have been citing it without trying to develop it
further, at times superficially and uncritically or even incorrectly.
Regarding the process of information search, Jeng and Fesenmaier (2002)
proposed a hierarchical structure of information search and decision making,
where information and decisions could be distinguished as primary/core,
secondary and tertiary/peripheral. Depending on their categorisation, decisions
would be made before or during the trip in a continuous, hierarchical and
adaptive process (Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002). Information search online was
also found to be hierarchical in nature: Pan and Fesenmaier (2006) presented

58
a model of internet search where the search for information is represented as a
network of goals and sub-goals. Tourists would look for hubs of information
where authoritative sites were collected. In Pan and Fesenmaier’s (2006)
model of internet search, vacation planning online happens in episodes that
consist of tourists evaluating alternatives to make a decision and chapters,
which are a collection of several episodes. Moreover, other studies focused on
the different characteristics of the different decisions, especially regarding the
information searches that lead to them: while pre-trip decisions are deliberate,
purposeful and reasoned, on-site decisions are light-hearted, free-spirited,
hedonistic, unreflective, immediate, spontaneous, and do not require intensive
information processing (Kang et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2012; Hyde, 2004;
Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011).
Information strategies and hierarchies, however, are also changing. It is widely
acknowledged that information search is conducted both before and during the
trip (Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020). Not only is it an ongoing process, but en-
route searches have increased and decisions have been postponed to the on-
site stage of the trip (Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020). In Paper I, my co-author and
I expand on this notion with the observation that not only are decisions
postponed, the very need for information is postponed as well (Mieli &
Zillinger, 2020). Kang et al. (2020) also claim that using smartphones during
the trip can affect which decisions are taken at each stage. Liu et al. (2022)
moreover recently highlighted how tourists’ use of smartphones to relate to
different contexts often results in unplanned behaviour and new plans.
The classification of decisions into a hierarchy of primary, secondary, and
tertiary/peripheral decisions (Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002; Hwang & Fesenmaier,
2011) has allowed scholars to account for unplanned changes in itinerary, since
secondary and tertiary decisions are made on the basis of information that is
not known before the trip, but encountered throughout (Hwang & Fesenmaier,
2011). Hwang and Fesenmaier (2011) challenged the idea that a trip is the
result of a series of decisions that the tourist makes prior to the trip and
included on-site decisions in their definition of a trip. The authors investigated
tourists’ unplanned behaviour and emphasised the dynamic nature of travel,
where a trip evolves throughout its course (Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011).
According to the authors, a revision of the travel plan en-route is always
initiated by a “plan failure”, which likely occurs in the following three
conditions: new information is found on the way; a discrepancy exists between
expectations and reality during travel; or unanticipated constraints occur
(Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011; Stewart & Vogt 1999).

59
Additionally, loose planning and on-site information search and decision
making can be a deliberate way to achieve flexibility in the trip (Hwang &
Fesenmaier, 2011). Hwang and Fesenmaier (2011) claim that unplanned
attraction visits are a substantial part of pleasure travel and should therefore be
incorporated into models of traveller behaviour “whereby a trip plan plays the
role of a tentative guideline for future behaviours and the morphology of a trip
is influenced greatly by unplanned behaviours” (p. 398). This idea of a travel
plan as a tentative guideline was previously suggested by Woodside and
MacDonald (1994) who wrote of a “trip frame” within which tourists would
conduct different information searches throughout the decision-making
process.
However, these studies used data collected well before smartphones appeared
on the scene. Nowadays, mobile technologies play a critical role in tourists’
unplanned behaviour (Benckendorff et al., 2018): with smartphones and
internet connection at all times, new information is encountered constantly.
Stating that a revision of plans occurs when new information is encountered
(Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011; Stewart & Vogt 1999) is equivalent to stating
that such revision of plans occurs all the time, throughout the trip. In fact, Kah
and Lee (2014) adopted such an approach in their study of unplanned travel
behaviour and technology use, finding that early plans are often changed en-
route when tourists are provided with new information (in their study,
specifically through GPS navigation technology). There is, however, a need
for a less linear explanation of tourist information behaviour during the trip.

5.2 Challenging the linearity of information

behaviour theories in light of smartphone
mediation
The studies I conducted in this thesis focus on connecting theories of
unplanned behaviour with literature on information search behaviour within
the context of ubiquitous access to information allowed by smartphones.
Through the concept of serendipity, and more specifically “planned
serendipity”, I aim to show how tourists’ phygital information environment
both enables and constrains a serendipitous behaviour during the trip. The term
serendipity is particularly appropriate to illustrate this phenomenon because it
refers to both a context and a behaviour, while terms like spontaneity and

60
flexibility mostly refer to a behaviour or a preference of the tourist. A definition
of serendipity is given in the first paper of this thesis (Mieli & Zillinger, 2020
p.32):

“The concept of serendipity, which was coined in 1754 by Horace Walpole,

indicates an event in which someone ´is making discoveries, by accidents and
sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of´, where these discoveries are
con- sidered lucky or somehow advantageous (Lewis Walpole Library, 2011,
p. 407). The concept has recently gained attention in the field of information
studies, where its paradoxical meaning has proven useful to understand problem
solving, knowledge acquisition and information retrieval (Foster & Ford,
2003).”

In Paper III, I further specify the role of serendipity in information behaviour

as “a chance finding of pertinent information, either when not looking for
anything in particular or when looking for information on something else” ...
“often drawing a reaction of happiness, surprise or simply an ahah! moment
(and, sometimes, disappointment as well)” (Agarwal 2015, p. 1). While terms
like spontaneity and flexibility only refer to a behaviour or intention of the
tourist, serendipity takes into account elements that are outside the decision
sphere of the tourist. Serendipity is “a pheomenon arising from both conditions
and strategies, it is both purposive and non purposive”; it is related to the
chance of encountering new information and the impact of such information
(Foster & Ford, 2003). In the tourist experience, information is not only sought
but also encountered, and therefore a concept that includes information
encounter is appropriate.
Research has become increasingly interested in how the smartphone influences
travel information search and decision-making as well as the theoretical
implications of such influence (Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020). New issues with
information behaviour have come under the spotlight, namely information
overload, the fragmented nature of the search process, and the role and shape
of spontaneous and unplanned behaviour during the trip (Xiang & Fesenmaier,
2020; Liu et al., 2020). In fact, the ability to access information online at any
time and virtually anywhere has led to more flexibility but also more
information search (Wang et al., 2016). In their study of smartphone use within
the family vacation, for example, Yu et al. (2018 p. 587) found that travellers
felt “spontaneous without a sense of serendipity” due to the use of smartphones
during the vacation.
In the first paper in this thesis, Tourist information channels, my co-author and
I try to expand on current understandings of tourist information behaviour,

61
showing how the choice of sources is not only functional and based on
information needs, other human behaviours like consumer behaviour also
come into play, and the choice of information channel can itself be a consumer
choice. Moreover, this choice is also made on the basis of many different
values. In retrospect, it is clear that at this stage of my research process I was
still trying to make a complex behaviour fit into a simplifying theory, namely
Holbrook’s (1999) value typology, as I was using a framework and assuming
that people have a certain number of values that they attribute to the guidebook.
By the end of the paper, however, I had realised that the matter was more
complicated than I had anticipated, and while the values are many, it is not
easy to make them fit into a framework; they are not enough to explain
everything, and they are interdependent.
Paper I departs from a question of a somewhat practical nature: I wondered,
why is it that guidebooks are still used? Existing research on the motivations
to use guidebooks mainly qualify them as sources of information. However,
cheaper, more up-to-date, easily accessible information sources are now
available for tourists during their trips online through their smartphones. The
lowering or elimination of internet roaming fees (for example, within the EU)
has made online sources available en-route as well (Zillinger et al., 2018).
Other streams of research have analysed guidebooks as cultural objects;
however, this type of analysis does not touch upon the reasons why people use
them and, in particular, why they would prefer them to other (digital) sources.
Although research is quite clear on the fact that tourists – especially the young
and educated “millennials” – are hybrid users of information channels, and
generally combine different sources (Beritelli et al., 2007; Tan & Chen, 2012;
Zillinger, 2020), it still appeared peculiar to me that guidebooks would be an
attractive option to collect travel information at all, considering that
guidebooks need to be bought (or borrowed) and carried, while online
information is accessible through smartphones, which tourists carry for other
uses as well.
If information needs were really all there was to it, why would tourists still use
guidebooks when their information needs could be satisfied more efficiently,
quickly and cheaply with online information accessible through their
smartphones?
To find the answer to this question, my co-author and I turned to a theoretical
framework that would help us identify the specific reasons why tourists might
still appreciate guidebooks, buy them and use them on their trips: consumer
value theory, and more specifically, Holbrook’s (1999) framework of
consumer value. Using such a framework, we would be able to identify exactly

62
which types of value tourists associated to guidebooks, which could ultimately
explain their choice to buy and use guidebooks as consumers. Holbrook
(1999), moreover, defines value as a “relativistic preference experience”,
which allowed us not only to focus on the experiential nature of value in a
phenomenological sense, but also to put it in relation to the other sources
mentioned above and other objects such as the smartphone. With Holbrook’s
theory, we were aiming to explain exactly why tourists would prefer
guidebooks in relation to digital channels (and in particular smartphones).
Holbrook’s typology and definition turned out to be useful in gaining a better
understanding of the many uses and values of guidebooks, especially in
relation to their digital counterparts, the smartphone. However, we also found
that the phenomenon at hand was hardly reducible to a list of eight value types,
just as it was irreducible to a list of information needs. Tourists’ information
behaviour, it turned out, could not be defined with a juxtaposition of planning
vs. serendipity, information search vs. spontaneity, or planned vs. unplanned.
Moreover, the uses and values of guidebooks were not easy to assign to clear-
cut categories such as aesthetics, play, efficiency, excellence, status, esteem,
spirituality and ethics. Although these values did offer a broader view of
guidebook use than previously suggested by the literature, it was still too
limiting. Guidebook use and information search, it seemed, were much more
complex behaviours than anticipated.

5.3 Introducing “planned serendipity”

New directions in tourist information behaviour literature show that it is more
fruitful to embrace the complementarity of different aspects of tourist
behaviour instead of defining it by dichotomies and oppositions. Researchers
have called for a more holistic understanding of smartphone use and its role in
tourists’ information behaviour (Liu et al., 2022; Gretzel et al., 2019; Hopken
et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2014). Moreover, recent research has shown that
while smartphones allow for more flexibility, their use does not necessarily
result in more spontaneous behaviour during the trip (Kang et al., 2020; Yu et
al., 2018; Kang & Lee, 2022; Vaez et al., 2020). In paper I, the first key
sensitising concept of the thesis emerged: planned serendipity. Planned
serendipity was not only a sensitising concept to build a new theory, it was an
eye-opener as it clearly showed me how there was a fundamental issue in
tourism literature. The issue, I realised, was that tourism theories, and

63
information behaviour theories in particular, were trying very hard to reduce
the tourism phenomenon to a list of elementary parts, that is, key elements that
could be combined into models to explain a linear, somewhat rational human
behaviour. Such theories rejected the possibility that human behaviour
contains some contradictions, and yet I did find that such a contradiction
existed in people’s way of traveling, and especially in their way of balancing
knowing and not knowing about a destination, planning and not planning,
looking information up in their ubiquitously connected devices or leaving
things to chance and getting lost, “drifting” at a destination.
When reading about guidebooks, one of the most cited passages, from Edward
Morgan Forster’s 1908 (ed. 2000) novel “A room with a view” describes Lucy,
the young and naïve protagonist of the novel, who travels to Italy in her early
20s to open her mind to Italian arts and culture, entering the Basilica of Santa
Croce in Florence. The Baedeker guidebook, although absent, is a prominent
character of the scene (and the whole chapter): Miss Lavish, a (more or less)
friend of Lucy’s and her chaperone for the day, had taken her Baedeker away
in hope that she would learn to “simply drift” in Florence. Lucy, however, felt
very lost without it and wondered how she should go about visiting the Basilica
or deciding which artwork she should appreciate. Zuelow (2015) observes how
Forster’s writing of the Baedeker shows two important things: first, by the
beginning of the 20th century, guidebooks were a vital piece of a tourist’s
packing list; and second, travellers were utterly dependent on being given
information on “what ought to be seen” (cf. Koshar, 2000). A third thing that
Forster’s story tells us, though, is a critique of such dependence of information,
the importance of “drifting” or getting lost. Jumping forward about a century,
the smartphone is about to become the main marker that tourists rely on to
know what ought to be seen. As Germann Molz (2012 p. 149) puts it: “in a
world made utterly navigable and transparent by portable GPS devices and
location-aware mobile applications, what does it mean to get lost anymore?”
In reviewing the literature on information search behaviour in Paper III, I
identify four assumptions that are generally made about how tourists search
for information (Mieli, forthcoming):
1. Tourists have information needs and make plans based on those. Their
choice of sources is directly connected with discrete information
search strategies.
2. Information search is carried out in stages, and different information
is sought at different stages, with different levels of cognitive effort.

64
 Specifically, on-site information searches are assumed to require less
cognitive effort than pre-trip searches.
3. The object of information search is the destination. That is, tourists
search for information to learn about the destination. The search is
destination-centric.
4. The aim of information search is to improve the experience and reduce
risk and uncertainty by gaining knowledge about the destination.
As I discuss in the third paper, Planned serendipity, research into unplanned
behaviour has shown the importance of on-site decision-making, which can
stem from a general preference for flexibility and the wish to base decisions
on information encountered at the destination (Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011;
Kah & Lee, 2014; Kang et al., 2020; Wozniak et al., 2017). The idea of a plan
made before the trip and followed to the letter has been challenged, because
tourists now change and evaluate their plans continually (Kang et al., 2020;
Liu et al., 2022). Therefore, in Paper III, I address this issue by proposing the
concept of planned serendipity as a way of pinpointing what happens when
tourists can continually change their plans based on the situations they
encounter on-site, and such behaviour is supported by a mobile technology like
the smartphone, which allows them to access up to date information at any time
and anywhere.
As mentioned above, search is now seen as flexible, temporal and successive
(Kah & Lee, 2014), a significant difference from the strategic, hierarchical
search of previous research, which was clearly situated in different stages of
the tourist experience (Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002). In the first paper, Tourist
information channels, my co-author and I discuss how information needs have
also shifted across the different stages of travel. For example, activities,
restaurants and directions can be found on-site, while going somewhere. In
Paper III, however, I try to offer an alternative view, where such flexibility and
successive information search is not necessarily nor exclusively a cause for
greater spontaneity. I use the concept of serendipity to not only indicate
spontaneous behaviour but more closely relate it to the unexpected but positive
encounters that can happen during the tourist experience and that make such
an experience memorable. However, I associate the word “planned” to
serendipity to highlight the other face of the medal, that is, how smartphones
also lead to more extensive and constant information searches.
In the paper, Planned serendipity, I explore the concept of planned serendipity
by remotely “observing” research participants during their trip through an app
where they can submit several self-reports throughout the travel experience.

65
These tourists rely greatly on the smartphone to conduct constant information
searches and, in turn, this allows them to create the conditions for serendipity
in their tourist experience. The analysis of the data yielded four themes that
illustrate how tourists enact planned serendipity through their use of the
smartphone: flexible plans; iterative and specific search process; tourist-centric
orientation in time and space; and aiming for optimisation. Based on the data
analysis and a critical review of the literature, I propose four counter-
arguments to the assumptions identified in the paper and mentioned above
(Mieli, forthcoming):
1. Plans are contingent, emergent, and never final (flexible).
2. Information search is iterative and specific, it requires processing a
great amount of information (cognitive effort) also on-site.
3. The object of information search is the tourist, that is, tourists do not
search for information to learn but to orient themselves.
4. The aim of information search is to optimise the experience by gaining
knowledge about the tourists’ optimal options at the destination.
Therefore, planned serendipity consists of an iterative and continuous search
behaviour that has as a point of departure a rough and flexible plan and yields
contingent and emergent plans. It is a search that is centred around the tourist
and their position in space and time, and is aimed at optimising the trip rather
than gaining knowledge. The concept of planned serendipity is useful, not
because it adds a new concept to the field, but because it combines existing
concepts and invites one to consider two apparent opposites as part of the same
behaviour, highlighting the complexity of such behaviour and making such
complexity more intelligible. In the paper, I explain that the concept of planned
serendipity addresses an “apparent paradox within tourist behaviour, where
tourists feel more flexible due to the possibility to use their smartphone for
information search on-site, but at the same time act less spontaneously due to
the reliance on their smartphones” (Mieli, forthcoming, p…). However, I also
propose that this paradox is only apparent, as it only exists when certain
assumptions are made. When those assumptions are challenged, a
complementary view of planning and serendipity can be accepted.
Whether or not we juxtapose “planning” and “serendipity” in the way we
describe tourist behaviour, the reality of such behaviour does not change, but
our understanding of it does, and, in turn, so does how we behave and relate to
others and our own experiences. Bringing these two terms together and
challenging the notion that they should be opposites through the rhetorical

66
device of the oxymoron opens up a new perspective, a new understanding of
the world. While the investigation in Paper I made it clear that needs, values,
and patterns of behaviour are not enough to explain how people behave and
how they experience their travels, it also showed that two apparent opposites
do not need to exclude each other. Planning and serendipity could coexist in
the same person, the same tourist experience, the same behaviour, and the very
same decision.

67
68
6 Research design

Scientific discovery is not only about rigour, but also about chaos, fantasy and
imagination. Not ‘either/or’ but ‘both-and’: order and chaos, rigour and
imagination. There are fundamental discoveries that are made without really
knowing what one is looking for, suddenly “seeing” unexplored and creative
connections: it’s serendipity

(Bianchi, 2019 p. 21, author’s translation)

Denzin and Lincoln (2000 p.4) describe the qualitative researcher as a

“bricoleur and quilt maker”, that is, someone who takes many different pieces
and assembles them into one complex representation. Qualitative research is
multi-method in nature, as the researcher will employ whatever strategies and
methods she deems appropriate to answer the questions she asks, even
inventing new tools and techniques when necessary (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
The aim of qualitative research is not to achieve some objective truth but to
gain a deeper understanding of the situation being studied, and no method is
privileged in principle to achieve this aim (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The
questions asked by the researcher, in turn, are not given a priori but emerge
from the context within which she conducts her research. In the research
project presented in this thesis, I have been a bricoleur in many ways: I have
pieced together different theories from different disciplines, different methods
and different perspectives on the subject of tourism and technology. In line
with Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000) description of the bricoleur-researcher, I
have also developed my own methodology for part of the data collection.
Denzin and Lincoln (2000) argue that all research is interpretive, meaning that
all research relies on a human (the researcher) looking upon the world (the
data) and deciding how it should be studied and understood, based on
knowledge, assumptions, feelings and beliefs. However, such knowledge,
assumptions, feelings and beliefs can be different among researchers and
disciplines and have consequences on the practice of research. Doing and
designing research, in fact, involves three principal activities, which can take
various names: 1) theory or ontology, that is a framework or a set of ideas with

69
which the researcher approaches the field; 2) epistemology, that is the
questions that the researcher asks and deems relevant within the framework;
and 3) methodology or analysis, that is the set of tools and specific ways that
the researcher chooses to examine their subject (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
The ontological, epistemological and methodological approaches of a
researcher comprise what can be called a “paradigm”, that is, a framework or
basic set of beliefs that guides the researcher’s actions and choices (Guba,
1990). The paradigm within which the present research project falls is a
constructivist-interpretive paradigm. The ontology assumed by this paradigm
is a relativist one, which means that not just one reality exists, but multiple
ones. From this view ensues a subjectivist epistemology: an individual’s reality
cannot be observed and known by the researcher as an external, objective
witness, but the knowledge of such reality is co-created by the researcher and
the respondent (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Finally, a naturalistic set of methods
is the toolkit with which the researcher will approach the study (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000). Within this paradigm, the positivistic criteria of validity and
reliability in research are substituted by criteria of credibility, transferability,
dependability and confirmability (Bryman, 2012; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
While the methods used in this thesis do not allow for generalisation and
cannot be checked for strictly quantitative criteria such as validity and
reliability, the trustworthiness of the results is ensured by the detailed
descriptions of the methods in each of the empirical articles and in particular
Paper II.
The ontological premise of the thesis has already been discussed in Chapter 2,
where I presented postphenomenology and its relational ontology. This is the
set of ideas with which I approached my research and the framework that
determined the research questions I ask. When it comes to epistemology, then,
the research paradigm with which I align the most is a constructivist one. I do
not believe that an objective reality can be captured when it comes to the inner
and social life of individuals, only its representation. As discussed in chapter
2, phenomenology clearly has a strong influence on my view of the world and
how it should be studied, as I believe that the lived experience of the individual
is the only site of access to that individual’s reality. However, in line with
postphenomenological thought, I do not believe the “essence” of things can be
accessed through the methodology proposed by phenomenologists (eidetic
reduction); instead, I am open to a more pragmatic approach to the choice of
method. Methodologically, I used two different methods in the research:
interviews and an experience sampling method.

70
In designing the research and analysing my data, I have mainly relied on
principles of constructivist grounded theory (Bianchi, 2019; Charmaz, 2014).
“Grounded theory” is a term that indicates a specific methodology of data
collection and analysis, which has been defined and delineated in the literature
within rather specific boundaries (Charmaz & Bryant, 2016). While the
original formulations of grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1967)
insisted on objectivity, rigour and strict procedures to collect and analyse data
inductively, and later elaborations of grounded theory eased the rigour in
favour of a more constructivist thought (Bianchi, 2019).
Throughout the grounded-theory research process, the researcher works with
the data while collecting them, bringing ideas and concepts to the field and not
separating neatly the two phases of data collection and analysis. In practice,
grounded theory advocates for an iterative approach to data collection and
analysis, where the researcher starts coding the data very early on and starts
writing memos from the beginning (Charmaz, 2014). Memos and initial coding
are the bones of further analysis, which is aimed at generating theory. In this
sense, the theory is grounded in the empirical data.
With grounded theory, the researcher can develop ideas about the field very
early and bring those ideas with her in the following data collection, and can
identify analytic leads, which she can then follow up on within the same
research project (Charmaz & Bryant, 2016). Such early ideas take the name of
“sensitising concepts”, which are further used in the research process to guide
further data collection and theory building in the analysis (Bryant & Charmaz,
2007). These concepts can become tentative conceptual categories, which
allow the researcher to compare them with other data, codes and categories to
see if they will hold up and, if they do, determine how they might form the
basis of subsequent theory building (Charmaz & Bryant, 2016). The concepts
of “planned serendipity” and “phygital” are the two main sensitising concepts
that emerged from my research and guided it throughout.

6.1 Interdisciplinary approach

This thesis is interdisciplinary at heart. Tourism as an empirical field of
complex human experiences is the perfect ground for interdisciplinary
research. In fact, the debate about the disciplinarity of tourism is a lively and
ongoing one: while some claim that tourism is a discipline, others claim that it
is multi-, inter- or even post-disciplinary (Coles, Hall & Duval, 2006).

71
Kincheloe and McLaren (2000), however, denounce disciplines as a
manifestation of discourses and power relations in the same context in which
they have been created. Disciplines lead to sure misunderstanding of the world
because they over-discipline knowledge (Tribe, 2007). This way, critical
aspects become overlooked, because if a discipline establishes itself as a
paradigm, it becomes unquestioned and embedded in the research that is
produced within it. A similar point is made by Coles et al. (2006), who claim
that tourism should be a post-disciplinary field of enquiry and that subjecting
tourism studies to the rules of a discipline would lead to certain intellectual
inhibitions that are typical of what the authors call intellectual parochialism.
The aim of interdisciplinary research is to bridge the gaps between different
pieces of research using different disciplinary approaches, making the field less
fragmented but still richer in perspectives. For this reason, a qualitative
approach was adopted throughout the whole thesis, with the aim of exploring
the phenomena at hand in depth and with rich data.
With interdisciplinarity, however, comes also some ambiguity on the
paradigms within which research is conducted. Lacking one disciplinary
“home” also means lacking a preferred paradigm of knowledge for scientific
inquiry to rely on. Therefore, in this thesis the reader will recognise a
fundamentally constructivist-interpretivist paradigm that does not shy away
from borrowing tools from disciplines that traditionally subscribe to different
paradigms. For example, to conduct fieldwork, I have borrowed the ESM
method from a traditionally post/positivistic discipline such as clinical
psychology. I dedicate one paper (Paper II) entirely to describing how I
adapted this method to a constructivist epistemology, where there is no truth
to “capture” and mirror, but only a construction of reality to understand. I use
the Experience sampling method merely to follow the tourist along their
journey and allow them to record, quickly and easily, their behaviour and
thoughts, so that they could later be explored more in depth through a
qualitative interview.
In Paper I, I refer mainly to marketing theories of consumer value and combine
them with theories of tourism information search. In Paper II, I borrow a
method from the discipline of clinical psychology and adapt it to a
constructivist paradigm, developing a qualitative application of an originally
quantitative method. The reason for developing this methodology comes from
the sociology of tourism, with its parallels between everyday life and the tourist
experience. In Paper III, I more strictly refer to the existing literature on tourist
information search and offer a critical review of it, bringing a complex
epistemology into tourism theories and offering a non-dichotomous view of

72
tourist behaviour. Paper IV brings the discipline of human geography into the
thesis by discussing Hägerstrand’s (1970) theory of time geography.
Moreover, the thesis also includes the humanities in this bricolage, discussing
philosophy of technology to understand the ontology of the tourist experience.
Given the multiplicity of perspectives offered in this thesis, I will refrain from
trying to define tourism as either a discipline of its own, or a multi-, inter-,
post-disciplinary field (Coles et al., 2006) and simply position myself in
“tourism studies”, that is an interdisciplinary field of study that has tourism as
its empirical focus.

6.2 A study about millennials

All the empirical work has been conducted on a specific demographic group,
that is, tourists who were born between the years 1980 and 1990. This group
represents the so-called “Generation Y” or “Millennials”, and this is of
particular interest for this research because it has proven to be the demographic
group that uses the internet most extensively for their travel planning (Kim et
al., 2015) as well as being the most active component in the tourism industry
(Kang et al., 2021).
Even though a definition of the concept of “generation” is not agreed upon in
academia, within this research the following understanding of the concept is
adopted: a generation is a group of people who were born in the same period
and shared the same key historical or social life events, which in turn have an
influence on these people’s values and behaviour during their life (Gursoy,
Mayer & Chi, 2008). Although various definitions do not agree on the time
span that encompasses a generation nor on the groups’ denominations, I found
the distinction useful for the purpose of the research in consideration of the
relevance attributed to the diffusion of information technologies. Reisenwitz
and Fowler (2019) show that there are significant differences among
generational cohorts regarding digital information sources and use of
information sources in general. People born between the early 1980s and early
2000s in the Western World were born in a pre-internet and pre-mobile phone
era but grew up alongside the development of these technologies, experiencing
both analogue and digital travel. They are generally comfortable with and
accustomed to the everyday use of digital technologies and the hyper
connectivity enabled by smartphones, but were not born into an era where this
was the norm (unlike Generation Z or digital natives) (Schulz et al., 2019).

73
Because of this, millennials could be considered somewhat more critically
aware of their condition and practices within the digitalised world (Bakker,
2019).
Millennials, moreover, seem to have a peculiar attitude towards information,
namely an “information will find me” mindset (Schultz et al., 2019), which is
particularly relevant for the empirically-based articles of this thesis. While the
first paper, Tourist information channels, shows that for some millennials there
is still a choice and value in information channels, the third paper, Planned
serendipity, focuses on such an attitude and adds a nuance to it: although in
some cases information will find these tourists, in other cases they will still
actively look for information and do so constantly, “double-checking” online
every piece of information they encounter.

6.3 Methods
Each of the papers details the methodology that was used to collect the
empirical data, and Paper II, Experience Sampling Method, is a chapter for an
anthology on contemporary research methods in tourism, which deals with
how I developed and used the experience sampling method in my research, in
combination with the interviews. Of the four papers that comprise this thesis,
three are based on empirical data (Papers I, III, IV) and one is a methodological
paper (Paper II).
Two methods were used to collect empirical data in the studies I conducted for
this thesis: qualitative semi-structured interviews and an adapted version of the
Experience Sampling Method (ESM). Although Paper II has more of a
conceptual nature, it still refers to empirical data as examples. Two sets of 15
interviews were conducted, for a total of 30 interviews. The ESM dataset
includes 93 surveys from 14 of the same participants as the second set of
interviews. The data collection was interrupted in March 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the response to which consisted in travel bans and
restrictions around the world and therefore meant an almost complete halt to
tourism for several months. Therefore, all the data for the present study was
collected before COVID-19 spread across the world, and results should be read
in light of the context. In fact, during the pandemic people have developed an
even closer relationship with their personal technologies and are arguably more
dependent on technology while at the same time seeking digital-free
experiences (Gretzel & Stankov, 2021). Moreover, tourists currently rely

74
greatly on updated online information regarding safety, health and travel
restrictions (Matiza & Slabbert, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has been
called an “infodemic” and “(mis)infodemic”, indicating the rapidly evolving
and copious amount of information that tourists, and people in general, need
to navigate on a daily basis, especially on their smartphones (Koban, Neureiter,
Stevic & Matthes, 2022; William, Wassler & Ferdinand 2020). Such
circumstance make research on the use of smartphones for tourist information,
the complexity of information behaviour and its effects on tourists’ sense of
serendipity ever more relevant.

Table 2. Summary of methods used in papers

Paper title Type of paper Data

Paper I: Empirical 15 interviews (set 1)

Tourist information channels as consumer choice:
The value of tourist guidebooks in the digital age

Paper II: Methodological

Experience Sampling Method in a Qualitative Study
of Tourists' Smartphone Use

Paper III: Empirical 15 interviews (set 2)

Planned serendipity: exploring tourists’ on-site ESM: 93 surveys
information behaviour (14 respondents)

Paper IV: Empirical 15 Interviews (set 2)

Phygital time geography: what about smartphones in
tourists’ time-space behaviour?

6.3.1 Qualitative semi-structured interviews

Qualitative interviews were used in the empirical work of Papers I, III, and IV.
The qualitative approach suits the aim of the research because of the intent to
explore the individuals’ perceptions related to an experience as well as the
meanings and values attached to it with great depth and richness (May, 2011;
Silverman, 2013). Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, over
the phone or through video calling services. Interviews were conducted with
30 respondents in total, divided into two sets: 15 interviews were conducted
between March 2017 and January 2019 and used in Paper I; a second set of 15
interviews were conducted between May 2019 and March 2020 and were used
in Paper III and IV. The methodology that includes the second set of interviews
in combination with ESM is the subject of Paper II.

75
6.3.2 Experience sampling method
While interviews are a great source of data about people’s perceptions and
construction of reality, they are not always as reliable when it comes to
observing behaviour. Modern technologies have opened the path for new
avenues of research (cf. Williams, Hall and Lew, 2014), and they can offer an
invaluable aid to fill methodological gaps. For this purpose, I developed a
qualitative research design for part of my thesis, which combines an experience
sampling method (ESM) and qualitative interviews (cf. Larson, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1983; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). ESM
is a research method that consists of asking individuals to self-report at random
occasions during a period of time in order to create ‘an archival file of daily
experience’ (Larson, & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983 p.21). The advantage of this
method is that it allows one to study experiences in their naturally occurring
contexts (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Originally designed
for the study of experiences in everyday life, this is a useful method to
understand the use of smartphones in the tourist experience. In fact, the
smartphone is a tool that people use both in everyday life and during a tourist
experience, and the research challenges that arise from their use are the same
in either context (Wang et al., 2016).
Employing this method presented several practical obstacles, in particular
finding a sample of people who were willing to follow instructions, download
an app on their phone and complete multiple questionnaires during their
travels. During the analysis, it was challenging to integrate both types of data
in a qualitative analysis and reliable way. However, I believe there is a need
for experimenting with new methods in qualitative research and, considering
the context of my study – the so-called digital age – it was appropriate to try
to employ a methodology that can capture the reality of this time. The
application, advantages and challenges of the method are discussed at length
in Paper II, Experience Sampling Method.

6.4 Ethical considerations

When conducting research involving people, ethical considerations are
necessary. Four ethical principles guide social research: participants should not
be harmed, they should provide informed consent, their privacy should be
respected, and they must not be deceived (Diener & Crandall, 1978). Overall,
it is the researcher’s duty to protect the interests of those who participate in the

76
study (Flick, 2018). While the present research did not require the collection
of sensitive data, and did not involve vulnerable participants, it did employ a
method that can be considered intrusive or burdensome for participants (cf.
Conner & Lehman, 2012; Hektner et al., 2007; Quinlan Cutler et al., 2018).
Moreover, if the researcher’s communication lacks transparency and data is
not handled properly, it poses a risk of breaching participants’ privacy (Raento
et al., 2009; van Berkel et al., 2018).
In line with general principles for participating in social research, participation
in the project was entirely voluntary and research participants were asked for
their consent to record and use the interviews (Flick, 2018). In the initial form
that participants filled in to show interest, they could express their consent to
be contacted to participate in the ESM and further research stages. before the
interview, all participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the
study, or to not answer questions they did not want to answer. As for the ESM
data, it was not automatically uploaded or sent to the researcher. Participants
manually sent the data via email at the end of the research period. This way,
the data did not go through third parties (such as the software developer), and
were not uploaded anywhere else but in the participant’s and researcher’s
respective email servers.
One risk with ESM studies is that participants may be unaware of the data that
is being collected, or forget that the data collection is ongoing. This is the case
with passive data, which the participant does not need to actively provide: for
example, GPS tracking, motion and light sensors, screen usage, phone call
tracking, and so on) (Conner & Lehman, 2012; van Berkel et al., 2017). In
order to avoid confusion or lack of consent, no other data was collected except
for surveys, which ensured that participants were always aware of what data
they were providing.
Participant burden and intrusion into the tourist experience are a concern in the
application of ESM in tourism studies (Quinlan Cutler et al., 2018). However,
compared to observation studies, ESM can be considered a less intrusive
method because the researcher is not present, and tourists need only to interact
with the device. In order to minimize participants’ burden, the ESM
questionnaire was made as short and as clear as possible. Considering the
qualitative and grounded theory approach, the questionnaire could be modified
on the basis of respondents’ feedback and initial analysis in order to make it
shorter and simpler. As observed previously, although the ESM method may
seem intrusive and burdensome, participants are often not as bothered as one
would expect (Conner & Lehman, 2012; Hektner et al., 2007). During the

77
interview, in fact, participants were asked about the ESM questionnaire and in
particular whether they found it burdensome or disruptive of their experience
and nobody reported it to be so. The present research, moreover, was
conducted using tourists’ own smartphone, making it easier for them to carry
and use the device (cf. Quinlan Cutler et al., 2018). However, participants may
report that they found the surveys repetitive or the questions superfluous when
their situation did not change from one notification to the next (cf. Quinlan
Cutler et al., 2018).
The signal-contingent design is not recommended for situations in which
interruptions may be disruptive for the participant, for example in high stress
occupations (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). While the tourist experience is not
a high-stress situation, it is often seen as an escape from everyday life
obligations, to have a liminal nature and be an immersive experience (Conti &
Heldt-Cassel, 2020; Pearce, 2011; Urry, 2002). Although, as discussed in
Chapter 3.3, this is a contested notion, in particular in relation to digital and
mobile technologies, disruption of the experience was nevertheless a major
concern in designing and conducting the study. The three-step research design,
therefore, allowed participants to drop out of the study at any time. In fact,
many participants did drop out, mainly before the start of the trip. Detailed
instructions were given via email in the attempt to not misrepresent the burden
imposed by the research. However, those who did complete all surveys and the
interview, reported that the initial email made the study look more complicated
than it actually was, and once they started it, it was not burdensome at all.
While the detailed email may have discouraged some prospective participants,
it did ensure complete transparency, and those who did participate were doing
so with full consent. As observed by Hektner et al. (2007), this aspect presents
two major drawbacks, that is self-selection bias and selective nonresponse.
Since the present study adopted a qualitative, inductive approach and did not
aim to generalize results, self-selection and selective nonresponse did not
represent a major obstacle to conducting the research. However, these factors
must be kept in mind when analyzing the data. The analysis, both in papers III
and IV, in fact, focuses on the exploration of emerging themes from the data
and challenging existing assumptions. A representative sample is not needed
for this purpose.
Lastly, the questionnaire was short enough that participants enjoyed filling it
in and reported so during the follow-up interview. In fact, ESM may prompt
self-reflection, which participants can often appreciate (Conner & Lehman,
2012). In the original application of the method in psychological research,

78
there is a risk that the survey touches on sensitive concerns, and therefore a de-
briefing with a professional is necessary (Conner & Lehman, 2012). Such risk
is not present when the self-reports only focus on behaviour and momentary
feelings related to a leisure experience like the tourist experience. The
questions were formulated carefully to avoid prying into the participants’
personal and psychological sphere. In my research, participants showed to
appreciate the self-reflection, and did not report it having any significant effect
on their experience.

79
80
7 Summary of papers

7.1 Paper I: Tourist information channels as

consumer choice: The value of tourist
guidebooks in the digital age
Mieli, M., & Zillinger, M. (2020). Tourist information channels as consumer
choice: The value of tourist guidebooks in the digital age. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 20(1), 28-48.
The first article deals with the question of why guidebooks are still used by
tourists even though information is more easily accessible through their
smartphones. The paper offers a review of the literature on tourist guidebooks,
focusing on their role as information channels. Guidebooks have been studied
as cultural and historical objects, as artefacts of tourism that can mediate the
tourist experience, and as information channels. However, the paper proposes
a new perspective, that is to view guidebooks as objects of consumption as
well. In order to do this, my co-author and I applied the theory of consumer
value and in particular Holbrook’s (1999) consumer value typology.
Holbrook’s (1999) definition of consumer value characterises it as an
interactive, preferential, relativistic experience and identifies eight types of
consumer value: efficiency, excellence, play, aesthetics, status, esteem, ethics
and spirituality. The study was conducted with a qualitative methodology that
consisted of fifteen semi-structured interviews.
The results of the analysis show that the use and value of guidebooks are
strongly connected to the use of smartphones. The temporal dimension of
information needs has changed: not only do tourists postpone decisions until
the moment of consumption, their need to find information is also postponed
because they know they will be able to access the information when already at
the destination. The choice of information sources and channels is not always
strategic, and some serendipity goes into travel planning. We suggest the term
“planned serendipity” to indicate that planning and serendipity do not need to

81
be juxtaposed, because modern information technologies allow elements of
serendipity in tourists’ plans.
Holbrook’s relational and phenomenological definition of value is useful to
understand tourists’ perceptions on guidebooks in relation to smartphones.
Values of efficiency and excellence are present, but they are relative to the
digital alternative, especially in relation to information overload and online
confusion. In fact, tourists value the guidebook for giving them an overview of
the destination, the curation of the content, as well as their credibility,
tangibility and reliability as a physical object. Hedonic values, like play and
aesthetic, are also recognised in the guidebook: they can be a source of
inspiration for travellers or a souvenir to keep in their bookshelves after the
trip. The book itself can be appreciated for its aesthetics and tangible qualities.
Guidebooks also have esteem and status values through their symbolic
function. In fact, they can signal to others and oneself that one is indeed a
tourist, and particularly a certain type of tourist who is knowledgeable and
experienced. Even spirituality and ethics can be recognised, in a sense, in the
use of guidebooks: tourists may associate the guidebook with a “better”, more
“spiritual” or conscious way of travelling, which is considered superior to
travel without a guidebook.

7.2 Paper II: Experience Sampling Method in a

Qualitative Study of Tourists’ Smartphone Use
Mieli, M. (2022). Experience Sampling Method in a Qualitative Study of
Tourists' Smartphone Use. In Okumus, F., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M.
(Eds.). Contemporary Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism. Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Paper II is a chapter for an anthology on contemporary methods for tourism
research. The paper illustrates the methodology that I developed for the data
collection in Paper III of my thesis. While the format of the paper is a guide to
applying the methodology, it also includes a discussion of the epistemological
underpinnings of the method. The paper starts with a question: how can we
know how tourists use technologies and how these uses are interwoven with
the perception, performance and construction of the tourist experience? To
answer this question, I propose a qualitative methodology that combines the
Experience Sampling Method (ESM) with interviews. ESM is a method

82
developed in the 1970s in clinical psychology by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and
colleagues with the purpose of recording “what people do, feel and think
during their daily lives” (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014 p.21).
The method consists of several mini-questionnaires which the participant
should answer several times per day, on random occasions. The questions in
the survey should refer to the momentary experiences, feelings and thoughts
that the person is experiencing when they are notified. Nowadays, the method
can be conducted using dedicated software applications on participants’ own
smartphones. In my research, I used ESM to collect data while participants
were travelling. The method, I argue, is particularly suited to explore the lived
experience of tourists and capture both the ordinary and the extraordinary
moments of the experience. In fact, I also discuss here how ordinary moments
and everyday life are intertwined with the tourist experience, and how the
smartphone is an object from everyday life that crosses over into the tourist
experience, bringing the practices and habits of everyday life into travel.
The paper details how the methodology was applied in my study of tourists’
relationship with their smartphones. I divide the research process into three
phases: ESM preparation, recruiting, collecting data. The first phase, ESM
preparation, includes deciding what type of data should be gathered (which can
be limited to self-reports or include sensor data from the phone, or other usage
metrics recorded by the device), what device to use (providing a device or
using the participants’ own smartphone), finding a software application that
allows to collect the desired information and designing the ESM questionnaire.
In the second phase, recruiting, I include: formulating a research invitation,
establishing rapport, and giving instructions to participants. This stage is
particularly delicate considering that the method requires participants to
sacrifice some of their travel time to complete the surveys. The last phase
consists of actually collecting the data through ESM and follow-up interviews.
I also collected demographic data before the trip through a short questionnaire.
At the end of the paper I reflect on the importance of finding new
methodologies for tourism research and making use of the technologies that
are already present in our everyday life. The use of smartphones for research
has great potential to access a site of inquiry that has traditionally been hard to
access: the on-site stage of the trip. Moreover, I reflect on how questioning the
ontology of tourism as a purely extraordinary experience, and acknowledging
its everyday qualities, can lead researchers to ask new and different questions,
and look at the tourist experience from different perspectives.

83
7.3 Paper III: Planned serendipity: exploring
tourists’ on-site information behaviour
Mieli, M. (Forthcoming) Planned serendipity: exploring tourists’ on-site
information behaviour
(Submitted to: Current Issues in Tourism)
The third paper applies the methodology illustrated in Paper II to investigate a
concept that emerged in Paper I: planned serendipity. The focus of the paper is
information behaviour on-site and how smartphones can mediate such
behaviour. After a critical review of the existing literature on information
search behaviour, I identify four assumptions that lie at the basis of the most
important theories and models in the field. I refer to models like Fodness &
Murray, 1997; 1998; 1999; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Jeng & Fesenmaier,
2002 and answer to the call by Zarezadeh et al. (2019) for a more critical
approach to these seminal texts. The assumptions relate to tourists’ information
needs and strategies, the distinction between hierarchical and qualitatively
different stages of information search, and the object and aim of information
search. To challenge the assumptions identified, I discuss theories of
unplanned behaviour and the role of serendipity in tourism. While spontaneity
and serendipity have always been part of tourists’ behaviour, the phygital
information environment afforded by mobile technologies create the
conditions for more flexibility, but also for more information search on-site.
In the results, I identify four themes that directly challenge the four assumptions
mentioned earlier. These four themes support the statement that planning and
serendipity coexist in tourists’ information behaviour, and illustrate how this
happens during the trip. The first theme, Emergent and contingent plans,
explains how plans made before the trip are mainly about the “what” and not the
“when”: tourists leave decisions about the specific itinerary of each day to the
last minute and their detailed plans depend in great part on the information and
situations encountered during the trip. The second theme, Cognitive effort on-
site, shows how the process of finding and using information on-site is iterative
and specific, requiring high cognitive effort from the tourist. The third theme,
Tourist-centric orientation in time and space, shows how the object of the
information search is the tourist, that is, tourists do not search for information to
learn but orient themselves. The fourth theme, Aiming for optimisation,
discusses how the aim of information search is to optimise the experience by
gaining knowledge about the tourists’ optimal options at the destination.

84
7.4 Paper IV: Phygital time geography: what about
smartphones in tourists’ time-space behaviour?
Mieli, M., Zillinger, M., Nilsson J.H. (Forthcoming) Phygital time geography:
what about smartphones in tourists’ time-space behaviour?
(Submitted to: Tourism Geographies)
The paper proposes an adaptation of Torsten Hägerstrand’s (1970) time
geography to the context of the technologically-mediated tourist experience.
Hägerstrand theorised that people’s movements in daily life are limited by
three types of constraints, which he names: capability, coupling and authority
constraints. Tourism is a spatial phenomenon and therefore Hägerstrand’s
theory can be a useful lens to understand tourist spatio-temporal behaviour
(Hall, 2005; Shoval, 2012; Zillinger, 2007). In this paper, however, my co-
authors and I argue that the use of smartphones during the trip causes new and
different time-space constraints for the tourist. We use the concept of
phygitality to shed light on how physical and digital spaces are interlaced and
enmeshed in the tourist experience and how this affects constraints.
By analysing fifteen qualitative semi-structured interviews, we identify the
new types of constraints that affect tourists’ behaviour at the destination and
discuss how the original constraints have changed. Capability constraints have
changed in three main ways: new constraints exist because of the technical
limits of the smartphone (especially battery and internet connection); tourists’
ability to locate themselves in space and navigate at the destination has been
reduced because of the possibility to consult online maps at all times and use
location-based services; the ability to move along certain distances does not
depend only on the means of transportation, as in Hägerstrand’s original
theory, but also on the computational capabilities of the smartphone together
with location-based services, which are able to ensure efficiency in tourists’
navigation.
Coupling constraints have also changed. Bundles of people can happen outside
of the destination through telecommunications, since tourists can meet people
who are back home or in other places and even at work. Moreover, looser
bundles can be formed with travel partners, who have more independence from
each other thanks to the ability to micro-coordinate at the destination through
the smartphone. Even a sort of “unbundling” can take place, where the phone
is used to isolate one’s attention and distance oneself from travel partners.

85
Authority constraints are also affected, since access to certain spaces can be
restricted in different ways. First, tourists need an internet connection that is
restricted through roaming fees or other costs and regulations. Legal or
organisational constraints can exist to conducting specific activities in specific
places, for example conducting work abroad. Economic and political
influences are also at play here, as they can determine what should be shown
on the interactive online maps, and therefore what places tourists will know of
and visit. Social norms of acceptable behaviours also change with the use of
smartphones, for example dedicating one’s attention to the phone while at the
dinner table instead of conversing with travel partners.
The changes in these constraints cause bundles and prisms to be reconfigured
and tourists’ spatial movement to be influenced by the use of smartphones.
People still cannot do two things at once, still cannot be in two places at once,
still cannot have more than 24h in a day: however, online and offline activities,
people and places overlap; they become layers of a single reality that the tourist
experiences. In other words, tourists exist and move in a hybrid, layered time-
space: a phygital time-space.

86
8 Conclusions

The aim of the thesis was to explore the role of smartphones in mediating the
tourist experience. Through the four papers, I focused on different aspects of
this mediation. The postphenomenological approach of the thesis allowed me
to focus on the relations between reality, humans and technologies, showing
how the experience is co-constituted through these technologies.
Through the research presented in this thesis I set out to understand the role of
technology in the tourist experience in a broad sense: not only what
smartphones can do and how tourists use them, but how they influence tourists’
perception of the experience and their behaviour therein. I became interested
in the smartphone because it is a peculiar technology with a unique
pervasiveness in everyday life and every other aspect of the modern human’s
life, including the tourist experience. Tourists have become used to the
constant presence of the smartphone by their side; they carry the device from
their everyday life into the tourist experience, corroding the boundaries
between the two. The same activities can be conducted at home, and while
travelling, the same social relations can be entertained and the same
information can reach the tourist in both contexts, at all times. While tourism
literature offers excellent discussions on the relationship between everyday life
and tourism (McCabe, 2002; Edensor, 2001; Larsen, 2008, 2019, among
others), in this thesis I add to the discussion by exploring the role of technology
in this relationship.
The question, then, was how to study the pervasiveness of these technologies
and its effects on the tourist experience. I found that the philosophical
perspective of postphenomenology, and in particular the macro theory of
mediation, was a useful tool to do that. Postphenomenology offered a key to
understanding what the overall role of these technologies is in the tourist
experience by placing the role of technologies on an ontological level.
Technologies are, in fact, not just something we use; they are not just an object
of our perceptions but things through which we perceive and experience the
world, things through which we behave (Ihde, 1990, 2009, 2015; Rosenberger
& Verbeek, 2015; Verbeek, 2001, 2005, 2016; Wellner, 2016). Through the

87
theory of technological mediation, I could not only show how tourists use the
smartphone, but also how their reality of the tourist experience is co-
constituted through the interaction with the technology. The first theoretical
contribution of this thesis, therefore, was to introduce postphenomenology in
tourism studies.
With this mindset, I ask two questions, which correspond to the two foci of the
thesis: first, I ask how smartphones mediate tourists’ information behaviour;
and second, I ask how they mediate tourists’ experience of phygital worlds.
The two questions are related and aim to offer a broad view of the smartphone-
mediated tourist experience by focusing on the individual tourists’ behaviour
and perceptions. One of the largest areas of study in relation to information
technologies, if not the largest is, in fact, information search behaviour, and
that is where I started my research journey. However, I soon realised that
information behaviour is very closely connected to spatial behaviour. Going
back to MacCannell’s (2013) semiological theory of tourist attractions, people
are only tourists when they know what to see, that is, when a marker has
signalled to them that a certain place is a site and tourists go there when they
know that there is something to see. Tourists’ movement in space, therefore, is
intrinsically connected to their information behaviour.
These two research questions are intentionally broad and can be answered in
many ways. In fact, I do so through four different papers. As I mentioned in
Chapter 6, throughout this project I have considered myself a bricoleur, as I
have combined different topics, perspectives, disciplines and methods, all
connected by the red thread of smartphone mediation of the tourist experience.
Through this bricolage, I answer the research questions as follows.
First, I explore how smartphones mediate tourist information behaviour. In
Paper I, my co-author and I analyse tourists’ choice of information channels
against their background relationship with smartphones. We focus not on the
smartphone but on the guidebook, the predecessor of the smartphone, when it
came to information channels. The guidebook was the object that people
brought with them and through which they accessed information on-site,
together with information centres, brochures and word-of-mouth. The
guidebook in particular used to be that object that people carried from home,
had with them at all times and used as a go-to for information on-site. We
proposed to study the guidebook not only as an information channel but also
as an object of consumption. What we found was that the possibility to use
internet-enabled smartphones at the destination mediates tourists’ evaluations
of the guidebook. Holbrook’s (1999) definition of value as an interactive
relativistic preference experience turned out to be very fitting. Value, in fact,

88
is interactive because it resides in an interaction between the subject and the
object. This interaction, however, is mediated by the smartphone. The value of
the guidebook clearly appears to be relativistic and preferential because the
evaluation of the object is not absolute; it involves a preference judgement
between the guidebook and the smartphone. A first answer to the first research
question, then, is that channels of information can be objects of consumption;
their choice is a consumer choice and their value is mediated by a background
relationship with the smartphone.
The second aspect of information behaviour that emerged from Paper I, and
which was taken up again in Paper III, relates to spontaneous behaviour. In
Paper I, my co-author and I found that planning and serendipity coexist in
tourists’ information behaviour. We call this planned serendipity. This is not
new: unplanned behaviour has always existed in tourism and so have studies
on it. However, Papers I and III align with recent research in showing that the
ability to access information during the trip on the smartphone influences the
way people find and use information when it comes to making spontaneous
decisions (Kang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2018; Kang & Lee, 2022; Vaez et al.,
2020). Planned serendipity does not only mean that tourists use the smartphone
to be more flexible and spontaneous, but also that tourists conduct more
information searches during the trip, reducing the spontaneity that the
smartphone enables. This paradoxical effect is further investigated in Paper III
where I use the concept of planned serendipity to analyse tourist information
behaviour on-site. A second answer to the first research question, therefore, is
that smartphones mediate tourists’ behaviour by causing an amplification and
a reduction of both planning and serendipity creating a paradoxical effect that
can be termed planned serendipity.
In Paper III I also I find that tourists do not necessarily behave according to the
principles assumed in previous research. Through smartphone mediation
certain aspects come to light that contradict previous research. I answer a call
for a more critical approach to the study and application of tourism information
theories and models that were developed in the pre-smartphone (or even pre-
internet) era (Zarezadeh et al., 2019). A qualitative methodology is particularly
suited for this purpose of challenging existing assumptions. While quantitative
methodologies tend to be more constrained by existing theory, as they are
based on hypotheses that are formulated on the basis of existing theory,
qualitative research is inherently more inductive. Therefore, it is more prone
to finding things that are not already known or finding things that do not
correspond to existing theories. Paper III, therefore, represents a contribution
to tourism studies, and in particular tourism information search behaviour

89
literature, by challenging deep-seated assumptions about the way that tourists
behave when searching for information and planning their trips. I show that the
study of such behaviour can be strengthened by a complex epistemology that
overcomes paralysing Cartesian dichotomies and instead embraces
complementarity, both methodologically and theoretically (cf. Bianchi, 2019).
In fact, in Paper III I applied an innovative method, named the Experience
sampling method, that allowed me to collect data on tourist behaviour on-site,
which I explain in Paper II.
The second research question I ask relates to tourists’ experience of phygital
worlds. I adopt the phygital concept to stress the importance of both physical
and digital dimensions: the technologically-mediated reality in which tourists
exist is layered, hybrid, but it is a single reality that each individual
experiences. It is, in this sense, a phygital reality. In Paper II I start discussing
the ontology of the tourist experience focusing on the relationship between
everyday life and tourism. I reflect on how everyday life and tourism have not
always been that different, but the boundaries between the two have become
ever more eroded by the constant use of smartphones.
I take up this question again in Paper IV and answered it in terms of
spatiotemporal experience and behaviour. In this paper, my co-authors and I
use the concept of phygitality to understand how tourists move in space and
time while they travel, and in particular how smartphones mediate the
constraints that exist on tourists’ movements. We used Torsten Hägerstrand’s
(1970) theory of time geography as adapted to tourism by Shoval (2012) and
Hall (2005) and analysed tourists’ capability, coupling and authority
constraints within the phygital tourist experience, finding that new constraints
emerge and old constraints are reconfigured.
The answer to the second research question, therefore, is twofold: first, the
boundaries between everyday life and tourism have been eroded by the
possibility to conduct everyday activities and communication on-site. Second,
space, time and tourists’ movements therein are mediated by smartphones in a
way that reconfigures existing time-space constraints and creates new ones.
The space itself is layered and hybrid; it is phygital, and tourists’ experiences
of it are influenced and affected by the mediating role of the smartphone.
With this thesis, I also contribute to the methodological discussion on how to
access the on-site stage of the tourist experience and how to harness everyday
technologies for tourism research. Paper II introduces and explains a
qualitative application of the Experience sampling method, which allows
researchers to collect tourists’ self-reports about their experience while they

90
are travelling. The method is scarcely used in tourism but offers great
possibilities for studying the on-site experience unobtrusively and easily,
especially by using participants’ their own smartphones to administer the
questionnaires.

8.1 Limitations and future research

One consideration that needs to be made is that the empirical and conceptual
work of this thesis is entirely contextualised in a Western, albeit globalised,
developed world, where virtually everybody has access to mobile technologies
and internet connectivity on a daily basis. In particular, data is collected in
Europe, where roaming fees were abolished in 2017.
The choice of limiting the empirical data to a specific generation obviously
carries some limitations. The previous and following generation would most
likely have different behaviours, perceptions, experiences and different
relationships with technology. Moreover, generation X still represents a large
group of consumers in the tourism industry and perhaps the one with the largest
expenditures, while generation Z, the first generation of the twenty-first
century, is the next generation that has recently started travelling independently
from their families (pandemics notwithstanding) and therefore represent the
future of the tourism industry. This generation also probably has an interesting
relationship with technology.
The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply altered the tourism industry. Not only
has the volume of travel been reduced drastically in the past two years,
behaviour has changed and priorities have shifted in the tourist experience.
Safety is now the main concern for tourists and industry alike (Matiza &
Slabbert, 2021), and information behaviour has most likely been influenced by
these events as well. It is unknown, however, if such changes will persist in the
future, or if these changes are only temporary.
Ultimately, the postphenomenological approach is very human centric, and
although I believe that as humans we can only experience the world from the
human perspective, in a more pragmatist vein I also believe that science can
benefit from exploring different points of view and trying to understand the
roles and experiences of non-human entities as well as more critical
perspectives on tourism. The tourism field is surely not devoid of issues of
equality, ecological sustainability, social justice.

91
Finally, a consideration on the near future of technological development: The
ubiquity of internet-enabled mobile devices has deeply influenced tourism.
The pervasiveness of digital technologies and the normalisation of mobility, as
described by the mobility turn in the social sciences, have complicated the
epistemic position of the tourist as someone who travels to unfamiliar or
unknown territory (Hannam et al., 2006; van Nuenen & Scarles, 2021).
Physical movement in space is only a part of the tourist experience, distant and
exotic places can become “folded into our everyday, collapsing temporal and
spatial boundaries” (van Nuenen & Scarles, 2021 p.121). If we consider
current research on extended reality (AR, VR, mixed reality), such changes
may challenge the notion of the tourist as someone who travels at all. In this
thesis, I have touched upon how this digital familiarisation with mobile, smart
technology has complicated the epistemic position of the tourist as someone
who discovers or experiences something new, exotic, liminal. However, future
research should take this further and reflect on what it means to be a tourist in
a phygital world, not only when the digital world is brought into the tourist
experience through mobile technologies, but when the tourist experience can
be brought into everyday life through augmented and virtual reality.

92
9 References

Achterhuis, H. J. (2001). American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn.

Indiana University Press.
Adey, P. (2017). Mobility. Routledge.
Agarwal, N. K. (2015). Towards a definition of serendipity in information
behaviour. Information research: an international electronic journal, 20(3).
Ahuja, A. (2011). The case for wrongful life: Children who sue for being born. New
Scientist, 212(2836), 6–7
Andrade, J. G., & Dias, P. (2020). A phygital approach to cultural heritage:
augmented reality at Regaleira. Virtual Archaeology Review, 11(22), 15-25
Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2014). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist
behaviour approach. In Prebensen, N., Chen, J. S. & Uysal, M. (Eds) Creating
experience value in tourism. Cabi, 95-112
Arthur, P. L. and T. van Nuenen (2019) Travel in the Digital Age. In Das, N. and
Youngs, T. (Eds.) The Cambridge History of Travel Writing. Cambridge
University Press, 504–518
Ayeh, J. K. (2018). Distracted gaze: Problematic use of mobile technologies in
vacation contexts. Tourism management perspectives, 26(2018), 31-38.
Bakker S. (2019, June, 10) Don Ihde and generational responses to digital
technology. FreedomLab. https://www.freedomlab.com/posts/don-ihde-and-
generational-responses-to-digital-technology
Ballina, F. J., Valdes, L., & Del Valle, E. (2019). The Phygital experience in the
smart tourism destination. International Journal of Tourism Cities. 5(4), 656-
671
Belghiti, S., Ochs, A., Lemoine, J.F. and Badot, O. (2017). The Phygital shopping
experience: an attempt at conceptualization and empirical investigation. In
Rossi P. & Krey, N. (Eds.) Academy of Marketing Science World Marketing
Congress, Springer International Publishing, 61-74.
Benckendorff, P., Sheldon, P. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2019). Tourism information
technology (2nd ed.). CABI.
Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2007). The impact of the Internet on
information sources portfolios: Insight from a mature market. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 22(1), 63-80

93
Besmer, K. (2014). Dis-placed travel: On the use of GPS in automobiles. Techné:
Research in Philosophy and Technology, 18(1–2), 133–146
Bianchi, L. (2019). Un piano d’azione per la ricerca qualitativa. Epistemologia della
complessità e Grounded Theory costruttivista. Franco Angeli.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An
introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford press.
Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. Vintage.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory.
Sage.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism
management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of
eTourism research. Tourism management, 29(4), 609-623.
Bull, M. (2000). Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of
Everyday Life. Berg.
Cary, S. H. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61–77.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Charmaz, C. & Bryant, A. (2016) Constructing grounded theory analyses. In
Silverman, D. (Ed.). Qualitative Research. 4 ed. SAGE.
Chen, C. C., Huang, W. J., Gao, J., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). Antecedents and
consequences of work-related smartphone use on vacation: An exploratory
study of Taiwanese tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 57(6), 743-756.
Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., & Jackson, M. (2004). Determining hiking experiences
in nature-based tourist destinations. Tourism management, 25(1), 31-43.
Choe, Y., Fesenmaier, D. R., & Vogt, C. (2017). Twenty-Five Years Past Vogt:
Assessing the Changing Information Needs of American Travellers. In Schegg,
R., & Stangl, B. (Eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism 2017. Springer, 489-502
Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., Morrison, A. M., & Jang, S. (2012). Structure of travel
planning processes and information use patterns. Journal of Travel Research,
51(1), 26–40
Chung, J. Y., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Information needs in online social networks.
Information Technology & Tourism, 10(4), 267-281.
Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2015). The use of social media in travel information search.
Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 215-229.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179-
201.
Cohen, E. (1998). Tourism and religion: A comparative perspective. Pacific Tourism
Review, 2(1), 1-10.

94
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G. and Moital M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism:
concepts, influences and opportunities, Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 872-
909
Coles, T., Hall, C.M. and Duval, D.T. (2006). Tourism and post-disciplinary enquiry.
Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4-5), 293-319.
Conner, T. S., & Lehman, B. J. (2012). Getting started: Launching a study in daily
life. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.) Handbook of research methods for
studying daily life. The Guilford Press, 89–107.
Conti, E., & Heldt Cassel, S. (2020). Liminality in nature-based tourism experiences
as mediated through social media. Tourism Geographies, 22(2), 413-432.
Crang, M. (2009). Cyberspace. In Gregory, D. (Ed). The dictionary of human
geography (5th ed.). Blackwell.
Crowell S. (2006) Husserlian Phenomenology. In Dreyfus, H. L., & Wrathall, M. A.
(Eds.). A companion to phenomenology and existentialism. Blackwell
Publishing, 9-30.
Dann, G. (Ed.). (2002). The tourist as a metaphor of the social world. Cabi.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
De Souza e Silva, A. (2006). From cyber to hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces
of hybrid spaces. Space and culture, 9(3), 261-278.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln S. (Eds.) The handbook of
qualitative research. Sage, 1-28
Dickinson, J. E., Ghali, K., Cherrett, T., Speed, C., Davies, N., & Norgate, S. (2014).
Tourism and the smartphone app: Capabilities, emerging practice and scope in
the travel domain. Current issues in tourism, 17(1), 84-101.
Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. U
Chicago Press.
Dinhopl, A., & Gretzel, U. (2016). Selfie-taking as touristic looking. Annals of
Tourism Research, 57, 126–139.
Eaton, L. (2002). France outlaws the right to sue for being born. BMJ (Clinical
Research Ed.), 324(7330), 129.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re) producing tourist
space and practice. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59-81
Feenberg A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology? In Dakers, J. (Ed.). (2006).
Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework.
Springer, 5-16
Feenberg, A. (2009). Peter-Paul Verbeek: review of what things do. Human studies,
32(2), 225-228.

95
Fernández-Cavia, José; Vinyals-Mirabent, Sara; Fernández-Planells, Ariadna;
Weber, Wiebke; Pedraza-Jiménez, Rafael (2020). Tourist information sources
at different stages of the travel experience. El profesional de la información,
29(2), e290219
Ferraris, M. (2005). Ontologia del telefonino. Bompiani, Milano.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of tourism
research, 24(3), 503-523.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search
strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 108–119.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior.
Journal of travel research, 37(3), 220-230.
Føllesdal, D. (2006). Husserl’s reductions and the role they play in his
phenomenology. Dreyfus, H. L., & Wrathall, M. A. (Eds.). A companion to
phenomenology and existentialism. Blackwell Publishing, 105-14.
Forster E. M. (2000) A Room with a view. Penguin classics.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical
study. Journal of documentation, 59(3), 321-340.
Franklin, A. (2003). The tourist syndrome: An interview with Zygmunt Bauman.
Tourist studies, 3(2), 205-217.
Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G. J., & van de Poel, I. (2009). Philosophy of technology. In
Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018
Edition) URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/technology/>.
Frith, J. (2012). Splintered space: Hybrid spaces and differential mobility. Mobilities,
7(1), 131-149.
Gaggioli, A. (2017). Phygital spaces: When atoms meet bits. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(12), 774-774
Germann Molz, J. (2012). Travel connections: Tourism, technology and
togetherness in a mobile world. Routledge.
Germann Molz, J., & Paris, C. M. (2015). The social affordances of flashpacking:
Exploring the mobility nexus of travel and communication. Mobilities, 10(2),
173-192.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Aldine.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine
Publishing Company.
Gnoth, J. and Matteucci X. (2014). A phenomenological view of the behavioural
tourism research literature. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 8(1), 3-21.

96
Gössling, S. (2017). Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an
exploratory review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1024-1041.
Gössling, S. (2021). Tourism, technology and ICT: a critical review of affordances
and concessions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(5), 733-750.
Gössling, S., Cohen, S. A., & Hibbert, J. F. (2018). Tourism as connectedness.
Current Issues in Tourism, 21(14), 1586-1600.
Graham, S. (2009). Virtual Geographies. In Gregory, D. (Ed). The dictionary of
human geography (5th ed.). Blackwell.
Gretzel, U. (2010). Travel in the Network: Redirected Gazes, Ubiquitous
Connections and New Frontiers. In Levina, M., Kien, G. (Eds.) Post-Global
Network and Everyday Life; Peter Lang, 41–58.
Gretzel, U. (2018). Tourism and Social Media. In Cooper, C., Gartner, W., Scott, N.
& Volo, S. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Tourism Management. Sage, 415-
432.
Gretzel, U., & Stankov, U. (2021). ICTs and well-being: challenges and
opportunities for tourism. Information Technology & Tourism, 23(1), 1-4.
Gretzel, U., D. R. Fesenmaier, and J. T. O’Leary. (2006). The Transformation of
Consumer Behavior. In Buhalis D. and Costa C. (Eds.) Tourism Business
Frontiers. Butterworth-Heinemann, 9-18
Gretzel, U., Koo, C., Sigala, M., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Special issue on smart tourism:
convergence of information technologies, experiences, and theories. Electronic
Markets, 25(3), 175-177.
Gretzel, U., Zarezadeh, Z., Li, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2019). The evolution of travel
information search research: a perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 319-
323
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.) The
paradigm dialog. Sage, 17-30
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information
search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353–373.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An
examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448–458.
Hägerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Ninth European
Congress of the regional science association. Regional Science Association
Papers, 24(1), 6–21.
Hall, C. M. (2005) Reconsidering the geography of tourism and contemporary
mobility. Geographical Research, 43 (3), 125–39.
Hall, C. M. (2012). Spatial analysis: A critical tool for tourism geographies.
In Wilson J. (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of tourism geographies. Routledge,
178-188

97
Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Mobilities, immobilities and moorings.
Mobilities, 1(1), 1-22.
Hanson, S. (2009). Mobility. In Gregory, D. (Ed). The dictionary of human
geography (5th ed.). Blackwell.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling
method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research.
Psychology Press.
Höpken, W., Tobias Eberle, Fuchs, M., & Lexhagen, M. (2019). Google Trends data
for analysing tourists’ online search behaviour and improving demand
forecasting: the case of Åre, Sweden. Information Technology & Tourism, 21,
45–62.
Huang, W. J., Norman, W. C., Hallo, J. C., McGehee, N. G., McGee, J., &
Goetcheus, C. L. (2014). Serendipity and independent travel. Tourism
Recreation Research, 39(2), 169–183.
Hwang, Y. H., and D. R. Fesenmaier. (2011). Unplanned Tourist Attraction Visits by
Travellers. Tourism Geographies, 13(3), 398-416.
Hyde, K. (2009). Tourist information search. In Kozak, M. & Decrop, A. (Eds.)
Handbook of tourist behaviour: Theory and practice. Routledge, 69-83
Hyde, K. F. (2003). A duality in vacation decision making. Tourism Analysis, 8(2),
183–186
Hyde, K. F. (2004). A duality in vacation decision making. Consumer psychology of
tourism, hospitality and leisure, 3, 161-180.
Iaquinto, B. L. (2012). Backpacking in the Internet age: Contextualizing the use of
lonely planet guidebooks. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 145–155.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana
University Press
Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: the Peking University
lectures. Suny Press.
Ihde, D. (2012). Experimental phenomenology: multistabilities. Suny Press.
Ihde, D. (2015). Positioning postphenomenology. In Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P.
P. (Eds.) Postphenomenological investigations: essays on human-technology
relations. Lexington Books., vii-xvi.
James, D., Drennan, J. (2005). Exploring addictive consumption of mobile phone
technology. In: Proceeding of the Australian and New Zealand marketing
academy conference, Perth, Australia.
Jansson, A. (2018). Rethinking post-tourism in the age of social media. Annals of
Tourism Research, 69, 101-110.
Jeng, J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Conceptualizing the travel decision-making
hierarchy: A review of recent developments. Tourism analysis, 7(1), 15-32.

98
Kah, J. A., & Lee, S.-H. (2014). Beyond Adoption of Travel Technology: Its
Application to Unplanned Travel Behaviors. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 31(6), 667–680.
Kang, S., Jodice, L. W., & Norman, W. C. (2020). How do tourists search for
tourism information via smartphone before and during their trip?. Tourism
recreation research, 45(1), 57-68.
Kang, S., Kim, W. G., & Park, D. (2021). Understanding tourist information search
behaviour: the power and insight of social network analysis. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(3), 403-423.
Kang, S., & Lee, A. (2022). Information search by smartphone and tourists’ spatial
behavior. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 36(4),
71-81.
Kaplan, D. M. (Ed.). (2009). Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Kim, H. H., & Law, R. (2015). Smartphones in tourism and hospitality marketing: A
literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(6), 692-711.
Kim, H., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Use of the internet for trip planning:
A generational analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(3), 276–
289.
Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behavior in virtual
reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. Journal
of Travel Research, 59(1), 69-89.
Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
Research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln S. (Eds) The handbook of qualitative
research. Sage, 279–313
Kirillova, K., & Wang, D. (2016). Smartphone (dis) connectedness and vacation
recovery. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 157-169.
Klaus, P. P. (2021). Phygital–the emperor’s new clothes? Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 1-8.
Klein, J. T. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving
relationship. Structure, 6(1-2), 2-10.
Koban, K., Neureiter, A., Stevic, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). The COVID-19 infodemic
at your fingertips. Reciprocal relationships between COVID-19 information
FOMO, bedtime smartphone news engagement, and daytime tiredness over
time. Computers in Human Behavior, 130(2022), 107175.
Korneliussen, T. (2014). Tourist Information Search: A DIY Approach to Creating
Experience Value. In Prebensen, N., Chen, J. S. & Uysal, M. (Eds.) Creating
experience value in tourism. Cabi, 169-181

99
Koshar, R. (1998). ‘What ought to be seen’: Tourists’ guidebooks and national
identities in modern Germany and Europe. Journal of Contemporary History,
33(3), 323–340.
Lalicic, L., & Weismayer, C. (2016). The passionate use of mobiles phones among
tourists. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(2), 153-173.
Lamsfus, C., Wang, D., Alzua-Sorzabal, A., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Going mobile:
Defining context for on-the-go travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 54(6),
691-701.
Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the
move. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 21-34.
Larsen, J. (2019). Ordinary tourism and extraordinary everyday life: Rethinking
tourism and cities. In Frisch, T., Sommer, C., Stoltenberg, L., & Stors, N.
(Eds.). Tourism and everyday life in the contemporary city. Routledge, 24-41.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The Experience Sampling Method. New
Directions for Methodology of Social & Behavioral Science, 15, 41-56.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The experience sampling method. In
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (Eds.) Flow and the foundations of positive
psychology. Springer, 21-34.
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation. Common knowledge, 3(2), 29-64.
Law, R., Chan, I. C. C., & Wang, L. (2018). A comprehensive review of mobile
technology use in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 27(6), 626-648.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourism systems: An interdisciplinary perspective. Department of
Management Systems, Business Studies Faculty, Massey University.
Lemos, A. (2010). Post—mass media functions, locative media, and informational
territories: New ways of thinking about territory, place, and mobility in
contemporary society. Space and Culture, 13(4), 403-420.
Lemos, A. (2010). Post—mass media functions, locative media, and informational
territories: New ways of thinking about territory, place, and mobility in
contemporary society. Space and Culture, 13(4), 403-420.
Lewis Walpole Library. (2011). ed. Walpole, H. Letter to Sir Horace Mann 28
January, 1754. Retrieved from
http://images.library.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=20&page=407
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Liu, X., Wang, D., & Gretzel, U. (2022). On-site decision-making in smartphone-
mediated contexts. Tourism Management, 88, 104424.
Lo Turco, M., & Giovannini, E. C. (2020). Towards a phygital heritage approach for
museum collection. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 34(2020),
102639.

100
Lyons, G., & Urry, J. (2005). Travel time use in the information age. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3), 257-276.
Lyu, S. O., & Hwang, J. (2015). Are the days of tourist information centers gone?
Effects of the ubiquitous information environment. Tourism Management,
48(2015), 54-63.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist
settings. American journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.
MacCannell, D. (2013). The Tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. University of
California Press.
Magasic, M., & Gretzel, U. (2020). Travel connectivity. Tourist Studies, 20(1), 3-26.
Mascheroni, G. (2007). Global nomads' network and mobile sociality: Exploring new
media uses on the move. Information, Community and Society, 10(4), 527-546.
Matiza, T., & Slabbert, E. (2021). Tourism is too dangerous! Perceived risk and the
subjective safety of tourism activity in the era of COVID-19. Geo Journal of
Tourism and Geosites, 36, 580-588.
Mazanec, J. (2009). Unravelling myths in tourism research. Tourism Recreation
Research, 34(3), 319 – 323.
McCabe, S. (2002). The tourist experience and everyday life. In Dann G. (Ed.) The
tourist as a metaphor of the social world. Cabi, 61-75.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
Mieli, M. (2022a). Phygital. In Buhalis, D. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism
Management and Marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mieli, M. (2022b). Experience Sampling Method in a Qualitative Study of Tourists'
Smartphone Use. In Okumus, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jahani, S. (Eds.)
Contemporary Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism. Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Mieli, M. (Forthcoming) Planned serendipity: exploring tourists’ on-site information
behaviour.
Mieli, M., & Zillinger, M. (2020). Tourist information channels as consumer choice:
The value of tourist guidebooks in the digital age. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 20(1), 28-48.
Mieli, M., Zillinger, M. & Nilsson, J.H. (Forthcoming). Phygital time geography:
what about smartphones in tourists’ time-space behaviour?
Mkono, M. (2016). The reflexive tourist. Annals of Tourism Research, 57(2016),
206–219.
Moran, D. (2002). Introduction to phenomenology. Routledge.
Morin, E. (2017). La sfida della complessità. GaiaMente LeLettere.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European journal of
marketing, 21(10), 3-44

101
Munar, A. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2014). Motivations for sharing tourism
experiences through social media. Tourism management, 43(2014), 46-54.
Munar, A. M., Gyimóthy, S., & Cai, L. (Eds.). (2013). Tourism social media:
Transformations in identity, community and culture. Emerald Group
Publishing.
Nakazawa, J., & Tokuda, H. (2007). Phygital map: Accessing digital multimedia
from physical map. In 21st International Conference on Advanced Information
Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07) (Vol. 2). IEEE, 368-373
Neuburger, L., Beck, J., & Egger, R. (2018). The ‘Phygital’ tourist experience: The
use of augmented and virtual reality in destination marketing. In Camilleri, M.
A. (Ed.) Tourism planning and destination marketing. Emerald Publishing
Limited, 183-202.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technology-enhanced
tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(4), 340–
350.
Nofal, E., Reffat, M., & Vande Moere, A. (2017). Phygital heritage: an approach for
heritage communication. Immersive Learning Research Network Conference.
Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, 220-229.
Ølgaard, D. M. (2022). The Technopolitics of Compassion: A Postphenomenological
Analysis of the Digital Mediation of Global Humanitarianism. Lund
University.
Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Online information search. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(3), 809–832.
Parsons, N. (2007). Worth the detour: a history of the guidebook. The History Press.
Pearce, P. L. (2011). Tourist behaviour and the contemporary world. Channel view
publications.
Pearce, P. L. (2019). Tourist Behavior – the Essential Companion. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Pettersson, R., Zillinger, M. (2011). Event visitors and their experiences in time and
space – tracking visitors by means of GPS devices. Tourism Geographies,
13(1), pp. 1-20.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
business review, 76, 97-105.
Pourfakhimi, S., Duncan, T., & Coetzee, W. J. (2020). Electronic word of mouth in
tourism and hospitality consumer behaviour: state of the art. Tourism Review,
75(4), 637-661
Prebensen, N. K., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2018). Creating experience value
in tourism. Cabi.

102
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience:
An illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism management, 25(3),
297-305.
Quinlan Cutler, S., Doherty, S., & Carmichael, B. (2018). The experience sampling
method: Examining its use and potential in tourist experience research. Current
Issues in Tourism, 21(9), 1052-1074.
Raento, M., Oulasvirta, A., & Eagle, N. (2009). Smartphones: An emerging tool for
social scientists. Sociological methods & research, 37(3), 426-454.
Reisenwitz, T. H., & Fowler, J. G. (2019). Information sources and the tourism
decision-making process: an examination of generation X and Generation Y
consumers. Global Business Review, 20(6), 1372-1392.
Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). Postphenomenological investigations:
essays on human-technology relations. Lexington Books.
Schulz, J., Robinson, L., Khilnani, A., Baldwin, J., Pait, H., Williams, A. A., ... &
Ignatow, G. (Eds.). (2019). Mediated Millennials. Emerald Group Publishing.
Selinger, E. (Ed.). (2006). Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde. Suny
Press.
Sheller, M. & Urry , J. (2006). The New Mobilities Paradigm. Environment and
Planning A, 38(2), 207-26.
Shoval, N. (2012). Time geography and tourism. In Wilson J. (Ed.) The Routledge
handbook of tourism geographies. Routledge, 189-195
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worrall, K. (1990). Information search
strategies by destination-naive tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 13-
16
Stewart, S. I., & Vogt, C. A. (1999). A case-based approach to understanding
vacation planning. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 79-95.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., & Mäntymäki, M. (2020). Why do people purchase
from online travel agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88(2020), 102534.
Tan, W. K., & Chen, T. H. (2012). The usage of online tourist information sources in
tourist information search: an exploratory study. The Service Industries
Journal, 32(3), 451-476.
Tan, W. K., & Chen, Y. C. (2021). Tourists’ work-related smartphone use at the
tourist destination: making an otherwise impossible trip possible. Current
Issues in Tourism, 24(11), 1526-1541.
Thrift, N. (1996) Inhuman geographies: landscapes of speed, light and power. In
Thrift, N. (ed.) Spatial Formations. Sage, 191-241.

103
Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2018). Bringing the background to the fore: time-
geography and the study of mobile ICTs in everyday life. In Ellegård K.
(Ed.) Time Geography in the Global Context. Routledge, 96-112
Tribe, J. (2007). Critical tourism: Rules and resistance. In Ateljevic, I., Morgan, N.,
& Pritchard, A. (Eds.) The critical turn in tourism studies. Routledge, 51-62
Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less
from each other. Hachette UK.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2013). When cell phones become travel buddies: social attribution
to mobile phones in travel. In Cantoni, L. & Xiang, Z. (Eds.) Information and
communication technologies in tourism 2013. Springer, 82–93
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Social actor attribution to mobile phones: The case of
tourists. Information Technology & Tourism, 14(1), 21-47.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). The influence of innovativeness on on-site smartphone use
among American travelers: Implications for context-based push marketing.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(6), 806-823.
Tussyadiah, I. P., & Wang, D. (2016). Tourists’ attitudes toward proactive
smartphone systems. Journal of Travel Research, 55(4), 493-508.
Uriely, N. (1997). Theories of modern and postmodern tourism. Annals of tourism
research, 24(4), 982-985.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of
Tourism research, 32(1), 199-216.
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Sage.
Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and Proximity. Sociology, 36, 255–274.
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The Tourist Gaze 3.0. Sage.
Vaez, S., Burke, M., & Yu, R. (2020). Visitors' wayfinding strategies and
navigational aids in unfamiliar urban environment. Tourism Geographies, 22(4-
5), 832-847.
Vallespín, M., Molinillo, S., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2017). Segmentation and
explanation of smartphone use for travel planning based on socio-demographic
and behavioral variables. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 605-
619.
Van Berkel, N., Ferreira, D., & Kostakos, V. (2017). The experience sampling
method on mobile devices. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(6), 93.
van Nuenen, T. & Scarles, C. (2021). Advancements in technology and digital media
in tourism. Tourist Studies, 21(1), 119-132.
Vel, K., Brobbey, C., Salih, A., & Jaheer, H.(2015). Data, Technology & Social
Media: Their Invasive Role in Contemporary Marketing. Revista Brasileira De
Marketing E-ISSN, 2177-5184.

104
Verbeek, P. P. (2001). Don Ihde: the technological lifeworld. In Achterhuis, H. J.
(Ed.) (2001). American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Indiana
University Press., 119-146.
Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology,
agency, and design. Penn State Press.
Verbeek, P.P. (2016). Toward a Theory of Technological Mediation: A Program for
Postphenomenological Research. In: J.K. Berg O. Friis and Robert C. Crease
(Eds.) Technoscience and Postphenomenology: The Manhattan Papers.
Lexington Books, 189-204
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information
search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551-578.
Vogt, C. A., Fesenmaier, D. R., & MacKay, K. (1994). Functional and aesthetic
information needs underlying the pleasure travel experience. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 2(2-3), 133-146.
Volo S. (2009) Conceptualizing Experience: A Tourist Based Approach, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2-3), 111-126
Voordijk, J. T. (2019). Technological mediation in construction:
Postphenomenological inquiry into digital technologies. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 145(12), 04019084.
Walsh, M. J., Johns, R., & Dale, N. F. (2019). The social media tourist gaze: social
media photography and its disruption at the zoo. Information Technology &
Tourism, 21(3), 391-412.
Wang, D., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. (2016). Mobile Technology, Everyday
Experience and Travel. Travel & Tourism Research Association, 2–11.
Wang, D., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2012). The Role of Smartphones in
Mediating the Touristic Experience. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 371-
387.
Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2014). Adapting to the mobile world: A
model of smartphone use. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 11-26.
Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2016). Smartphone Use in Everyday Life
and Travel. Journal Of Travel Research, 55(1), 52-63.
Wellner, G. (2011). Wall-window-screen: How the cell phone mediates a worldview
for us. Humanities and technology Review, 30, 87-103.
Wellner, G. (2016). A postphenomenological inquiry of cell phones: Genealogies,
meanings, and becoming. Lexington Books.
Williams, A. M., Hall, C. M. and Lew, A. A. (2014). Theoretical and Methodological
Challenges for Tourism. In Lew, A. A., Hall, C. M. & Williams A. M. (Eds.)
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism. Blackwell, 625-634.
Williams, N. L., Wassler, P., & Ferdinand, N. (2022). Tourism and the COVID-(Mis)
infodemic. Journal of Travel Research, 61(1), 214-218.

105
Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing science, 3(2), 49-56.
Wong, C. K. S., & Liu, F. C. G. (2011). A study of pre-trip use of travel guidebooks
by leisure travelers. Tourism Management, 32(3), 616–628.
Wood, E. (2020). I remember how we all felt: perceived emotional synchrony
through memory sharing, Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 13390-1352.
Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General system framework of customer
choice processes of tourism services. In Gasser, R. & Weiermaier, K.
(Eds.) Spoilt for choice. Thaur: Kultur Verlag, 31-59.
Wozniak, T., Schaffner, D., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., & Lenz-Kesekamp, V. (2017).
Psychological antecedents of smartphone users’ behaviour along the mobile
customer journey. In Schegg, R., & Stangl, B. (Eds.) Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017. Springer, 317-330.
Xiang, Z. (2018). From digitization to the age of acceleration: On information
technology and tourism. Tourism management perspectives, 25, 147-150.
Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2020). Travel information search. In Xiang, Z.,
Fuchs, M., Gretzel, U. & Höpken, W. (Eds.). Handbook of e-Tourism. Springer
International Publishing, 1-20.
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information
search. Tourism management, 31(2), 179-188.
Xiang, Z., Fuchs, M., Gretzel, U., & Höpken, W. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of e-
Tourism. Springer International Publishing.
Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and
consumer behavior in travel and tourism: In Insights from travel planning using
the internet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 244-249.
Yu, X., Anaya, G. J., Miao, L., Lehto, X., & Wong, I. A. (2018). The impact of
smartphones on the family vacation experience. Journal of Travel Research,
57(5), 579-596.
Zarezadeh, Z., Benckendorff, P., & Gretzel, U. (2019). Lack of progress in tourist
information search research: A critique of citation behaviour and knowledge
development. Current issues in tourism, 22(19), 2415-2429.
Zhang, M., & Zhang, X. (2022). Between escape and return: Rethinking daily life
and travel in selective unplugging. Tourism Management, 91, 104521.
Zillinger, M. (2007). Guided tourism: The role of guidebooks in German tourist
behaviour in Sweden (Doctoral dissertation, Kulturgeografi).
Zillinger, M. (2020). Hybrid tourist information search German tourists' combination
of digital and analogue information channels. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 20(4), 510-515.

106
Zillinger, M. (2021). Tourism revisited: The influence of digitalisation on tourism
concepts. Report series ETOUR Working Paper. Mid Sweden
University. Available at:
https://www.miun.se/Forskning/forskningscentra/etour/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv/202
1-9/malin-zillinger/
Zillinger, M., Eskilsson, L., Månsson, M., & Nilsson, J. H. (2018). What’s new in
tourist information behaviour? Lund: Institutionen för Service Management och
Tjänstevetenskap.
Zuelow, E. (2015). A history of modern tourism. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Zurlo, F., Arquilla, V., Carella, G., & Tamburello, M. C. (2018). Designing
acculturated phygital experiences. In Linghao, Z., Yanyan, L., Dongjuan, X.,
Miaosen, G., Di, S. (Eds.) Cumulus Conference Proceedings Wuxi 2018
Diffused Transition & Design Opportunities. Wuxi Huguang Elengant Print
Co. Ltd, 153-164.

107
Paper I
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM
2020, VOL. 20, NO. 1, 28–48
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2020.1717991

Tourist information channels as consumer choice: the value of

tourist guidebooks in the digital age
Micol Mieli and Malin Zillinger
Department of service management and service studies, Lund university, Helsingborg, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present research aims at understanding the value of travel Received 21 February 2019
guidebooks as an object of consumption in the context of the Accepted 15 January 2020
digital age. It does so by applying a consumer value perspective
KEYWORDS
to an object that has traditionally been studied as an information Consumer value;
channel or as a cultural text and not as an object of consumption. digitalisation; guidebooks;
Holbrook’s consumer value framework was adopted to identify serendipity; tourism
the value dimensions associated with guidebooks, and the information
underlying reasons for their use. Given the explorative nature of
the study, a qualitative study design was chosen, and fifteen in-
depth interviews were conducted. The results suggest that the
use and value of guidebooks are strongly connected to emerging
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Information
needs are evolving due to technological development: the
constant availability of online information has caused the
temporal dimension of tourists’ information needs to shift so that
decisions can be postponed until right before consumption,
making information search more serendipitous. Several types of
value were identified which go beyond information needs, and
they are: efficiency, excellence, play, aesthetics, status, esteem,
spirituality and ethics.

Introduction
The use of travel guidebooks has been greatly challenged by the diffusion of digital infor-
mation channels. Since the early 2000s, the market for guidebooks has shrunk due to the
development of information technologies, and particularly to the ubiquitous access to the
Internet through devices like smartphones and tablets (Jacobsen, 2018; Peel & Sørensen,
2016a, 2016b; Stoller, 2018). However, although information is largely available through
other channels, print guidebooks are still used and bought, and in the last few years
their sales have been on the rise again (Dickinson, 2018; Stoller, 2018). This makes the
use of print guidebooks an interesting phenomenon considering the large amount of
cheaper (or free) and more convenient sources of tourist information. Moreover, the inter-
section with online technologies has shown to bring about changes in the use of travel
guidebooks (Fujii, Nanba, Takezawa, & Ishino, 2016; Peel & Sørensen, 2016a). An important

CONTACT Malin Zillinger Malin.zillinger@ism.lu.se Department of service management and service studies, Lund
university, Campus Helsingborg, Box 882, 251 08 Helsingborg, Sweden
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 29

consequence of such intersection is the possibility for tourists to be more serendipitous

and less organised (Huang et al., 2014). Previous literature has mainly focused on guide-
books either as cultural texts (Bhattacharyya, 1997; Dann, 1999; Lew, 1992) or as tools
to satisfy information needs (Nishimura, Waryszak, & King, 2007; Tsang, Chan, & Ho,
2011; Wong & Liu, 2011). However, while the main functional purpose of guidebooks is
to guide tourists by providing information about places (Nishimura et al., 2007), they
are also physical objects and artefacts of tourism. As such, they can mediate the practice
of tourism (Peel & Sørensen, 2016a), the identity of the tourist (Mazor-Tregerman, Man-
sfeld, & Elyada, 2017) and the image of a place (Bhattacharyya, 1997; Dann, 1999). More-
over, recent research shows that tourists’ information needs are changing in the digital age
(Choe, Fesenmaier, & Vogt, 2017). Therefore, we propose that, in addition to these mediat-
ing roles and to being a channel for information, guidebooks also serve as objects of con-
sumption, and that their use is a consumer choice.
In this light, traditional approaches to the study of guidebooks are not sufficient to
evaluate tourists’ use of guidebooks, and we set out to approach the field with a new per-
spective by applying the theory of consumer value. The choice of using consumer value
theory, and specifically Holbrook’s (1999) understanding of value as a preferential experi-
ence, is based on the consideration that guidebooks are still used despite the abundance
of other channels: this means that, to a certain extent, they are preferred to other channels
or to not using them at all. Holbrook’s (1999) framework of consumer value attempts to
typify and categorise consumer value, and it has been used in tourism (e.g. Gallarza &
Gil-Saura, 2008; Gallarza, Arteaga, Floristán, & Gil, 2009), and in service studies (Gallarza,
Arteaga, Del Chiappa, Gil-Saura, & Holbrook, 2017; Sánchez-Fernández, Iniesta-Bonillo, &
Holbrook, 2009).
In the present paper, our aim is to explore the value of travel guidebooks in the context
of the digital age, and to understand its intersection with online technologies. Given the
explorative nature of the study as well as the complexity of its framework, a qualitative
methodology consisting of semi-structured, in-depth interviews was deemed appropriate.
In the following section, a review of previous literature on guidebooks is presented, fol-
lowed by an overview of consumer value theory, with a focus on Holbrook’s (1999) typol-
ogy of consumer value. The methodology of the study is explained before proceeding to
the presentation of the findings, which are organised as follows: first, a contextual over-
view of the role of guidebooks in the digital age, and of the evolving information needs
is given; then, the identified consumer value types will be described and explained (in
pairs, for logical clarity). In the subsequent section, conclusions are drawn.

Literature review
History and contextualisation of the guidebook
Although no universally accepted definition of guidebooks exists, for the purpose of this
paper we follow the definitions given by Towner (2000) and Peel and Sørensen (2016b) in
the Encyclopaedia of tourism. A guidebook is an edited book with an impersonal, systema-
tic and detailed approach, that has been written and published with the purpose of pro-
viding information about a place for tourists. According to Peel and Sørensen’s (2016b,
p. 411) definition, “the basic tenets of the guidebook as a selective portable printed
30 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

textual entity in a distinct edition” have remained but have been challenged by the avail-
ability of online information. Since the aim of the study is to consider the guidebook as an
object of consumption and in relation to digital information channels, we only focus on
printed guidebooks and not, for example, on e-books or other digital collections of infor-
mation. In particular, by only referring to printed guidebooks, it is possible to focus on one
aspect that has previously been neglected in the literature, which is its tangibility as a
material object.
In tourism literature, guidebooks have not only been studied as sources of information
but also as artefacts of tourism which can mediate the tourist experience, just like
photographs, souvenirs and other objects do (Peel & Sørensen, 2016a). Moreover, guide-
books are and have been studied as cultural and historical objects, which contribute to
define and shape both the tourist’s identity (Mazor-Tregerman et al., 2017), and the
image of a place (Bhattacharyya, 1997; Dann, 1999; Jacobsen & Dann, 2003; Lew, 1992).
Currently, literature focuses on this last aspect of guidebooks as texts, particularly on
the interpretation of specific places (e.g. Bergmeister, 2015; Garcia-Fuentes, 2016; Mukho-
padhyay, 2014; Ogden, 2019, among others) and less extensively on the use of guidebooks
as tourism information sources (e.g. Fujii et al., 2016; Putri & Dewi, 2014; Yasin, Baghirov, &
Zhang, 2017).
The systematic, detailed information about a place can be found throughout the history
of books: from reports on the promised land commissioned by Joshua to the three men
from the seven tribes in the Bible, to Homer’s Iliad and Odissey, to proper literary
genres about travel such as the Greek periegesis, periplo as well as canons (compilations
of wonders or sights considered magnificent), and later commentarii in ancient Rome
(Parsons, 2008). Travel guidebooks as a literary genre emerged in modern Europe with pil-
grims’ guides for religious and spiritual trips; they developed in the 1600s and 1700s as a
consequence of the rise in popularity of leisure travel, which created a new type of con-
sumer demand, and blossomed in the mid-1800s in the context of a larger tourism indus-
try (Gassan, 2005; Parsons, 2008; Peel & Sørensen, 2016b). This was enforced by the 1800s
entrepreneur Thomas Cook, who popularised the practice of organised tourism. Two of the
most important publishers in the history of modern guidebooks are John Murray and Karl
Baedeker, whose publishing houses became famous in the 1800s for their supposedly fact-
focused and objective books (Gassan, 2005; Parsons, 2008; Peel & Sørensen, 2016b).

Guidebooks as a channel for tourism information

As a channel for tourism information, the main purpose of guidebooks is to communicate
“what ought to be seen” (Koshar, 1998, p. 323), and to give a “sense of place” (Nishimura,
Waryszak, & King, 2006). Tourists search for information, whether internally, by recalling
their own previous knowledge, or externally, by searching for information through
other channels (Fodness & Murray, 1999; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004). The travel guidebook
is one of the traditional external information channels for tourists, with the main functional
purpose of guiding tourists by providing information about places, and contributing to
their choice of destination (Nishimura et al., 2007; Wong & Liu, 2011; Zillinger, 2006).
In this role, guidebooks can contribute to satisfying functional needs like gaining knowl-
edge, reducing uncertainty, maximising utility, ensuring efficiency, improving the itinerary,
and feeling secure or safe (Nishimura et al., 2007; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Wong & Liu,
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 31

2011). In addition, information credibility is necessary to fulfil its functional purpose. While
previous research showed that guidebooks were viewed as credible sources in analogue
times (Cho & Kerstetter, 2002; Nolan, 1976), other sources such as blogs are considered
more credible in today’s digitalised world. This is especially true in regard to their ability
to provide up-to-date information (Fujii et al., 2016; Peel & Sørensen, 2016a; Tan &
Chen, 2012). Being able to trust an information source is fundamental for tourists, and
most people develop criteria or strategies to assess credibility, such as combining multiple
media, double checking information, and identifying indicators of trust, such as the quality
of writing or the authorship of the content (Pirolli, 2018).
Although functional needs appear to be the most important in tourism information
search, other needs exist in parallel. Seeking experiences and emotions, novelty, creativity,
aesthetics, enjoyment, and learning are some of the hedonic needs that information
search can answer to (Lu, Gursoy, & Lu, 2016; Nishimura et al., 2007; Vogt & Fesenmaier,
1998). They are becoming increasingly important (Choe et al., 2017). In the post-trip
stage, guidebooks become relatively non-functional. By then, they cater for needs such
as pondering or recollecting past travel experiences (Tsang et al., 2011).
As for the determinants of the choice of information channel, the cost related to exter-
nal information search is one of the main factors in such choice. In the use of guidebooks,
like for other sources, inputs or costs can be economic (price paid), physical (going to buy a
guidebook, carrying it) or cognitive (searching and filtering information) (cf. Gursoy &
McCleary, 2004; Pan & Fesenmaier, 2006). The outputs consist in the planning and
improvement of the trip. In other words, the output of using guidebooks translates into
the satisfaction of functional needs such as gaining knowledge, reducing uncertainty,
and improving the itinerary (cf. Nishimura et al., 2007; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998).

The digitalisation of tourism information search

Seminal pre-internet studies like Fodness and Murray’s (1998, 1999) and Snepenger,
Meged, Snelling, and Worrall’s (1990) qualified tourism information behaviour as strategic,
and this point has since been accepted and both explicitly and implicitly reiterated in sub-
sequent research (cf. Beritelli, Bieger, & Laesser, 2007; Luo, Feng, & Cai, 2005; Tan & Chen,
2012). In the context of digitalisation, online and off-online sources compete for attention
(Beritelli et al., 2007; Tan & Chen, 2012) and in general, tourists are hybrid consumers who
prefer combining several sources of information (Fodness & Murray, 1998; Iaquinto, 2012;
Tan & Chen, 2012), as well as multiple devices (Murphy, Chen, & Cossutta, 2016). More
recent research has shown that the use of online channels for information search may
lead to a phenomenon called online confusion, where Internet users feel overloaded
with information when browsing online (Lu et al., 2016; Zillinger, 2019). However, the
underlying idea is still that information seekers have strategies to overcome confusion,
for example by relying on familiar information sources online, or delegating the task
and search for additional information (Lu et al., 2016; Pirolli, 2018).
The almost ubiquitous availability of the Internet allows tourists to postpone decisions
until right before the moment of consumption (Xiang, Magnini, & Fesenmaier, 2015; for
example, by checking prices and opening hours while going there). This behaviour is par-
ticularly enabled by the pervasive use of smartphones (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2013), allow-
ing for ad hoc decisions on-the-go (Dickinson et al., 2014). Huang et al. (2014) link the
32 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

availability of smartphones and other information technologies to the potential for more
spontaneity, in a juxtaposition of structure vs. serendipity as two contrasting dimensions of
independent travel. The concept of serendipity, which was coined in 1754 by Horace
Walpole, indicates an event in which someone “is making discoveries, by accidents and
sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of”, where these discoveries are con-
sidered lucky or somehow advantageous (Lewis Walpole Library, 2011, p. 407). The
concept has recently gained attention in the field of information studies, where its para-
doxical meaning has proven useful to understand problem solving, knowledge acquisition
and information retrieval (Foster & Ford, 2003).
Recent research shows that the abolishment of roaming fees in the EU has increased
international web surfing, thus allowing for an even greater impact of smartphone use
on tourism behaviour (Zillinger, Eskilsson, Månsson, & Nilsson, 2018). Although the same
spontaneity has probably always existed, for example through the use of brochures and
information centres, there is scarce specific literature on tourism information search
during the on-site phase of the trip (cf. Kah & Lee, 2016; Tsang et al., 2011). Considering
the current, digitalised landscape of information sources and channels available to tourists
nowadays, information behaviour is clearly changing, and previous assumptions on its
characteristics need to be reconsidered.

A consumer value perspective on tourism information behaviour

The existing literature, as reviewed above, does not offer a satisfactory answer to the ques-
tion we pose in the present paper: why are guidebooks still used despite the fact that infor-
mation is abundantly available through other, faster, cheaper and more convenient
channels? To answer this question, we must assume that users still prefer using guidebooks
in certain occasions and for certain reasons. While the use of guidebooks is a way to gather
information about a travel destination, it also involves the consumption of a product – the
book itself – and it can therefore be studied as a consumer choice. A consumer choice is
traditionally seen as a function of multiple consumption values. Sheth, Newman, and
Gross (1991), and Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) state that value is the key outcome
of consumer experience. In this sense, consumer value can represent a useful tool to
uncover further reasons why tourists still use guidebooks in an era of digitalisation,
especially where consumer value is defined as a relativistic, preference experience (Hol-
brook, 1999).
Holbrook (1999) offers a useful understanding of consumer value as the evaluation of
an object by a subject and defines it as an interactive relativistic preference experience.
More recent literature focuses more on defining the nature of value (for example, as co-
created, co-produced, experiential, phenomenological, etc.) (e.g. Grönroos, 2012; Preben-
sen, Woo, & Uysal, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2012, among others), and in the tourism field
mainly on how to create or co-create value (e.g. Prebensen, Chen, & Uysal, 2018; Seljeseth
& Korneliussen, 2015), while Holbrook’s framework represents one of the few efforts in the
literature to distinguish different types of value involved in the consumption experience.
Holbrook’s (1999) typology is based on a multidimensional view of value, where value is
not a one-dimensional outcome of the consumption experience, but consists of multiple
attributes, dimensions and categories which are interrelated and constitute a complex
phenomenon (Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2009).
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 33

Literature on consumer value further distinguishes between utilitarian and hedonic

value (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Morar, 2013). Utilitarian value is given when a
product or service can satisfy consumers’ needs and wishes. Value, however, is not only
perceived when it is instrumental to satisfy a specific need, but it can consist of spon-
taneous, emotional responses to the consumption activity (Holbrook & Hirschman,
1982). While the utilitarian value of consumption has traditionally been acknowledged,
Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) were the first to acknowledge the need to theorise
hedonic value as well: utilitarian value consists of the outcome of the pursuit of certain
intended consequences, while hedonic value refers to “the symbolic meanings of more
subjective characteristics” of consumption (p.134). The former depends on whether a
need was indeed satisfied, while the latter is more subjective and personal. Therefore,
the consumption of guidebooks may be instrumental to the purpose of satisfying a
need, but there may also be experiential aspects to it.

Value as an interactive, preferential, relativistic experience

In the present paper, value is understood as the result of an interaction between a subject
and an object; it is relativistic (specifically: comparative, personal and situational); prefer-
ential, as the evaluation is not absolute but involves a preference judgment among
objects; and it resides in the interaction itself, in the consumption experience (Holbrook,
1999). Holbrook (1999) created a typology consisting of eight types of value: efficiency,
play, excellence, aesthetics, status, ethics, esteem, spirituality. Each of these is defined
by three characteristics: (1) intrinsic/extrinsic; (2) active/reactive; (3) self-oriented/other-
oriented (Table 1). Extrinsic means that value resides in the use of the object, while an
intrinsic value resides in the consumption experience itself, for its own sake. Self-oriented
value is appreciated for the subject’s own sake, while other-oriented value for the sake of
others. Active value entails some manipulation of the object by the subject, while reactive
value is generated by the reaction of the subject to the object.
Efficiency, often associated with convenience, is given by the ratio between inputs and
outputs. It is strongly situational, because the efficiency or convenience in the use of
resources depends on how such resources could have been used otherwise. Excellence,
connected with satisfaction and quality, is the appreciation of an object for its capacity
to “accomplish some goal or to perform some function” (Holbrook, 1999, p. 14), even
when said object is not purposefully used for that goal.
Play, which usually involves having fun, is very situational since the same activity in
different contexts can be either fun or work, alternatively entailing values of play or
efficiency. Aesthetics value is given when an object (e.g. a car) is valued intrinsically, indepen-
dently of its practical purpose, for example for its beauty. Status and esteem both derive from
the effects of consumption on others: while for status the object is a symbol, and

Table 1. Holbrook’s (1999) typology of consumer value.

Extrinsic Intrinsic
Self-oriented Active EFFICIENCY (O/I, Convenience) PLAY (Fun)
Reactive EXCELLENCE (Quality) AESTHETICS (Beauty)
Other-oriented Active STATUS (Success, Impression management) ETHICS (Justice, virtue, morality)
Reactive ESTEEM (Reputation, materialism, possessions) SPIRITUALITY (faith, ecstasy, sacredness)
34 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

consumption is “political” (in that it is instrumental to producing an effect on others), for

esteem the object is reactively appreciated for its ability to represent a certain prestige
but not purposefully used to represent a status. Ethics involve doing something for the
sake of others and it can result in virtue, justice and morality. Spirituality entails an “intrinsi-
cally motivated acceptance, adoption, appreciation, admiration or adoration of an Other”
(p.22), which for Holbrook (1999) can be a deity, some magical force or superior power.
The distinction between active and reactive forms of a value types has proven particu-
larly difficult to uphold in the operationalisation of the framework, resulting in blurry or
subtle differences, for example between status and esteem, or ethics and spirituality
(Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2009). Critiques of Holbrook’s (1999) framework have pointed
out that several values can be co-present in the same consumption experience (Brown,
1999). Another critique of the framework is the reluctancy of some authors to accept
the idea that this framework is exhaustive and comprehensive of all types of consumer
value (e.g. Smith, 1999). Sánchez-Fernández et al. (2009) have criticised the complexity
of structure of the framework, claiming that it reduces its operationalizability. In fact,
studies that have employed Holbrook’s (1999) framework have usually reduced the cat-
egories or re-elaborated the types into a simplified version (e.g. Sánchez-Fernández
et al., 2009), or have focused on some aspects thereof (e.g. Gallarza & Gil-Saura, 2008).
Despite its shortcomings, the framework has been applied in both tourism (e.g. Gallarza
et al., 2009; Gallarza & Gil-Saura, 2008) and service research (Gallarza et al., 2017; Sánchez-
Fernández et al., 2009). The authors support such a use of Holbrook, as the framework
deepens the understanding of value perceived by consumers, and by their construction
of value as an interactive, relativistic, preference experience. Therefore, it is a useful key
for the understanding of guidebooks as an object of consumption. Consequently, there
are valuable insights to be gained about the tourist experience by means of Holbrook’s
framework.

Methodology
Exploring the role of guidebooks in social settings, this study builds on a constructivist
methodology, which seeks to understand how the experiential value of guidebooks is con-
structed by tourists. Using a qualitative approach, data were collected between March
2017 and January 2019 through fifteen semi-structured interviews, ranging in length
between 45 min and 2 h. All interviewees presented three characteristics: they (1) have
used guidebooks during travel, (2) attend or have attended higher education, and (3)
were born in the 1980s and 1990s, a time when off-line channels of information were
still widely used and on-line channels became increasingly common (cf. Kim, Xiang, & Fes-
enmaier, 2015).
Interviewees were selected through purposive and snowball sampling strategy:
research invitations were posted on social media groups and shared both with students
at the researchers’ university and with the researchers’ personal network. In total, ten
women and five men from eleven different countries were interviewed (see Table 2).
Although a diverse and heterogeneous sample is generally desirable, the characteristics
of our sample are unlikely to affect the trustworthiness of results (cf. Silverman, 2013),
since this research aims at exploring in depth the value dimensions that appear in the con-
versation about guidebooks, rather than at generalising results.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 35

Table 2. List and characteristics of interviewees.

N. Name Country of origin Occupation Type of travel Main trip of reference
1 Monica Italy Engineer With friends, with boyfriend Vacation to Indonesia
with boyfriend
2 Vincent Netherlands Student With friends: city trips, cultural Vacation to EU
sightseeing, nightlife capitals with friends
3 Anni Finland Student Leisure, work, packaged trip General
4 Milena Armenia PhD City break, leisure, work, with General
friends, bf, alone
5 Celine Canada Sales City breaks, backpacking, lived Backpacking alone in
abroad and travelled around South America
6 Mads Denmark Entrepreneur Visiting friends abroad, with friends, Backpacking in South
alone, East Asia
7 Alina Kosovo Student Visiting friends abroad, with friends General
8 Luiza Brazil Unemployed City breaks, with husband General
9 Alastair United Kingdom – (future) Honeymoon to South Africa, General
Scotland city breaks, with friends, with gf
10 Bob USA Programmer With friends or family, weekend General
breaks, lived abroad and travelled
around
11 Gwen United Kingdom – Student, Teacher Lived abroad and travelled around General
Wales
12 Donatella Italy Student City breaks, with bf, with friends, General
visits bf
13 Fabio Italy Manager Backpacking, cultural and family General
(tourism), trips
Student
14 Heidi Germany Student Family trips, city breaks, study Study exchange in
exchange Chile
15 Arabella Netherlands/ Student Van trip to Morocco Van trip to Morocco
United Kingdom

The choice to interview people from different countries was made in order to avoid
investigating nation-specific habits. Although some research has shown that national
culture of tourists is likely to influence their information search behaviour (Gursoy &
Umbreit, 2004), the data collected suggest quite consistent themes despite the intervie-
wees’ countries of origin. The selection of interviewees was stronger on criteria such as
level of education and age group, which have shown to be a valid predictor of information
search behaviour and technology use in tourism (Coromina & Camprubí, 2016; Kim et al.,
2015; Zalatan, 1996). People with tertiary education are more likely to seek travel infor-
mation through destination-specific literature, and they spend more time on their trip
planning than do other groups (Coromina & Camprubí, 2016). Since this research
focuses on values attached to the use of travel guidebooks, it was appropriate to interview
persons being more likely to use this type of information source, but who also used other
channels.
Thirteen interviews were conducted in person, either in Sweden or in Denmark, and
two were carried out via video call services. Based on the request for anonymity of one
of the interviewees and following general ethical guidelines in research (cf. Flick, 2014),
fictional names were attributed to all 15 interviewees, which point to their nationality
and gender.
The interviewer brought five or six guidebooks, differing in style, destination and edi-
tions, and asked the interviewees to bring one they had previously used, although only
a few of them did. The use of guidebooks during the interviews was inspired by the
method of photo-elicitation as an aid in interviews, which assists interviewees in recalling
36 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

memories, feelings and impressions as well as giving more precise descriptions and evalu-
ations by anchoring their answers in objects (Andersson Cederholm, 2004; Silverman,
2013). Video-interviews offered interesting perspectives, as interviewees could browse
the Internet, offer specific examples about online channels, and deepen the conversation
by displaying online what they were talking about. Ultimately, this approach led to a deep
comprehension on the interviewees’ construction of meaning. For example, one intervie-
wee compared a specific website page to the same topic in his own guidebook. Consider-
ing the relatively small number of interviews, it is important to note here that the results of
this research will have a mainly explanatory value. Given the qualitative approach and the
exploratory aim of the study, generalizability was not sought for, but the focus was rather
on depth of understanding within the scope of the empirical material collected.
Initially, a pilot interview with a loose interview guide was conducted. From its transcript,
further questions were extrapolated to create an interview guide including notes and
possible questions (see Appendix 1). The protocol included open questions, followed up
by more specific questions that tapped into the interviewees’ value dimensions. Descriptive
questions (e.g. “when you wake up at the destination, when is the first moment you take the
guidebook?”) helped the interviewees recall past experiences, and gave input to the conver-
sation. Vignette questions were used to stimulate a change of perspective from the intervie-
wee, for example: “If you think of yourself in 10–15 years, with a family and a full-time job, do
you think your opinion of guidebooks would be different?”.
The respondents were not made familiar with the theoretical framework in advance, as
that may have hindered an in-depth exploration of their perceptions and constructions.
The researchers did not give a definition of guidebook to participants in advance but
made sure during the interview that the respondents were indeed referring to guidebooks
as defined in the present study.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and qualitative content analysis was con-
ducted manually on the transcriptions (cf. Flick, 2014). The analysis started with concepts
closely related to what the interviewees were saying, from which they successively built
more abstract concepts. In a first step, 23 concepts were produced through open
coding. For example, the concept of “tangibility” was identified where respondents men-
tioned the physical, tangible qualities of the guidebook. These concepts were then elabo-
rated into four categories: curation, trustworthiness, physical characteristics, non-
functional aspects. They were further specified through properties and sub-properties
(e.g. structure, standard or quality, updatedness, objectivity, size and weight, innovation).
For example, the category of “curation” included any instance in which the interviewees
mentioned how guidebooks are comprehensive of all the needed information and how
the editors and writers have already filtered out, selected and organised the information,
which is presented in a structured way. Data were then analysed within the framework of
previous literature on guidebooks and consumer value theory. Keeping in mind the limit-
ations and critiques of Holbrook’s (1999) framework seen above, the theory was used in
this study as a point of departure to explore value in the use of guidebooks but was
not tested as a theoretical framework per se. It was used with flexibility, as a general guide-
line for interpretation of data and not as a binding and closed frame of reference. In par-
ticular, for the analysis, the eight categories have been reduced to four, and value types
have been paired according to the active/reactive distinction, which revealed to be too
subtle for analysis.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 37

Results
Evolving information needs in the digital age: the role of serendipity in travel
planning
The interviewees’ attitudes towards guidebooks has changed mainly in response to the
increasing popularity of smartphones, the use of which has penetrated virtually every
aspect of tourism practice (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2013). Smartphones can substitute
several characteristics of guidebooks: they are small, portable, you can hold them in
your hand and flip pages with swiping movements on screen. At the same time, people
carry their smartphones all the time, allowing them ubiquitous access to information.
Celine’s statement makes this clear:
Obviously, the idea is that the books are great but like kind of a nuisance, so if you have a
phone you can access whatever country you need and you don’t have any extra weight
because you’re gonna bring it with you regardless.

Data show that the temporal dimension of information needs has changed: if and when
information is reachable online anytime, there is no need to collect information before-
hand. For example, Luiza recalled: “before the internet [..] it was a little bit more difficult
to find information, so I’d buy [a guidebook] before”. Thus we agree with Xiang et al.’s
(2015) claim that the use of Internet encourages tourists to postpone decisions but
further add that not only the decision, but also the need to access information is post-
poned. When the Internet is easily and readily available, for many there is no need to
use a guidebook. Most interviewees stated that guidebooks are mainly good to have
when Internet is not available. For example, Anni explained: “If I go outside of Europe
then I would be more willing to pay for a guidebook because also I can’t use Internet there”.
The choice of source as well is not always strategic, which partially contradicts previous
research (Fodness & Murray, 1998; Snepenger et al., 1990), but can depend on situational
factors such as the availability of an Internet connection, the presence of a physical book-
store, or personal preference. The postponement of information needs implicates that
there is a serendipitous element within travel planning, a sort of “planned serendipity”
that previous research has not acknowledged. This means that the outcome of tourists’
choices is at times unexpected and that the planning process can leave space for elements
of surprise or novelty (cf. Huang et al., 2014). Thanks to the abundance and availability of
information in the digital age, tourists do not need to reflect upon which resources they
need in order to make travel-related decisions. We argue that the dichotomy of structure
vs. serendipity (cf. Huang et al., 2014) is not sufficient to explain the role of serendipity in
travel planning, because modern information technologies allow a degree of spontaneity
even in structured plans. Moreover, the results strengthen the claim made by Beritelli et al.
(2007) that off-line channels have not been entirely replaced by online ones. This also
suggests that on-site information behaviour should be researched further, especially
since it is enhanced by smart technologies that allow Internet access during the trip.

The value of guidebooks beyond information needs

Interviewees often claimed that while guidebooks are still valued, their use somehow
“faded out” in the past few years (interview, Milena). Although most interviewees said
38 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

they did not need guidebooks, they are “nice to have” (interview, Vincent). In other words,
the value residing in the use of guidebooks goes beyond the functional purpose of satisfy-
ing information needs.
Interviewees affirm that using guidebooks strongly depends on the possibility of using
ICTs, and therefore, information choice cannot be investigated independently from the
context of the digital age. In fact, the value of guidebooks is also changing with the use
of online technologies: on one hand, utilitarian value remains predominant when ICTs
are not widely available, and it is therefore strongly situational, contextual, relativistic
and preferential (cf. Holbrook, 1999). On the other hand, hedonic value is less situational
and contextual, but still relativistic and preferential, as certain characteristics of guide-
books, like its tangibility or its “souvenir” feeling (interview, Milena), are valued indepen-
dently of ICTs in specific situations. In other words, when utilitarian value can be
achieved with online channels, the use of guidebooks is more strongly based on
hedonic value (cf. Choe et al., 2017; Nishimura et al., 2007; Wong & Liu, 2011).
In the following section, we will present the value types associated with guidebooks,
following Holbrook’s (1999) classification. However, for reasons of clarity and in consider-
ation of the abovementioned critiques of Holbrook’s (1999) framework (Brown, 1999;
Gallarza & Gil-Saura, 2008; Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2009; Smith, 1999), the value types
will be presented in pairs, disregarding the distinction between active and reactive
value (Table 3).

Efficiency and excellence: the relativistic nature of the utilitarian value of

guidebooks
The interviewees’ evaluations on utilitarian value of guidebooks were not independent
statements, but comparisons with online information. Interviewees found it difficult to
search the complex hypertext system that is the Internet, supporting previous research
on online confusion and the cognitive effort required to navigate the Internet (Lu et al.,
2016; Pan & Fesenmaier, 2006). It appears that guidebooks can be understood as hubs

Table 3. Findings summary: value types of guidebooks.

Value type Category Properties Value of guidebook
Efficiency & Curation Comprehensiveness Gives an overview
Excellence Selection, Structure Helps overcome online confusion, mitigate cognitive
effort
Physical Tangibility Writing and marking on pages reduces cognitive effort
characteristics in retrieval of information.
Reliability Less attractive for thieves; will not stop functioning
Trustworthiness Credibility Helps reduce uncertainty, ensure quality information
Updatedness Negative value: information not up to date
Play & Physical Inspiration Excitement and anticipation when looking at
Aesthetics characteristics guidebooks in bookstore to be inspired
Souvenir Keeping the book as memento of the trip
Non-functional Entertainment Planning with friends, reading during trip, sharing with
aspects travel companions, balancing knowledge and novelty
Status & Esteem Non-functional Signs or symbols Signalling or symbolising one’s identity as tourist
aspects Signalling or symbolising what type of tourist someone
is
Signalling or symbolising how well-travelled someone is
Spirituality & Non-functional Spiritual and Switching off devices and travelling “the old way”
Ethics aspects disconnected
Deontology Travelling “the right way”
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 39

of information in the sense used by Pan and Fesenmaier (2006) about websites. For
example, Alastair made a distinction between using TripAdvisor as a secondary source
as opposed to guidebooks as a primary source. Bob complained that online you can
find raw information, while guidebooks include “curation”, that is information that has
been filtered and selected by competent authors and editors. As Vincent said, “It’s all
together and you don’t have to make too much effort […] it’s the same [information] but
in the guidebook you just have one thing and that’s it”. Therefore, efficiency value lies in
the curation of guidebooks, which helps overcome online confusion and mitigate the cog-
nitive effort of using the Internet for information search.
The curation of guidebooks also yields excellence value, strongly connected to con-
cepts of quality and satisfaction. Guidebooks are believed to include the most important
information, to give an overview and a sense of place (Nishimura et al., 2006), thus ensur-
ing quality and satisfaction both with the information and the trip itself. Additionally, the
guidebook is appreciated for giving information on “what not to do”, which is especially
important when the culture of the destination is new to the visitor and the visitor
might not know to even look for that kind of information online. For example, in the
case of safety tips in South Africa for Alastair and norms of behaviour for Arabella in
Morocco. In general, most interviewees put great emphasis on how much easier it is to
refer to the book rather than to digital channels of information. In information search lit-
erature this has been called “information needs” (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998), while in terms
of value, it can be explained as excellence value because it improves the quality of the trip
by performing a purpose, at times going beyond users’ expectations, according to Hol-
brook’s (1999) definition of excellence value.
Another source of value that has not been extensively explored in previous research is
tangibility (cf. Peel & Sørensen, 2016a), which gains relevance only in comparison with
intangible channels, as typically are online ones. As Milena put it:
It kind of has visible and tangible information, it’s not like when you google something, your
attention span just jumps from one thing to the other and then you forget what you’ve seen
and you forget what you want, while with the guidebook it’s like you can put a page mark and
whatever.

While a physical book allows users to write notes, flick through, rip off pages or insert
objects, the lack of tangibility of online sources makes them more volatile. The mentioned
activities facilitate the use of guidebooks, reducing inputs, namely the cognitive effort
required to find, filter, store, remember and retrieve information online (Gursoy &
McCleary, 2004; Pan & Fesenmaier, 2006).
Credibility is a fundamental source of utilitarian value as it reduces uncertainty and
ensures quality information (Pirolli, 2018; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Wong & Liu, 2011).
Celine explains:
I feel like the book I trusted 100%, I never questioned the books. Whereas when I’m online …
even people’s reviews sometimes are like “eeeehhh are you just like an angry person?” […] I
feel like I have to double check everything.

Thus, credibility of the guidebooks derives from reliable authorship and is an advantage of
guidebooks in comparison with online channels. For our interviewees, the main reason
why guidebooks are more credible sources is the collaborative process that lies behind
40 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

its publication as several people work together in collecting, selecting and publishing the
information in the book. Heidi, for example, trusts guidebooks more than other channels
because she knows that in publishing companies “there is a really big network behind it and
they’re developing all the time”.
The relationship with online channels, however, also defines value of guidebooks in a
negative, relativistic way: the lack of up-to-date information can be a negative source of
excellence value. On this, Alastair explained that he took recommendations from guide-
books and then went online to check “is this restaurant still good, has the menu
changed, has it changed over and gone downhill or what?”. This is coherent with recent
research, affirming that online sources are sometimes preferred to guidebooks for their
credibility regarding updated information (Peel & Sørensen, 2016a; Pirolli, 2018; Tan &
Chen, 2012).
Overall, guidebooks are praised for their reliability as off-line non-digital objects. Books
are less attractive to thieves, cannot stop functioning, run out of battery or fail to display
information, as a digital device could. As Milena said: “In my experience total reliance on
Internet while you’re travelling is not a good idea … anything can happen … the roaming
doesn’t turn on, the phone breaks down […] I think that’s the main advantage, that it’s
with you and nobody wants to steal it, unlike a phone that can be stolen.” Altogether, this
shows that the utilitarian value of guidebooks has a contextual, preferential and relativistic
nature. In fact, interviewees value guidebooks as efficient and excellent in comparison to
digital ICTs, they are valuable when and if other (digital) channels of information fail.

Play and aesthetics: enjoying the book as an object of consumption that mediates
tourism
Our data show that strong hedonic aspects are present in the use of guidebooks not only
post-trip, as suggested by Tsang et al. (2011), but in every stage of the trip. Even before
planning a trip, guidebooks have both the active type of play value, and the reactive aes-
thetic value: going to bookstores and wandering in the travel section, flicking through and
reading into them, is a form of entertainment. Monica, for example, appreciates looking at
guidebooks in bookstores: “it makes me dream of travelling … going to places … and I see
all the guidebooks and I think that little by little I will go to all those places.” When buying a
guidebook, purely hedonic feelings such as excitement and anticipation appear, as Alastair
shows: “It makes me excited! Because I know that I’m going on my trip in the coming few
weeks or months. […] So yeah that’s exciting.”. In the pre-trip phase, planning a trip with
friends and “a bunch of guidebooks” (interview, Bob) is more fun than planning in front
of a computer; and during the trip itself, using a guidebook can be a way to “kill time”
and “learn new things”, and it is especially fun when sharing the information with travel
companions and “turning into a history lesson” (interviews, Monica, Donatella, Arabella).
Using guidebooks to socialise is a source of play value, because the object is enjoyed
for its own sake and usually involves fun (Holbrook, 1999). The physicality of the book is
also of relevance here, as Arabella noted: “the feeling, turning a page is really satisfying,
like if you scroll it’s just not as satisfying”.
While gathering information about a destination is important, knowledge is not always
desired: the amount and type of knowledge tourists want relies on a balance between
knowledge and ignorance, which leaves room for the satisfaction of innovation needs
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 41

(i.e. novelty, variety and creativity) as well as for serendipity. This point is illustrated by
Vincent:
If you go to some castle and you read very specific information about that, why would you
then even go to it if you already basically know everything … I think it might ruin an experi-
ence … it’s nice to have basically a lack of knowledge before going into something. […] It’s the
thrill of the unknown!”

This way, guidebooks cater to hedonic needs such as novelty, creativity and innovation
(Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998) and contribute to creating play value, allowing tourists to
enjoy discovering their surroundings, but concurrently giving them tools to understand
such experiences.
On the reactive side, aesthetic value is connected to guidebooks as physical objects:
being able to write on them and make marks is not only a source of utilitarian value,
but through these activities of personalisation, guidebooks become unique objects,
strongly connected to the owners’ travel experiences. For example, Monica said that
she and her boyfriend signed the guidebook after using it and that its sight in the shelf
reminds her of the trip. Milena called this a “souveniry thing” that guidebooks have,
especially after the trip. Arabella also told that she went to the travel section of a bookstore
not with the intention of buying a guidebook but because “it was just that they all look so
pretty!” (interview, Arabella). In extension to the literature, relating aesthetic needs to
experience and place (Nishimura et al., 2007), we argue that aesthetic value also refers
to the guidebook itself as an object of consumption, which mediates the tourist practice
(Peel & Sørensen, 2016a) and is attached to certain consumer values.

Status and esteem: defining and communicating the tourist’s identity

Another value of guidebooks is connected to its symbolic function, and to the satisfaction
of “sign” needs, which previous literature identifies as symbolic expression and social inter-
action (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998). This result resembles Mazor-Tregerman et al.’s (2017)
statement on guidebook use as a mediator of tourist identity. Having a guidebook
signals that its owner is a tourist. Furthermore, guidebooks identify other tourists, thus
acting as signs or symbols. For example, when feeling insecure in a restaurant in Bali
during a holiday with her boyfriend, Monica was relieved to see other people with the
same guidebook because that meant they were tourists too.
In partial contradiction with Peel and Sørensen’s (2016a) claim that some tourists fear of
being judged negatively for using a guidebook, several guidebook users feel that travel-
ling with a guidebook is generally a better way of travelling (more efficient, higher
quality/excellence) than with online information alone, since the former is more compre-
hensive and authoritative. In terms of status value, this means that using guidebooks
makes them “superior” tourists over those who do not use them. Alastair makes this clear:
I don’t judge [people who don’t use guidebooks] but I think they might miss out on some stuff
that’s really really fun. Also, if you take Paris, they’re gonna go to the Eiffel tower and Notre
Dame, but […] are they gonna experience the small markets by the Seine in the morning?

Thirdly, using a guidebook, and possibly a certain brand, signals that the person is a
specific type of tourist. For example, using a Lonely Planet guidebook is strongly associ-
ated with backpackers (Iaquinto, 2011, 2012). According to Mads, he would rather use a
42 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

guidebook and not a smartphone because the former is “part of the backpacking scene”.
Using a guidebook was sometimes associated with being a “vintage” tourist “with the
book under my arm” (interview, Donatella). In this sense, guidebooks can be understood
as symbols and mediators of tourist identity.
On the other hand, the symbolic value is also shown by simply owning a guidebook,
which can signal that a tourist is more experienced. This aspect is particularly visible in
the display of guidebooks in the bookshelf. In fact, status is also associated to “showing
off” to others by displaying guidebooks in a visible place at home, as Celine recalls: “I
think when you were younger it was definitely a show off, like ‘look at where I’ve been!’.
And when I go to other people’s homes I’d be like `oh did you [go there]?´” Or Vincent: “it’s
nice to display it but it’s also a bit of a showing off.”

Spirituality and ethics: guidebooks within a deontology of travel.

One of the interviewees, Donatella, associated guidebooks with a “more spiritual” type of
travel, which goes beyond technologies and reminds her of her parents’ way of travelling;
while Fabio claimed that using a guidebook fells “warmer”, “more personal” and “closer” to
the destination. Alastair and Arabella also mentioned how they do not want to spend time
on their devices when travelling and using a guidebook allows them to switch them off.
Holbrook (1999) attributes religious and existential connotations to values of spirituality
and ethics, however our data show a different perspective: both Donatella’s spirituality,
Fabio’s closeness and Alastair and Arabella’s wish to disconnect link guidebooks with
the essence of travel as detachment from everyday reality. Although it would be a
stretch to claim that using a guidebook has spiritual value per se, such a claim can be
made about travel in general, and the guidebook is an element of its practice (cf.
Cohen, 1979).
The same type of reflection can be made about a certain deontology of travel, which
can be related to Holbrook’s (1999) ethic value. All the interviewees commented on
using or not using a guidebook, as well as which type of guidebook is best, in connection
to their own idea of what travel is supposed to be. However, while Holbrook understands
ethic value as doing something for the sake of others, our interviewees’ deontology of
travel has no other-oriented purpose. For them, it went from relaxation, to fun, to learning
or experiencing everything in a place and not missing out. In this, a personal and self-
oriented deontology of travel could be recognised.

Discussion and conclusions

Information needs are evolving under the influence of technological development: the
constant availability of online information can cause the temporal dimension of tourists’
information needs to shift in the sense that decisions are postponed until right before con-
sumption. This has a fundamental consequence on the nature of information search and
its study: the choice of channels and the collection of information can be partially seren-
dipitous. The present research, therefore, suggests that serendipity does not have to be
juxtaposed to planning, but it can be an important element of it: tourists will not necess-
arily decide in advance which channels to use and how to use them, but will make use of
the ones they find en route.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 43

The evolution of information needs has another implication: if information needs can
be satisfied through many different channels, the choice of one specific channel must
be based on a preference evaluation made by the tourist-consumer. In fact, people find
both utilitarian and hedonic value in the use of guidebooks. The utilitarian values –
efficiency and excellence – are strongly relative to the possibility of using ICTs in the
specific travel situation. However, when used, guidebooks are preferred to online infor-
mation channels for the curation of their content, their credibility, their tangibility and
reliability as physical objects. The hedonic value of guidebooks is multifaceted, and it is
perceived as aesthetic, play, status, esteem and – in a certain sense – even as spirituality
and ethic value. Although still preferential and relativistic, hedonic value is less situational
than utilitarian value: the appreciation of non-functional characteristics of the book does
not depend on the ability to use other types of information in a specific travel situation.
However, it is still described in a comparison with ICTs and their shortcomings, thus
being relativistic.
Although useful, it is clear from the analysis that Holbrook’s (1999) typology has some
limitations: the distinctions among value types are blurred, especially when taking into
consideration the characteristics of extrinsic/intrinsic, active/reactive, self-/other-oriented
(e.g. status/esteem) and the eight types of value are not sufficient to explain all types of
value attached to guidebooks (e.g. ethics and spirituality).
Despite these limitations, it is clear that Holbrook’s (1999) definition of value as an inter-
active, relativistic, preference experience is a useful tool to explain the value of guidebooks
in the digital age. In fact, the different value types associated with guidebooks only come
into existence through an interaction with the object, either before, during or after the trip.
The value of guidebooks does not exist independently of its relationship with the user, but
is also relativistic because it is always related to something else, in particular online chan-
nels. Clearly, the value of guidebooks is also situational: the usefulness of a guidebook is
greater where ICTs and Internet are not available. In addition, guidebooks are not just
valued, but preferred to something else. For example, the lower cognitive cost of using
a guidebook is preferred to the effort made by using online resources. Lastly, value
does not reside in the guidebook or the user, but in the experience of consumption,
that is, in the use of guidebooks both for the purpose of finding information and for
other purposes, such as keeping it as a souvenir.
In essence, the present study suggests that travel practice and information search
behaviour are changing. It highlights how the tools traditionally used to study information
search behaviour are not always exhaustive when researching tourism in a digitalised, con-
sumeristic society, and that it is indeed useful to analyse the topic with new, multidisciplin-
ary perspectives. In particular, the paper shows how using the theory of consumer value
can help better understand specific tourist behaviours. The study contributes to research
on travel information search as it highlights a change in the temporal dimension of tour-
ists’ information needs by showing that, thanks to ICTs and Internet access, information
search can be postponed until right before the moment of consumption, leaving space
for a more serendipitous type of travel planning. In this sense, serendipity and planning
do not necessarily exclude each other, but can coexist in the contemporary digitalised
society.
This paper has implications for tourism providers and marketers, as it offers insights on
the motivations that lead tourists to prefer a certain information channel over another as
44 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

well as what is valued in the process of information search. The present research has
hinted at the fact that information search as an activity has some value in itself, which
should be further explored in future research. A deeper understanding of the role of ser-
endipity in contemporary tourism practice is also called for, especially in connection with
digitalisation, travel planning, and information search behaviour. The scope of this study is
limited due to the relatively small group of informants, which calls for an emphasis on the
qualitative, exploratory and explanatory values of the results presented above. Although
the analysis yielded valuable insights, the conclusions presented here can be seen as an
explorative path to further research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Malin Zillinger http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3219-8624

References
Andersson Cederholm, E. (2004). The use of photo-elicitation in tourism research–framing the back-
packer experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 225–241.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bergmeister, F. M. (2015). Shaping Southeast Asia: Tracing tourism imaginaries in guidebooks and
travel blogs. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(2), 203–208.
Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2007). The impact of the internet on information sources portfo-
lios. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(1), 63–80.
Bhattacharyya, D. P. (1997). Mediating India: An analysis of a guidebook. Annals of Tourism Research,
24(2), 371–389.
Brown, S. (1999). Devaluing value. The apopathic ethic and the spirit of postmodern consumption. In
M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 489–502).
New York: Psychology Press.
Cho, M.-H., & Kerstetter, D. (2002). Travel-related information sources. International Journal of Tourism
Sciences, 2(1), 11–22.
Choe, Y., Fesenmaier, D. R., & Vogt, C. (2017). Twenty-five years past Vogt: Assessing the changing
information needs of American travellers. In R. Schegg, & B. Stangl (Eds.), Information and com-
munication technologies in tourism 2017 (pp. 489–502). Cham: Springer.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201.
Coromina, L., & Camprubí, R. (2016). Analysis of tourism information sources using a Mokken Scale
perspective. Tourism Management, 56(1), 75–84.
Dann, G. (1999). Writing out the tourist in space and time. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 159–187.
Dickinson, G. (2018, June 29). Ignore the digital doomsdayers – the printed travel guide is here to
stay. The Telegraph, Travel. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/travel-
guidebook-here-to-stay/
Dickinson, J. E., Ghali, K., Cherrett, T., Speed, C., Davies, N., & Norgate, S. (2014). Tourism and the
smartphone app: Capabilities, emerging practice and scope in the travel domain. Current Issues
in Tourism, 17(1), 84–101.
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies. Journal of Travel
Research, 37(2), 108–119.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 45

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal of Travel
Research, 37(3), 220–230.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study. Journal of
Documentation, 59(3), 321–340.
Fujii, K., Nanba, H., Takezawa, T., & Ishino, A. (2016). Enriching travel guidebooks with travel blog
entries and archives of answered questions. In A. Inversini & R. Schegg (Eds.), Information and com-
munication technologies in tourism 2016 (pp. 157–171). Cham: Springer.
Gallarza, M. G., Arteaga, F., Del Chiappa, G., Gil-Saura, I., & Holbrook, M. B. (2017). A multidimensional
service-value scale based on Holbrook’s typology of customer value. Journal of Service
Management, 28(4), 724–762.
Gallarza, M. G., Arteaga, F., Floristán, E., & Gil, I. (2009). Consumer behavior in a religious event experi-
ence: An empirical assessment of value dimensionality among volunteers. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 165–180.
Gallarza, M. G., & Gil-Saura, I. (2008). The concept of value and its dimensions: A tool for analysing
tourism experiences. Tourism Review, 63(3), 4–20.
Garcia-Fuentes, J.-M. (2016). Guidebooks, postcards, and panoramas: The building of Montserrat
through modern mass media. Memory Studies, 9(1), 63–74.
Gassan, R. (2005). The first American tourist guidebooks: Authorship and the print culture of the
1820s. Book History, 8(1), 51–74.
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future.
Journal Of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1520–1534.
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353–373.
Gursoy, D., & Umbreit, W. T. (2004). Tourist information search behavior: Cross-cultural comparison of
European union member states. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 55–70.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fan-
tasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.
Huang, W., Norman, W. C., Hallo, J. C., McGehee, N. G., McGee, J., & Goetcheus, C. L. (2014). Serendipity
and independent travel. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(2), 169–183.
Iaquinto, B. L. (2011). Fear of a lonely planet: Author anxieties and the mainstreaming of a guidebook.
Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 705–723.
Iaquinto, B. L. (2012). Backpacking in the Internet age: Contextualizing the use of lonely planet guide-
books. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 145–155.
Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2018). Destination information sources for itinerant holidaymakers: A study of
Island Hoppers in Greece. Athens Journal of Tourism, 5(2), 83–96.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Dann, M. G. (2003). Images of the Lofoten islands. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 3(1), 24–47.
Kah, J. A., & Lee, S.-H. (2016). A new approach to travel information sources and travel behaviour
based on cognitive dissonance theory. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(4), 373–393.
Kim, H., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Use of the internet for trip planning: A generational
analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(3), 276–289.
Koshar, R. (1998). ‘What ought to be seen’: Tourists’ guidebooks and national identities in modern
Germany and Europe. Journal of Contemporary History, 33(3), 323–340.
Lew, A. A. (1992). Place representation in tourist guidebooks: An example from Singapore. Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 12(2), 124.
Lewis Walpole Library. (2011). ed. Walpole, H. Letter to Sir Horace Mann 28 January, 1754. Retrieved
from http://images.library.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=20&page=407
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. R. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of consumers’ confusion in the
online tourism domain. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 76–93.
Luo, M., Feng, R., & Cai, L. A. (2005). Information search behavior and tourist characteristics: The inter-
net vis-à-vis other information sources. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2–3), 15–25.
Mazor-Tregerman, M., Mansfeld, Y., & Elyada, O. (2017). Travel guidebooks and the construction of
tourist identity. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(1), 80–98.
46 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

Morar, D. D. (2013). An overview of the consumer value literature–perceived value, desired value.
Marketing From Information to Decision, 6, 169–186.
Mukhopadhyay, A. (2014). Colonised gaze? Guidebooks and journeying in colonial India. South Asia:
Journal of South Asian Studies, 37(4), 656–669.
Murphy, H. C., Chen, M. M., & Cossutta, M. (2016). An investigation of multiple devices and infor-
mation sources used in the hotel booking process. Tourism Management, 52, 44–51.
Nishimura, S., Waryszak, R., & King, B. (2006). Guidebook use by Japanese tourists: A qualitative study
of Australia inbound travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(1), 13–26.
Nishimura, S., Waryszak, R., & King, B. (2007). The use of guidebooks by Japanese overseas tourists: A
quantitative approach. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 275–284.
Nolan, S. D. (1976). Tourists’ use and evaluation of travel information sources: Summary and con-
clusions. Journal of Travel Research, 14(3), 6–8.
Ogden, R. (2019). Lonely planet: Affect and authenticity in guidebooks of Cuba. Social Identities, 25(2),
1–13.
Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Online information search. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3),
809–832.
Parsons, N. (2008). Worth the detour: A history of the guidebook. Cheltenham: The History Press.
Peel, V., & Sørensen, A. (2016a). Exploring the use and impact of travel guidebooks. Bristol: Channel
View Publications.
Peel, V., & Sørensen, A. (2016b). Guidebook. In J. Jafari & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism. Cham:
Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6.
Pirolli, B. (2018). Travel information online: Navigating correspondents, consensus, and conversation.
Current Issues in Tourism, 21(12), 1337–1343.
Prebensen, N. K., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2018). Creating experience value in tourism. Wallingford:
Cabi.
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. S. (2014). Experience value: Antecedents and consequences.
Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 910–928.
Putri, G. I., & Dewi, I. J. (2014). The use of travel guidebooks by tourist visiting Yogyakarta. ASEAN
Marketing Journal, 6(2), 105–113.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2009). The conceptualisation
and measurement of consumer value in services. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1),
93–113.
Seljeseth, P. I., & Korneliussen, T. (2015). Experience-based brand personality as a source of value co-
creation: The case of Lofoten. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(sup1), 48–61.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption
values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Smith, N. C. (1999). Ethics and the typology of consumer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer
value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 147–158). London: Routledge.
Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worrall, K. (1990). Information search strategies by destina-
tion-naive tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 13–16.
Stoller, G. (2018, February 20). So you thought Travel Guidebooks were dead? Guess again. Forbes.
Retrieved from URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/garystoller/2018/02/20/so-you-thought-travel-
guidebooks-were-dead-guess-again/#77da12b65810
Tan, W. K., & Chen, T. H. (2012). The usage of online tourist information sources in tourist information
search: An exploratory study. The Service Industries Journal, 32(3), 451–476.
Towner, J. (2000). Guidebook. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopedia of tourism (pp. 267–269). London:
Routledge.
Tsang, N. K., Chan, G. K., & Ho, K. K. (2011). A holistic approach to understanding the use of travel
guidebooks: Pre-, during, and post-trip behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(7),
720–735.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). The nature and understanding of value: A service-dominant logic
perspective. Review of Marketing Research, 9(1), 1–12.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 47

Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search model. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(3), 551–578.
Wang, D., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2013). Transforming the travel experience: The use of smartphones for
travel. In L. Cantoni, & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013
(pp. 58–69). Cham: Springer.
Wong, C. K. S., & Liu, F. C. G. (2011). A study of pre-trip use of travel guidebooks by leisure travelers.
Tourism Management, 32(3), 616–628.
Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and consumer behavior
in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 22, 244–249.
Yasin, B., Baghirov, F., & Zhang, Y. (2017). The role of travel experience and gender on travel infor-
mation source selection. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(2), 296–310.
Zalatan, A. (1996). The determinants of planning time in vacation travel. Tourism Management, 17(2),
123–131.
Zillinger, M. (2006). The importance of guidebooks for the choice of tourist sites: A study of German
tourists in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3), 229–247.
Zillinger, M. (2019). The curious case of online information search. Current Issues in Tourism, 23, 276–
279.
Zillinger, M., Eskilsson, L., Månsson, M., & Nilsson, J. H. (2018). What’s new in tourist information behav-
iour? Lund: Institutionen för Service Management och Tjänstevetenskap.

Appendix 1

Interview Protocol
Introductory questions. (Purpose: establishing rapport/getting to know each other/getting the inter-
viewee thinking about travel experiences.)

- Do you travel a lot?

- How do you like to travel and why? (organised trip/independent)
- Who do you like to travel with and why?
- What has been your most memorable travel experience and why?

Travel guidebooks

- Do you use TGBs? How much?

. Does it depend on the type of trip?
. Does it depend on the company?
. Do you ever use them when you’re not travelling?
- What is the main reason why you use TGBs?
. What are other reasons?
- What TGB did you use in your last trip?
. Why did you choose that?
. Did you like it?
- Do you like travel guidebooks?
. What do you like about them?
- Are pictures important in a TGB? Why?
- Is the graphic/design important? Why?
- Do you have a favourite brand? Why?
- If you travel with partner/s, who buys the guide?
. Is there a reason?
. Who keeps it?
- How do you use them/what other sources do you use?
. Destination choice? (pre-stage)
48 M. MIELI AND M. ZILLINGER

.Itinerary? (pre-/during stage)

.How do you use them during the trip?
. How do you use them after the trip?
- When you travel locally, where do you find information?
. Have you ever bought/used a guidebook for a local trip?
- Do you think the TGB is an authoritative source of information?
. If you had gotten the same info from the internet, how would it have been different?
- Do you think you could or would travel without a guidebook?
. Yes: how would you replace it? Is there something that you think could not be replaced?
. No: what do you think could not be replaced?
- For users: do you think you would miss something a TGB if you didn’t use it?
- For ex-users: is there something you miss about using TGB?
- Where do you find inspiration for your trips?
. Do you ever feel inspired by TGBs?
- What happens to the TGB after the trip is over?
- What do you think when you see someone else with a TGB?
. Does it matter what TGB they have (publisher)?
- Do you want to be seen with a TGB?
. Does it matter what TGB you have (publisher)?
- Would you say you feel more adventurous/free when you have a TGB or when you find info online?
Why?
- How do you choose what TGB to buy?
- Where do you buy it?
- What do you do when you walk into the bookstore?
- Do you ever stop by the guidebook section even if you’re not travelling? Why?
. If so, what do you do there?
Paper II
Chapter 12

Experience Sampling Method in a

Qualitative Study of Tourists’ Smartphone
Use
Micol Mieli

Abstract
This chapter explores the use of experience sampling method (ESM) in a
qualitative research design, departing from reflections on ontological and
epistemological aspects of the tourist experience. It suggests that the tourist
experience can be studied in its ordinary moments and proposes the use of
ESM to capture such experience of “everydayness.” The chapter illustrates
how the method can be used and provides some guidelines for its imple-
mentation, drawing examples from a qualitative study on tourists’ smart-
phone use that combines ESM questionnaires with semi-structured
interviews. ESM consists of sending participants several micro-
questionnaires at random times during their trip, asking questions about
their experience and perceptions. Thanks to modern mobile technologies, the
method can be used on participants’ own smartphones, through various
programmable applications. The method allows to inquire into aspects of
experience that the participants themselves may not be aware of, or may fail
to recollect after the trip, thus increasing ecological validity and reducing
recall bias.

Keywords: Experience sampling method; qualitative method; recall bias;

smartphone; technology; tourism; tourist experience

Introduction
How many times has someone exclaimed: “Oh, my smartphone is just like an
extension of my arm!”? A limb, a part of the body; but also a faithful companion,
a personal assistant, a navigation system, a collector of a person’s photos and
dearest memories. Metaphors aside, the smartphone is also an object, made of

Contemporary Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism, 175–188

Copyright © 2022 Micol Mieli
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80117-546-320221012
176 Micol Mieli

plastic, glass, metal, and silicon. Microchips that send electric signals to other
microchips, connected to a network of units by radio waves all over the globe.
Smartphones permeate virtually every aspect of our lives and cause changes in the
tourist experience in terms of both activities and emotions (Wang, Xiang, &
Fesenmaier, 2016). For years now, scholars have claimed that new technologies
have led to a reconfiguration of tourism (Dickinson et al., 2014; Wang &
Fesenmaier, 2013; Wang et al., 2016). But how is tourism reconfigured? How can
we know how the uses of these technologies are interwoven with the perception,
performance and construction of the tourist experience?
This chapter focuses on the latter question by proposing the use of the quasi-
naturalistic experience sampling method (ESM). ESM is a “research procedure
for studying what people do, feel, and think during their daily lives. It consists in
asking individuals to provide systematic self-reports at random occasions”
(Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 21). To illustrate the method, a study on the
uses of smartphones during the tourist experience will be presented. The aim of
the study is to explore the relationship between the tourist, the smartphone, and
the experience. The purpose of ESM is to gather data during participants’ daily
life, and it allows for the exploration of everyday actions and “unreflexive habits”
(Larsen, 2008). Just like many daily tasks, using a smartphone during travel
involves some actions that seem so well known that they are “turned into
something that is taken for granted and thus rendered invisible” (Löfgren, 2014).
These actions and meanings that are so invisible should and can be made visible
through a method such as ESM.
Several tourism academics have encouraged researchers to find ways to study
tourism with fresh eyes, to develop effective methods to capture the salient
moments of the tourist experience (Ryan, 2018; Tribe, 2005; Tussyadiah, 2014;
Zakrisson & Zillinger, 2012). The use of innovative—although not new—methods
such as the ESM could be an answer to these calls. While the potential of ESM in
tourism research is great, the current body of tourism literature on this method is
too scarce to provide a full picture of its usability in this specific field. The present
chapter illustrates how the method can be used and provides some reflections on
the relationship between the choice of method and the ontological and episte-
mological understanding of the tourist experience, highlighting the importance of
doing research in situ and the advantages of using smartphones for research.

The Experience Sampling Method in Tourism Research

The ESM was introduced in the late 1970s in the field of clinical psychology with
the purpose of measuring the quality of everyday life, mainly referred to phe-
nomena such as everyday life experiences of teenagers as well as schizophrenia,
depression, and other mental disorders (Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, & Prescott,
1977). With the purpose of identifying and capturing unfolding episodes of
everyday experiences, the method consists of sending participants periodical
reminders to fill in short questionnaires while they go about their daily life. For
most of its existence, the method employed beepers and paper booklets that
 Experience Sampling Method 177

participants carried around: when the beeper beeped, they would take out their
booklet and answer the questionnaires as soon as possible (Hektner, Schmidt, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2007).
ESM has been further developed and applied in a wide range of fields,
including consumer studies (Becker, 2018), leisure studies (Fave, Bassi, &
Massimini, 2003), music studies (Sloboda, O’Neill, & Ivaldi, 2001), happiness
studies (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2014), and human–computer interaction
(van Berkel, Ferreira, & Kostakos, 2017), among others. However, the method
has not been used widely in tourism, with a few recent exceptions (Birenboim,
2016; Quinlan Cutler, Doherty, & Carmichael, 2018; Shoval, Schvimer, & Tamir,
2018). A 2016 study by Birenboim explores the concept of “subjective momentary
experiences” by sending festivalgoers micro-surveys to evaluate their experience
of crowdedness and security. The author recognizes the potential of the method
but calls for a better understanding of the opportunities afforded to researchers by
mobile technologies. Shoval et al. (2018) used the method to study individual
experiences of urban tourism and, like Birenboim (2016), combined micro-
questionnaires with spatiotemporal data (geolocation). Additionally, Shoval
et al. (2018) included physiological measures of emotion (electro-dermal activity).
While these studies adopted a quantitative approach, Quinlan Cutler et al. (2018)
applied the method qualitatively, asking participants to record a short voice
message answering open-ended questions during their trip and following up with
an interview and a survey after the trip (Quinlan Cutler et al., 2018).
ESM is mainly used quantitatively and it relies on a rather quantitative jargon,
but it can be used in either quantitative, qualitative or mixed method studies
(Hektner et al., 2007; Raento, Oulasvirta, & Eagle, 2009; Scollon, Prieto & Diner,
2003).1 Like any method, ESM is not a panacea and it is most useful when utilized
in combination with other methods, as it can augment traditional methods such
as interviews and observations (Raento et al., 2009; Scollon, Kim-Prieto, &
Diener, 2003).

Capturing the Ordinary and Extraordinary Moments of the

Tourist Experience with ESM
According to its inventors, the purpose of ESM is to measure the quality of
everyday life (Hektner et al., 2007). The notion of everyday life may appear as a
stark juxtaposition to the traditional understanding of tourism as an extra-
ordinary experience, in contrast with the mundane experience of everyday life
(cf. Cohen, 1979; Urry, 2002). The tourist experience can be extraordinary,
“determined by the unexpected, fortuitous, surprising and serendipitous
moments” (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014, p. 101), and a “tourist moment” can be
“born of serendipity and novelty (the unexpected)” (Cary, 2004, p. 71). However,
it can also be understood not as something extraordinary or particularly exotic,
not as an escape from everyday life, but as a way of performing it (Edensor, 2001;
Larsen, 2008) and it can be studied “in its imbrication in the everyday life rather
than a special, separate field of activity” (Edensor, 2001, p. 59).
178 Micol Mieli

While the extraordinary tourist experience has been the focus of attention in
research, the tourist experience in its everyday life quality is neglected in main-
stream tourism research (Larsen, 2008). The relevance of the small, serendipitous
moments, the unreflexive habits, and the fleeting thoughts does not change
whether one is at home, at work or on vacation. All aspects of social life,
including the tourist experience, “are infused with elements of everyday life: no
practices escape ‘everydayness’” (Larsen, 2008, p. 22).
By combining these two views, the tourist experience can be understood as
both extraordinary and ordinary, made up of memorable, unexpected, seren-
dipitous moments but also of everyday practices and unreflexive habits that
tourists carry over from their everyday life (Larsen, 2008). This is particularly true
when studying people’s relationship with an object that has become ubiquitous
and fundamental both in the tourist experience and in everyday life, the smart-
phone (Wang et al., 2016). The smartphone is seen here as an object from
everyday life “crossing over” to the tourist experience.

Study Design
The study presented here investigates how the smartphone, with its ubiquity, plays
in the tourist moment, and therefore how it shapes the tourist experience. For this
reason, it is important to focus the attention on tourists’ behavior and perceptions
in situ with an appropriate methodology. The choice of a qualitative study design
accounts for contextual differences and the multi-dimensional nature of the
tourists’ experiences (Palmer, 2010). The purpose of using ESM was not to collect
and analyze data statistically, but to map out participants’ behavior during their
trip, to gain insights into their habits and thoughts in situ. The data collected
through ESM was then explored further with semi-structured, qualitative inter-
views. The approach is qualified as qualitative and not a mixed-methods because,
although the ESM data is used to look into possible patterns, it is only analyzed
qualitatively, whereas in a mixed methods design, both qualitative and
quantitative data collection and analysis should be integrated (Plano, Clark &
Ivankova, 2016).
The following paragraphs provide some guidelines for the implementation of
ESM in a qualitative study, drawing from my own research. After collecting the
relevant literature and defining the research aim, I organized the data collection
process in three distinct phases (Fig. 1):

I. ESM preparation III. Collect data

Decide what type of data to II. Recruiting
Demographic data
gather +
Research invitation
Decide what device to use ESM data
Establish rapport
Find a software that allows to +
Give instructions
gather the data needed Follow-up interview
Design ESM questionnaire

Fig. 1. The Data Collection Process.

 Experience Sampling Method 179

ESM Preparation
Device Ownership
There are several advantages of using participants’ own smartphones for ESM.
First, it can be a burden for participants to have to carry another device. Learning
about a new device can also be an added nuisance for participants and being
already familiar with the object can be easier and more convenient (Quinlan
Cutler et al., 2018; van Berkel et al., 2017). For example, Quinlan Cutler et al.
(2018) report that at times participants got frustrated or annoyed at having to
carry around a voice recorder. Providing a device can also be a burden for the
researcher, especially an economic one, if she has to buy or be responsible for
other devices.

Software
Several applications for ESM are available that have varying features, prices and
may require programming skills. Conner (2015) and van Berkel et al. (2017) offer
overviews of the most popular applications at the time of their writing. A thor-
ough search and evaluation of the different options is advisable for researchers
interested in using this method. In order to answer ESM questions, participants in
the study downloaded a dedicated application on their own phone.2 The appli-
cation was free, both Android and iOS versions were available, it was relatively
easy to program and easy to use but had limited functions.
Virtually, every aspect of the procedure can be customized, including type of
questions, branching logic, notifications schedule, and triggers. An ulterior
advantage of using smartphones consists of the sensors that are already integrated
in these devices, such as GPS sensors, screen, and battery usage trackers, phone
activity and messaging trackers, and so on (Conner, 2015; van Berkel et al., 2017).
However, issues concerning data management and privacy may outweigh the
benefits of collecting sensitive data, which the reason why in the present study
only questionnaires were used for data collection.

The ESM Questionnaires

The questionnaire included a total of 20 questions in its final version and
employed branching logic, which means that each time respondents would answer
a different number of questions, depending on the answers given. However, some
of the questions were fixed and did not depend on previous responses. Some
questions were more specific on what participants were doing when they received
the notification, while some were more reflective about feelings and perceptions.
For example, the questionnaire always started with a question on whether par-
ticipants were using the phone when they received the notification, followed up by
other questions on what they were doing, where the phone was and other
contextual information. Subsequently, participants were asked some questions on
their perception of their phone use (e.g., “Right now, how much do you feel you
rely on your phone to find information on what to see or do?”) and on their
feelings (e.g., “How do you feel about your search for information?”).
180 Micol Mieli

Since the purpose of ESM is to capture momentary experience, it is very

important that questions are carefully thought out to do so. It is advisable to run a
few pilots, especially if the aim of the research is explorative. The research pre-
sented here adopted principles of grounded theory, according to which the
researcher can develop ideas about the field very early and bring those ideas with
her in the data collection, identifying and following up on analytic leads within
the same research project (Charmaz & Bryant, 2016). Therefore, the survey
questions were continuously updated throughout the data collection phase in
accordance with new theoretical concepts that were developed based on the data.
For instance, an early version of the questionnaire included open-ended questions
such as “For what were you using your phone?” and later, based on previous
answers, multiple choices were added: for example, (1) directions or navigation,
(2) information on destination, (3) finding food, and (4) social media. This made
answering the questionnaire easier and faster for respondents.
Another important aspect to note is the formulation of the questions, which
should focus on the momentary and inner experience, and not on information that
could be gathered otherwise through the follow-up interviews. Therefore, ques-
tions included terms that reminded participants to answer only in reference to
their current experience, such as “right now” or “since the last notification.”
The combination of ESM and qualitative interviews worked well to tap into
aspects of the tourist experience which may be subject to recall bias. For example,
by asking participants whether they were on their phones when they received the
notifications, data could be gathered on how often that happened, and the
researcher could later ask how they felt about it in retrospective.

The Type of Trigger and Notification Schedule

Three types of triggers are possible for notifications: interval-contingent sampling,
event-contingent sampling, and signal contingent sampling (Hektner et al., 2007;
Quinlan Cutler et al., 2018; van Berkel et al., 2017). In the first case, notifications
are scheduled at regular, pre-determined intervals; in the second, participants
have to self-report when certain pre-defined events occur; in the third, the ques-
tionnaire is completed upon receiving a randomized signal over the course of a
certain time span, but participants are not aware of when they will be notified.
The present study adopted the signal-contingent strategy, which ensures a more
random sample of the experience, in line with the explorative aim.
Most ESM studies advise to schedule several notifications at random times
within ranges in a day, which is usually one of the programmable features of ESM
software (Hektner et al., 2007; Scollon et al., 2003; van Berkel et al., 2017). Due to
the particular context of this study during the travel experience, a notification was
scheduled once or twice a day at a random time between two ranges of time
(11 a.m. – 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. – 9 p.m.). This choice was made in consideration of
the fact that tourists value their vacation time dearly and it would be an excessive
burden to require the completion of more than two questionnaires per day. This
was confirmed by the respondents during the interview, when asked how they felt
about the number of notifications, most claiming that more than one or two
 Experience Sampling Method 181

notifications per day would be annoying. For the same reasons, the number of
questionnaires and questions should be limited in order to avoid respondents
feeling bored or annoyed.

Recruiting
Number of Participants
According to a review by van Berkel et al. (2017), the number of participants can
vary greatly, but most ESM studies have less than 20 participants. In a traditional
ESM study, participants are beeped several times during the day, for several days,
which means that it is possible to collect large amounts of data even with a small
number of subjects. A smaller sample size also makes it feasible for the researcher
to conduct qualitative interviews (van Berkel et al., 2017). In this study, 15 par-
ticipants completed all the steps of the process. One major issue encountered in
recruiting participants was the drop-out rate after the first step of the data
collection (preliminary form). Of over 80 people who showed interest, 73
completed the preliminary form, of which only 28 were eligible for the study. Of
those, only 22 completed the ESM questionnaires, and just 15 also agreed to the
interview. Such a low response rate is not surprising, given the burden placed on
respondents during the study as well as the long process and the large amount of
information they receive.

Compensation
Some form of compensation is a common solution to issues related to recruitment
of participants and dropping out, which was however not possible in the present
research. In the studies reviewed by van Berkel et al. (2017), the most common
form of compensation was a fixed reward, but other types of compensation are
also possible, for example a raffle, or a compensation based on the number of
questionnaires completed by each participant. On the other hand, some studies
have found that offering compensation can result in a scarce quality of the data
due to a lack of intrinsic motivation to complete the study (Scollon et al., 2003).

Privacy
Privacy can be a concern when gathering a large amount of data, especially if
“hidden,” as for example sensors data can be (Raento et al., 2009; van Berkel
et al., 2017). Participants may not be fully aware of being tracked even though
they have expressly agreed to it. Therefore, it is important to make very explicit to
participants what kind of data will be collected, when and how. For this study,
privacy concerns are very limited because data was collected exclusively through
questionnaires. Moreover, data did not go through third parties but was sent
directly to the researcher by participants via email.

The Process of Data Collection

Data were collected in three main steps: a preliminary form, the ESM question-
naires and the interview.
182 Micol Mieli

Demographic Data
It is common in ESM studies to combine the daily questionnaires with a standard
questionnaire to collect demographic data (Kubey, Larson, & Csikszentmihalyi,
1996). Therefore, the research invitation contained a QR code that directed
potential participants to a preliminary form, which had two main purposes: first,
collecting email address and demographic information as well as basic informa-
tion on the trip (destination, date, duration, and company); second, keeping a
record of people who signed up to participate in the study.

ESM Data
An email was sent to participants two days before their trip started, which was
close enough to the trip so that they would not forget about it but also not so close
that they would be busy with preparation or had already started the trip. Since
this method is quite unusual, a large amount of information needs to be sent out
to participants, it is important to note that this step can be confusing or over-
whelming for participants. It is advisable to make the instructions as clear and
brief as possible. For the present study, a short video tutorial was created by the
researcher and included in the email.3
Since the application required the researcher to program the questionnaire in a
separate text file to send to participants, the email included a questionnaire file
and instructions on how to download it and open it in the app. This step was
completed before the trip started, which meant that, once the file was downloaded
on the device, participants did not need access to the internet to complete the
questionnaires and therefore did not incur in extra roaming fees.
During the trip, for three to five days, depending on the length of the trip,
participants answered one or two daily questionnaires at random times during
each day. Some applications allow the researcher to receive the data in real time,
but in this case, participants had to send their data via email after all the surveys
were completed. Incidentally, this increased security because the data was not
uploaded to any third-party server but only stored in the device and shared with
the researcher directly by the respondent.

Response Rate
Among those who participated, the response rate to the questionnaires was very
high. Most respondents completed all the questionnaires, with the exception of a
few incidents when some of the respondents missed a day or two. Participants
were asked about the method during the interview, and while some of them said
they were discouraged by the long instructions they received and thought the
questionnaires would be a burden at first, nobody reported that answering the
surveys every day was a burden or a bother, and all respondents reported that it
was not disruptive of their experience in any way. As mentioned earlier, it is
important to deliver the instructions as simply and briefly as possible.
The study also highlighted that whenever the application malfunctions, par-
ticipants do not spend more than a few minutes trying to solve the issue and
 Experience Sampling Method 183

consequently drop out of the study. When accidents and hitches in the organi-
zation of the trip occur, participating in the research is understandably not a
priority, which also results in dropouts.

Follow-Up Interview
As mentioned earlier, ESM is best used in combination with other methods;
therefore, follow-up interviews were included in the study design, as interviews
allow for the collection of rich and detailed data to explore the underlying
dimensions of the human experience (Bryman, 2016; May, 2011). After a pre-
liminary analysis of the ESM data, each participant was invited for an interview,
either in person or on the phone. The interviews were semi-structured, ranging
from 20 minutes to 1 hour. Data from the ESM questionnaires were used as a
starting point for conversation and an interview guide was initially drafted and
then continuously updated throughout the data collection process, in line with the
principles of grounded theory of constant comparison (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
The main purpose of the interviews was to expand on the ESM data, ask more in-
depth questions on particular answers that seemed interesting and in general to
enrich the data collected with ESM. Since the focus of this chapter is the expe-
rience sampling method, I will not delve into more depth about the interview
method.

Recall Bias and Ecological Validity: Bridging the Gap between

the Experience and Its Recollection
The tourist experience happens in a certain time and a in certain space—that is,
during the trip and at the destination. Unfortunately, the time and place of the
lived experience are often incompatible with the research setting, which means
that researchers often only have access to a somewhat faded memory, a recol-
lection and representation of the experience, which they can collect days, weeks,
or even months after the trip has taken place (Pettersson & Zillinger, 2011).
Bridging this gap between the experience itself and the recollection of it during the
study can be challenging for researchers: recall bias can distort the way experi-
ences are portrayed when they are recounted in an interview weeks or months
after they took place (Hektner et al., 2007). One of the main advantages of ESM
is that it allows to reduce—albeit not eliminate—recall bias (Shoval et al., 2018).
Additionally, the method allows the collection of data in situ without requiring
the presence of the researcher on the field, which can be costly and time
consuming, as well as disruptive of the experience.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the ESM method is its external or ecological
validity, that is the “accuracy of each response in representing a moment of
natural (uncontrived) experience” (Hektner et al., 2007, p. 110). The ecological
validity of ESM is ensured by several factors: first, the questions are immediate
and refer to events that are occurring or have just occurred, which reduces both
184 Micol Mieli

failure of recall and responses based on social desirability; second, randomizing

signals reduces reflexivity bias, that is the attempt to give answers based on what
the respondent believes to be the aim of the research; third, receiving many signals
helps participants to get used to recording their behavior (Hektner et al., 2007;
Kubey et al., 1996). ESM studies focus on ecological validity rather than internal
validity and in a qualitative study internal validity is not of great concern, as the
results are not meant to be generalized, while ecological validity reinforces the
qualities of trustworthiness desired in a piece of qualitative research (Decrop,
2004; Golafshani, 2003).

Analyzing the Data: An Example

Although the focus of this chapter is on the use of ESM for data collection, an
example from the study is proposed here to illustrate how ESM data can be
analyzed in combination with interviews.
Zoe, a 27 year-old-girl from Denmark, went on a five day trip to Croatia and
Montenegro with her boyfriend. During the interview, Zoe explained that she
tried not to spend too much time on the phone because it was their first trip
together, so she “wanted to enjoy the company and not be rude” (interview, Zoe).
However, the ESM data shows that three times out of six she answered that she
had used her phone in the last 30 minutes, and during the day she used it for the
following activities: browsing and posting on social media; communicating via
various messaging services; playing a game; Google maps; online banking. In the
interview, she added that she also looked for apartments and checked work “just
out of curiosity and not because [she] had to or anything.” Although Zoe did not
acknowledge before that she was on her phone a lot, the ESM data showed that
using her phone was still a daily activity, and she mainly used it for activities that
were unrelated to her trip, which was further discussed during the interview.
This example shows the value of both the ESM data and the follow-up
interview. Without the data about her behaviors in situ the researcher would
have taken her words at face value and believed that she did not use her phone
much indeed, not because she intended to lie but perhaps because she would have
not been aware or remembered which apps she used or how much. On the other
hand, without the interview her feelings about her phone use could not have been
explored, and the researcher would not have been able to dig deeper into her
perceptions of her experience.

Conclusions
This chapter has offered an overview of how the experience sampling method can
be used in tourism research and why. This method gives researchers access to a
crucial moment of the tourist experience, the in situ experience, and does not
suffer from the limitations of experience recollection. Traditional ESM is a very
 Experience Sampling Method 185

complex method that sometimes requires advanced knowledge in psychology,

quantitative methods as well as the specific field of inquiry, which is necessary to
build an effective questionnaire. However, the qualitative methodology proposed
here does not reproduce all the complications from the traditional use of the ESM
and makes the method accessible to most researchers, as long as its qualities are in
line with their aims.
As scientific progress often goes hand in hand with technological develop-
ments, technology has offered new possibilities for research in the last few years,
making devices and connectivity widely available (Raento et al., 2009). New
technologies can be harnessed to gain access to new sites of inquiry, which is
precisely what researchers “owe” to their audiences, according to Silverman (1997
cited in Tribe, 2005): “to surprise them by inviting them, with great clarity, to
look anew at the world they already know.”
In recent years, technological developments have greatly expanded the pos-
sibility of using the ESM through applications on participants’ own smart-
phones, which makes the process simpler and more accessible to all researchers.
As noted by several scholars, the potential of using smartphones for research is
extremely promising: smartphones are an unobtrusive, cost-effective, convenient
tool that allows researchers to gain access to data about people’s everyday life
(Hofmann & Patel, 2015; Raento et al., 2009). A decade ago, when smartphones
were not yet as popular as today, Raento et al. (2009, p. 427) suggested that
these devices could be “the MRI of social science,” which was in the field of
medicine a revolutionary tool that “enabled access to the most intimate and
unconscious workings of the human brain.” In this study, the object of the
research also becomes an object for the research, and it allows the researcher
herself to cross the physical and temporal boundaries of the tourist experience
and somehow be present—without being physically present—in the “tourist
moment.”
A final remark, this chapter has shown that rethinking the ontology of the
tourist experience leads us to ask new and different questions and look at phe-
nomena from different perspectives. The view of tourism as a way of performing
everyday life, especially in connection with the “everydayness” of smartphone use,
led to new insights about the tourist experience and tourists’ relationship with
their phones. With these methodological reflections, the chapter offers a contri-
bution to the debate on the arguably artificial boundaries between qualitative and
quantitative research, as the study shows that both the quantities and the qualities
of the tourist experience can be investigated in order to gain a deeper under-
standing of the social phenomena at hand.

Notes
1. For more in-depth descriptions of the traditional uses of ESM, see: Christensen,
Barrett, Bliss-Moreau, Lebo, & Kaschub, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 2014;
Hektner et al., 2007; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Scollon et al., 2003; van
Berkel et al., 2017.
186 Micol Mieli

2. The application used for this study is the PIEL Survey App, available at https://
pielsurvey.org/.
3. PIEL Survey App: How to open a survey from email: https://youtu.be/
Tvclc447VxI.

References
Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2014). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist
behaviour approach. Creating Experience Value in Tourism, 95–112.
Becker, L. (2018). Methodological proposals for the study of consumer experience.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 21(4), 465–490.
Birenboim, A. (2016). New approaches to the study of tourist experiences in time and
space. Tourism Geographies, 18(1), 9–17.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cary, S. H. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61–77.
Charmaz, C., & Bryant, A. (2016). Constructing grounded theory analyses. In
D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4 ed., pp. 347–362). London: SAGE.
Christensen, T. C., Barrett, L. F., Bliss-Moreau, E., Lebo, K., & Kaschub, C. (2003).
A practical guide to experience-sampling procedures. Journal of Happiness Studies,
4(1), 53–78.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201.
Conner, T. S. (2015). Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment with
mobile phones. Retrieved from http://www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/otago047475.
pdf
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2014). Happiness in everyday life: The uses
of experience sampling. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology
(pp. 89–101). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (2014). Validity and reliability of the experience-
sampling method, Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 35–54).
Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent
activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6(3), 281–294.
Decrop, A. (2004). Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research. Qualitative
Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, 156, 169.
Dickinson, J. E., Ghali, K., Cherrett, T., Speed, C., Davies, N., & Norgate, S. (2014).
Tourism and the smartphone app: Capabilities, emerging practice and scope in the
travel domain. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(1), 84–101.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re) producing tourist space
and practice. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59–81.
Fave, A. D., Bassi, M., & Massimini, F. (2003). Quality of experience and risk
perception in high-altitude rock climbing. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
15(1), 82–98.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
 Experience Sampling Method 187

Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling

method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofmann, W., & Patel, P. V. (2015). SurveySignal: A convenient solution for expe-
rience sampling research using participants’ own smartphones. Social Science
Computer Review, 33(2), 235–253.
Kubey, R., Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Experience sampling method
applications to communication research questions. Journal of Communication, 46,
99–120.
Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the
move. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 21–34.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The experience sampling method. In Flow
and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 21–34). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Löfgren, O. (2014). The Black Box of everyday life. Cultural Analysis, 13.
May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and research. Maidenhead: McGraw-
Hill Education.
Palmer, A. (2010). Customer experience management: A critical review of an emerging
idea. Journal of Services Marketing, 3, 196.
Pettersson, R., & Zillinger, M. (2011). Event visitors and their experiences in time and
space – tracking visitors by means of GPS devices. Tourism Geographies, 13(1),
1–20.
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the
field. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Quinlan Cutler, S., Doherty, S., & Carmichael, B. (2018). The experience sampling
method: Examining its use and potential in tourist experience research. Current
Issues in Tourism, 21(9), 1052–1074.
Raento, M., Oulasvirta, A., & Eagle, N. (2009). Smartphones: An emerging tool for
social scientists. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(3), 426–454.
Ryan, C. (2018). Future trends in tourism research–Looking back to look forward:
The future of ‘Tourism Management Perspectives’. Tourism Management Per-
spectives, 25, 196–199.
Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises
and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 5–34.
Shoval, N., Schvimer, Y., & Tamir, M. (2018). Real-time measurement of tourists’
objective and subjective emotions in time and space. Journal of Travel Research,
57(1), 3–16.
Sloboda, J. A., O’Neill, S. A., & Ivaldi, A. (2001). Functions of music in everyday life:
An exploratory study using the Experience Sampling Method. Musicae Scientiae,
5(1), 9–32.
Tribe, J. (2005). New tourism research. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 5–8.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), 543–564.
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze. London: SAGE.
van Berkel, N., Ferreira, D., & Kostakos, V. (2017). The experience sampling method
on mobile devices. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(6), 93.
Wang, D., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2013). Transforming the travel experience: The use
of smartphones for travel. In L. Cantoni & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Information and
communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 58–69). Cham: Springer.
188 Micol Mieli

Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2016). Smartphone use in everyday life
and travel. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 52–63.
Zakrisson, I., & Zillinger, M. (2012). Emotions in motion: Tourists’ peak experiences
in time and space. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(6), 505–523.
Paper III
Planned serendipity: exploring
tourists’ on-site information
behaviour

Micol Mieli
Submitted to: Current Issues in Tourism

Abstract
This paper investigates tourist information behaviour on-site in light of the
ubiquitous access to information afforded by smartphones use. The study
problematises existing literature on information search behaviour and connects
it with theories of unplanned behaviour. By using the concept of planned
serendipity, the paper highlights how tourist information behaviour is a
complex phenomenon that does not necessarily answer to a dichotomy
between spontaneity and planning. The study employs a combination of
Experience Sampling Method and semi-structured interviews, which allow the
researcher to collect data both during and after the trip. Four themes are
identified that challenge key assumptions in tourist information behaviour
literature: 1) emergent and contingent plans, 2) cognitive effort on-site:
iterative and specific search process, 3) tourist-centric orientation in time and
space, 4) aiming for optimization. The paper concludes that tourists’ phygital
information environment both enables and constrains serendipity. The
dichotomy of structure vs. serendipity is not sufficient to explain the role of
serendipity in travel planning, where planned and unplanned behaviour
coexist.
Keywords: experience sampling method, planning, serendipity, smartphones,
tourist information

1
Introduction
Serendipitous encounters on-site have long been considered an important
aspect of the tourist experience (Cary, 2004; Chandralal & Valenzuela, 2013).
The role of serendipity in information behaviour, although under-researched in
tourism, has become increasingly important since smartphones allow tourists
to carry out a significant part of their information search on-site. Recent
research on tourism information behaviour has found that, given the possibility
to find enough information at the destination, tourists may prefer to keep their
plans flexible (Kang et al., 2020; Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011; Wang et al.,
2016). However, such flexibility does not always lead to a more spontaneous
behaviour (Kang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2018; Kang & Lee, 2022; Vaez et al.,
2020). Yu et al. (2018) reported that family vacationers felt ‘spontaneous
without a sense of serendipity’ due to the constant use of smartphones for
information search during vacation. Tourism theories of information behaviour
have generally considered tourist information search separately from
unplanned behaviour, but recent studies have called for the inclusion of
unplanned behaviour in the theoretical understandings of travel behaviour
(Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011; Hyde, 2004; Kang et al., 2020).
Zarezadeh, Benckendorff and Gretzel (2019) note that old models of
information behaviour keep being used without revision, while other authors
suggest that existing models need to be re-evaluated in light of smartphone use
(Kang et al., 2020). Moreover, tourist information search behaviour literature
gives scarce attention to information that is not searched but encountered, for
example through push recommendation systems, which is typical of the
younger generations: Schultz et al. (2019) argue that millennials have an
‘information will find me’ attitude. To indicate that the active search
component is not always present, Wilson’s (2000) terminology is adopted in
the present paper, and instead of referring to the theoretical framework as
information search behaviour, it will be referred to as information behaviour.
Serendipity, generally defined as a fortunate but unplanned discovery, is a
useful concept to explore the unexpected and unplanned dimensions of the
tourist experience. In information behaviour theory, the term indicates the
‘chance finding of pertinent information, either when not looking for anything
in particular or when looking for information on something else’ (Agarwal,
2015, p.1). The term is particularly appropriate because it refers to both a
context and a behaviour, while terms like spontaneity and flexibility only refer
to a behaviour or a preference of the tourist. However, the term holds a positive
connotation which may not fully represent the phenomenon at hand. While

2
tourists want to be flexible during their trip, they also reduce the uncertainty of
travel by increasing their information search on-the-go (Wang et al., 2018; Yu
et al., 2018). This suggests that the juxtaposition between planning and
spontaneity is not sufficient. Pointing to the coexistence of planning and
serendipity, this paper adopts the term ‘planned serendipity’, an oxymoron that
hints at the complex nature of information behaviour on-site (Author, 2020;
Rennella & Walton, 2004).
The present paper aims to explore tourists’ on-site information behaviour
through an empirical investigation. The abductive and qualitative approach of
the study allows to explore tourists’ behaviour and challenge key assumptions
underlying seminal theories such as Vogt and Fesenmaier’s (1998) model of
information needs, Fodness and Murray’s (1999) model of information search
and Jeng and Fesenmaier’s (2002) model of travel planning. In order to gain
access to the on-site stage of the experience, and not only to the participants’
recollection of it, a methodology was developed for this study which employed
a combination of Experience Sampling Method and semi-structured
interviews. The development of a qualitative methodology for this
investigation answers to existing calls for new approaches and a more holistic
view of information search (Liu et al., 2022; Gretzel et al., 2019; Höpken et
al., 2019) and aims to enrich the current landscape of research on the subject,
which is largely based on quantitative methods (Law et al., 2018).
In the following sections, relevant literature on tourism information behaviour,
unplanned behaviour and serendipity is reviewed. A description of the
methodology follows, where the use of the experience sampling method in
combination with interviews is explained. The analysis of the data is presented
in the subsequent chapter, where four characteristics of on-site information
behaviour are identified. A conclusions and discussion chapter close the paper
with some reflections on the results and implications for future research.

Tourist information behaviour

At the core of tourist information behaviour research lies a handful of models
and theories that generally date to pre-smartphone times, and at times even to
pre-internet times, and cannot accurately describe the reality of tourists’
‘phygital’ information environment (Gretzel et al., 2019). For example,
Zarezadeh et al. (2019) criticize the citation practices of Fodness and Murray’s
(1999) model, noting how their data was collected in the 1990s. Despite the

3
dramatic changes in information sources following the development of the
internet, social media and mobile technologies, subsequent research cited the
model without ever attempting to update it, nor to overcome its methodological
limitations (Zarezadeh et al., 2019).
A large part of the literature in the field of travel information search behaviour
has focused on information needs, and particularly functional ones, as the main
drivers of information search (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Xiang & Fesenmaier,
2020). In Vogt and Fesenmaier’s (1998) expanded model, while travel
information is mainly collected and used for functional reasons, five types of
needs exist: functional needs (product knowledge, reducing uncertainty,
maximizing utility or value and efficiency), hedonic needs (phenomenology,
experiential, sensory and emotional), innovation needs (novelty seeking,
variety seeking, creativity), aesthetic needs (imagery and fantasizing), sign
needs (symbolic expression and social interaction) (Vogt & Fesenmaier,
1998). Choe, Fesenmaier and Vogt (2017) reassessed the 1998 model and
concluded that, while functional needs are still the main reason for information
searches, hedonic, innovation, experiential and sign needs are becoming
increasingly important in the post-internet era. However, by only considering
information needs, these studies imply that the search for information is a
strictly functional activity, as it is only carried out to satisfy needs. Other
studies considered different determinants of information behaviour. For
example, Cho and Jang (2008), investigated the value structure of information
for vacation travellers, assuming that tourist information represents a source of
value. Korneliussen (2014) added that tourism information search is a ‘Do-It-
Yourself (DIY) tool’ to create experience value.
Seminal literature in the field claimed that tourists’ choices of information
sources represented distinct strategies, categorized based on three dimensions:
spatial, temporal and operational (Fodness & Murray, 1998, 1999). Fodness
and Murray (1997) also examined possible ways to segment tourists based on
their information search strategies, based on time spent planning and number
of sources used. Jeng and Fesenmaier (2002) proposed that decision-making is
a hierarchical, continuous, adaptive process, which relies on three different
types of decisions, corresponding to three types of information: core,
secondary, and peripheral. While core decisions such as choice of destination
are made early in the planning process and are rather rigid; secondary and
peripheral decisions such as activities or places to eat, can be made later and
are more flexible (Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002; Kang et al., 2020).
Kang et al. (2020) claim that the possibility to use smartphones for information
search during the trip has the potential to change which decisions are taken

4
before and during the trip, and therefore information behaviour should be
understood beyond the three phases of pre-, during and post- trip. Hwang and
Fesenmaier (2011) challenge the assumption that travellers decide an itinerary
prior to their trip and follow it more or less to the letter. Wang et al. (2016, p.
6), moreover, found that due to the use of smartphones, tourists planned less
or planned differently, and that they perceived ‘more flexibility during trips’,
‘more en-route planning’, ‘less prior planning’, and even ‘more trips’. More
recently, Liu et al. (2022) found that tourists use their smartphones to
understand and interact with different physical and social contexts, which often
result in unplanned behaviour, or in new plans. The authors found that even
though plans are made before the trip, due to the use of smartphones for on-
site decision making, they can be revised and cancelled.
Studies on unplanned behaviour have attempted to explain under which
conditions such behaviour occurs, and concluded, for example, that a revision
of the travel plan en-route occurs in the following three conditions: new
information is found on the way; a discrepancy exists between expectations
and reality during travel; unanticipated constraints occur (Hwang &
Fesenmaier, 2011; Stewart & Vogt, 1999). On-site decisions are believed to be
light-hearted, free-spirited, hedonistic, unreflective, immediate, spontaneous,
and that they do not require intensive information processing; in contrast with
pre-trip decisions, defined as deliberate, purposeful and reasoned (Kang et al.,
2020; Choi et al., 2012; Hyde, 2004; Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011). Thanks to
mobile technologies and constant access to information online, tourists
evaluate and change their plans continually (Kang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022).
Moreover, hedonic aspects of vacationing may lead travellers to not plan their
trip in advance for the very purpose of enjoying unexpected situations during
their trips (Kah & Lee, 2014).
Research also suggests that the technologies themselves with their affordances
determine changes in tourists’ behaviour. Kah and Lee (2014), for example,
found that travellers who used global positioning services (GPS) were
significantly more likely to engage in unplanned travel activities due to the fact
that they could obtain information during their trip. In the same way,
smartphones afford tourists ubiquitous access to information and thus have the
potential to encourage more spontaneous behaviour, both because information
can be accessed at any time, and because of the personalized, real-time,
location-based content as well as context-aware recommendations that
smartphone apps offer (Wozniak et al., 2017).

5
Serendipity in the tourist experience
Acknowledged in information behaviour theory but not in tourism information
search literature, is the concept of serendipity. Serendipity in information
search can be defined as ‘chance finding of pertinent information, either when
not looking for anything in particular or when looking for information on
something else’ and ‘often drawing a reaction of happiness, surprise or simply
an ahah! moment (and, sometimes, disappointment as well)’ (Agarwal, 2015,
p. 1). Serendipity plays an important role in how people discover, explore and
learn (Björneborn, 2017). Foster and Ford (2003) propose an interpretation of
serendipity as both purposive and non-purposive: serendipity can yield
unexpected results from new information that is encountered on the way, but
that is somehow the result of a purposive behaviour of the person, who expects
to find information on the way but who does not know how, when and what
they will find. By this interpretation, the person is not an information seeker,
as they do not actively seek that information, but they encounter it
serendipitously.
In tourism research, serendipity has been recognized as an important part of
the tourist experience and one of the antecedents of memorable experiences
(Andrades & Dimanche, 2014; Cary, 2004; Chandralal & Valenzuela, 2013).
Huang et al. (2014) investigated independent travellers’ preference between
serendipity and structure. They classified independent travellers as either
‘serendipitous’ or ‘structured’, two opposite dimensions of independent travel,
and found that serendipitous travellers spent less time planning their trips and
searching for information, while structured travellers spent more time on travel
planning and searched for more specific information on their destination
(Huang et al., 2014). Serendipitous travellers, according to Huang et al. (2014),
make more decisions on-site.
Author (2020, p. 37-42) observed that due to the new information environment
afforded by mobile technologies, spontaneity and planning are not necessarily
juxtaposed but they can coexist in the travel experience. The authors proposed
the concept of ‘planned serendipity’ as an alternative to the juxtaposition of
serendipity and planning. Planned serendipity is a contradiction in terms that
indicates that ‘the planning process can leave space for elements of surprise or
novelty’ and ‘serendipity does not have to be juxtaposed to planning, but it can
be an important element of it’. While the term serendipity holds a positive
connotation, the term planned serendipity does not directly imply a judgement
evaluation, and hints at how the consequences of such behaviour can be both
positive and negative, or simply different than what previously thought about
tourist information behaviour.

6
The expression ‘planned serendipity’ appears in management literature, and it
was made popular by a book by Thor Muller and Lane Becker (2012), titled
Get Lucky: How to Put Planned Serendipity to Work for You and Your
Business. However, in Muller and Becker’s (2012) book the concept indicates
a business strategy that encourages companies to harness unpredictable
elements to their economic advantage. In the present paper, planned
serendipity is used to indicate tourists’ information behaviour, and is not
connected with business strategy or economic gain. The term is however not
common in academic literature either in the management or the tourism field.
In travel-related literature, the term planned serendipity only appears in a 2004
article by Rennella and Walton, titled Planned Serendipity: American
Travellers and the Transatlantic Voyage in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries. Rennella and Walton (2004, p. 371), however, do not explain what
they mean with the expression they use in the title and only mention serendipity
once in the article, stating that ‘Serendipitous encounters during their travels
became an essential part of voyagers’ personal, professional, and intellectual
development.’. Although they point to its importance in tourism, the authors
do not connect planned serendipity with information behaviour and leave space
for a clearer definition of the concept.

Methodology
The study was approached qualitatively, with a three-step methodology that
included: a short questionnaire to gather demographic data and information
about the trip; Experience Sampling Method (ESM); and a follow-up
interview. Fifteen people participated in the research (See Table 1 below). Data
was collected between May 2019 and March 2020. Due to the global COVID-
19 pandemic, data collection had to be interrupted in March 2020. However,
for an ESM study it is rather common to have fewer than 20 respondents (van
Berkel, et al., 2017). Given the richness of the data collected through the three
steps, this was considered a sufficient amount of data to process, and it allowed
the researcher to draw trustworthy conclusions, although the research design
neither allows nor aims for generalization.
Research participants were selected according to two main criteria: age and
education level, which are closely associated with information behaviour
(Coromina & Camprubí, 2016; Kim et al., 2015). Participants were born
between 1980 and 2000, a generation that experienced travel both with and
without smartphones and ubiquitous internet connectivity, and therefore can

7
evaluate their impacts on their experience somewhat more critically, or at least
be more aware of them. All participants had attended tertiary education, as this
group has been found to spend more time on trip planning than others
(Coromina & Camprubí, 2016). Use of smartphones during travel was also
included as a selection criterion in the research invitation. Participants were
recruited on a voluntary basis. Fictional names were used to anonymize
interviewees, following general best practices in social research (Flick, 2018).
No compensation was offered to participants. While compensation can be an
effective way to encourage participants to join the research project, Scollon et
al. (2003) found that it could result in a poor quality of the data due to lack of
intrinsic motivation.
Table 1: Participants
Name Age Country Trip Trip Traveling ESM
(origin/residence) destination duration with Answer
ed/sent
Alma 37 Mexico/Finland Rhodes, GR 5 days Family 5/5
Amira 35 Saudi Arabia Geneva, CH 8 days Solo 7/7
Berlin, DE
Anastasia 22 Estonia/Sweden Malta 8 days Mom 7/7
Fritz 28 Germany Scotland 16 days Friend 6/7
Gabriela 24 Czech Republic India 1 month Friend 6/7
Hazel 32 Singapore/Sweden Vietnam 4 days Partner 9/9
Ines 24 Mexico/Sweden Berlin, DE - 11 days Partner /
London, UK Mom
Paris, FR
Kaisa 29 Finland Sarajevo, BA 5 days Friends 5/7
Liisa 32 Finland Madeira, PT 7 days Partner 7/7
Louis 24 France/Sweden Paris, FR 1 month Solo 6/6
(VFF*)
Nuray 30 Turkey/Sweden Cologne, DE 7 days Friends 5/6
Amsterdam, NL
Olof 31 Sweden Stockholm, SE 4 days Partner 9/9
Sajit 26 Nepal/Sweden Bremen, DE 5 days Solo 9/9
(VFF*)
Sofia 24 Hungary/Sweden London, UK 5 days Solo 6/6
(VFF*)
Zoe 27 Switzerland/Denmark Croatia 5 days Partner 6/6
Montenegro
*VFF= Visiting friends and family

Interest from prospective participants was collected through an online form,

where information was collected about their demographics and the trip they
had planned. The second step consisted of gathering data during the trip
through the Experience Sampling Method, which is an established method in
clinical psychology, introduced in the late 1970s by Csikszentmihalyi, Larson
& Prescott (1977). The method has so far seen scarce application in tourism,

8
perhaps due to the twofold challenge of requiring active participation by the
respondents during their trips and the necessity to provide them with research
instruments to administer the surveys. In fact, until smartphones became
widely available as personal technologies, researchers needed to provide
beepers, booklets or recorders to participants (Hektner et al., 2007). The
method can now be conducted on participants’ own smartphones; however, the
researcher still needs to provide the software (van Berkel et al., 2017). Some
examples of Experience sampling method in tourism are Birenboim’s (2016)
and Shoval et al. (2018) quantitative studies of tourist experiences in time and
space, as well as Quinlan Cutler et al. (2018), who discuss how they used the
method in qualitative tourist experience research.
With ESM, participants receive daily mini-questionnaires to fill in as soon as
possible and the questionnaires focus on participants’ momentary behaviours
and feelings (Hektner et al., 2007; van Berkel et al., 2017). Participants
downloaded a software application on their phone, free of charge, and received
a notification at random times within a set time range, once or twice per day,
for 4 to 7 days (depending on the length of the trip). Upon receiving the
notification, participants filled in a short questionnaire, which took about two
minutes to complete and contained different types of questions, including:
multiple choice, scales, open questions (cf. Author, 2022). The questionnaires
were built using branching logic, where certain questions depend on previous
answers (for example, if the answer to ‘Did you make plans for today?’ was
No, then the question ‘Have your plans changed?’ would not appear).
Therefore, not all respondents answered the same questions, the same number
of times. The purpose of this method was to access tourists during the trip,
collecting data at a point in time as close as possible to the actual events
reported. Moreover, smartphone use involves a number of actions that users
make without realizing it or without giving it too much importance, which
would most likely be forgotten until after the trip, when data would be
otherwise collected.
The third step was a qualitative, semi-structured interview held in person or
over the phone after the trip. Qualitative interviews allow for a greater depth
and richness in the data collected (May, 2011). The duration of the interviews
ranged between 20 minutes and 1 hour. ESM data was used as a starting point
for questions, and interviewees were often asked to explain or expand on the
answers given in the questionnaires. All interviews were recorded and later
transcribed manually by the researcher. Fifteen people completed all the steps.
In one case, the experience sampling data was lost due the app malfunctioning,
but the participant (Ines) agreed to be interviewed anyway. Given the richness

9
of the interview, this was included in the dataset. The whole dataset, therefore,
consists of 14 sets of surveys and 15 interviews. Since the ESM surveys were
answered several times by each respondent over the course of their trip, the
total amount of surveys collected is 93.
This methodology allows for a deep investigation into the behaviour of tourists
as well as their recollection of the experience. While these methods do not
allow to conduct any statistical analysis that may indicate causality or
correlation, ESM has the advantage of a high ecological validity, as it can
capture respondents’ ‘experience before it has a chance to be filtered by
memory or altered through subsequent self-reflection’ (Hektner et al., 2007, p.
110). A thematic analysis was conducted on the dataset, combining survey data
and interview transcripts, following the general principles of grounded theory
(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Due to the small sample, ESM data was not
analysed statistically, but it was summarized and used as input for the
interviews. In the analysis, the concept of planned serendipity was used as a
sensitizing concept, that is a tentative conceptual category used in the analysis
as the basis for theory building (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Interesting points
were coded through a first round of open coding on both ESM data and
interviews. The first cycle of coding resulted in a codebook including over 80
codes. A second round of coding identified ten broader codes, for example
‘optimization’, ‘tension between knowing/not knowing’, ‘change of plans’,
etc. A third round of coding focused on the set of ten codes, and the data was
then further elaborated into four themes, which will be presented in the next
section.

Thematic analysis
The analysis of ESM data and interview transcripts resulted in four themes:
emergent and contingent plans; cognitive effort on-site; tourist-centric
orientation in time and space; aiming for optimization. Through the four
themes, the paper shows how tourists’ phygital information environment both
enables and constrains serendipity, producing the phenomenon called here
planned serendipity.

10
Emergent and contingent plans
Most interviewees defined their initial travel plan as an idea, a rough plan.
They had lists they had prepared in advance, but these lists were often not
actually used to plan each day, were left at home, or used retrospectively to
check things off. When using the list, respondents mostly checked online for
more specific information. Most commonly, respondents planned the ‘what’
but not the ‘when’. For example, Alma made a list of things to see, a ‘general
idea’, and once at their destination, she would decide which things from the
list to see when, depending on where she was and how far the attraction was.
When asked in the ESM questionnaires whether their plans for the day had
changed, in most cases plans were flexible, had changed or there was no plan
at all. In most cases a detailed plan for each day or itinerary was only decided
the night before or in the morning. For example, Fritz explains: ‘we knew
where we wanted to go and we booked some of the accommodation and some
of the ferries, so that gave our entire trip some kind of schedule. But usually,
we used the evenings or early morning when we knew about the weather’. In
fact, unpredictable factors like weather and physiological factors like hunger
and tiredness were often mentioned to show how the smartphone allows for a
more flexible trip.
These data highlight the importance and extent of on-site planning and
information search for smartphone users. As Kah and Lee (2014) suggested
that having a device that allows for gathering information on-site has a strong
influence on tourists’ behaviour. Data from the present research suggests that
smartphones have the same effect on travel plans as Kah and Lee (2014)
observed in relation to navigation systems. While these data are in line with
research that views travel plans as dynamic and evolving throughout the trip,
they contradict Hwang and Fesenmaier’s (2011) and Stewart and Vogt’s
(1999) claim that specific conditions must occur during the trip for unplanned
behaviour. Instead, not planning was a deliberate choice, based on the
knowledge that information would be easily accessible during the trip.
Plans are not only made anew, revised, cancelled during the trip as found by
Liu et al. (2022), but they are purposefully made flexible to make the most of
on-site information search. Even plans made on-site are not too detailed or
specific, they are continuously revised, cancelled and remade based on
information encountered on-site. It is hard to distinguish between what is
planned and what is unplanned: it is not necessary to make detailed plans in
advance because tourists know they will have access to information at any
time, and their needs for information are thus postponed. The analysis points
to how travel plans are contingent and emergent, and how the availability of

11
information on-site through smartphones makes the information search
dynamic. Tourists’ information behaviour cannot be directly ascribed to
specific needs or strategies, contrarily to existing literature (Vogt &
Fesenmaier, 1998; Xiang & Fesenmaier, 2020). Additionally, respondents’
behaviour was not constant throughout the trip: the ESM answers show that
each participant’s reliance on their smartphone for information search varied
from day to day. This suggests that creating categories and types of tourists
based on information strategies and use of sources, like Fodness and Murray’s
(1998, 1999) model, may conceal the complexity of tourists’ actual behaviour
on-site.

Cognitive effort on-site: iterative and specific searches

Participants often described their information search on their smartphone as
iterative. A Google search was often the point of departure and searching
directly in Google maps was also common. Most respondents were using up to
2-3 web pages each time, going back and forth or opening more than one page
at once, reading or skimming through several web pages and then narrowing
down the search based on proximity and interests. Liisa explained her process:
‘I wrote in the source field ‘madeira jeep tours’ then I ended up on
TripAdvisor, check few of them, check what people had been writing, and then
I also check some reviews. […] Sometimes the information on the website was
good, but sometimes it wasn’t enough, so you went and checked what the
others have been writing. Then redefine the search a couple of times’. Further,
respondents described their search as ‘constant’ (Gabriela), ‘short but efficient’
(Fritz) or, as Olof said: ‘I am very quick to pick [the phone] up out of my
pocket to check even minute things. For example, directions I check over and
over and over and again. Like you walk a little bit, you pick up the phone and
you check the direction again’.
This iterative characteristic of information search shows how tourist
information behaviour is a dynamic process. Information is sought at all stages
of the trip but is never fixed: new information is searched and collected
throughout the trip, decisions are made and remade. As highlighted by previous
research, the use of the internet causes decisions and information needs to be
postponed (Xiang et al., 2015; Author 2020).
Besides being iterative, information search on the phone was also described as
specific. A phone search for information differs from using other sources
(guides, books, brochures, information centres) in that the person needs to look
specifically for something, they need to know what they are searching in order

12
to enter a query string in the search field when using a search engine. This
makes information search more intentional and specific, narrowed to what the
tourists already know they should be looking for. In this sense, information is
not encountered casually or serendipitously, but specifically sought out. This
kind of continuous, efficient, specific search requires competence and
processing of large amounts of information. Fritz, for example, explained: ‘I
have been a student for five years. I’m very good at cross reading and […]
collecting information with as little effort as necessary’. This contradicts
previous research which states that decisions made during the trip are mostly
light-hearted, free-spirited, hedonistic, unreflective, immediate, spontaneous
and do not require intensive information processing (Kang et al., 2020; Choi
et al., 2012; Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011).
The iterative and specific character of information search casts doubts on the
assumption that information search is carried out in stages, and that different
types of information are sought in different stages of the trip, with less
cognitive effort in the on-site stage (Choi et al., 2012; Jeng & Fesenmaier,
2002; Hyde, 2004; Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011). The specificity of the
information search also has important consequences for the serendipitous
element of information encounters: it reduces the possibility to find pertinent
information by chance, and those ‘ahah! Moments’ (Agarwal, 2015, p. 1).

Tourist-centric orientation in time and space

Several participants used expressions such as ‘ok, I’m here, what is around me’
to describe how they used online maps to understand where they were located
and what was available nearby. The process consists of assessing the current
situation, determining what information is needed, collecting such information
online, then using maps to navigate. Orientation is not done in space only, but
also in time, because people search for what to do next, based on where they
are at any given time. For example, Gabriela described: ‘it would be like: OK
let’s go for lunch, I’m going to check where it is. At the same time, OK, I know
where it is, but I have to use my Google maps to go there so I’m holding [the
phone] the whole time. Then we're there and we need to look for where the
beach is. OK, I’m going to find where the beach is, OK, let’s go to this one,
OK I’m going to use my Google maps to navigate’.
In another case, Alma was planning to visit a monastery, which was on her
initial list of things to do. However, when she was in the city centre, she was
looking for information on her phone and found that there was a zoo nearby,
so she decided to take her daughters to the zoo instead of the monastery

13
because it was closer. This instance shows how the choice between two
completely different attractions was made based on proximity and immediacy.
These two elements are therefore important factors in decision making, as both
the search process and the decision are rather immediate and based largely on
what is near in space and time. This expands on Xiang et al.’s (2015) findings
that decisions are postponed in connection with smartphone use and on Liu et
al.’s (2022) statement that smartphones are used by tourists to interpret, assess
and comprehend their immediate physical contexts.
Orientation, on the other hand, is not only the ability to see what is around, but
also to know where we are and where we are going. Some respondents
complained that with the smartphone and digital maps, they do not bother to
learn where they are, where landmarks, attractions and reference points are,
nor to memories itineraries and names of places. Kaisa complained that before
smartphones she would always get a paper map and learn to orient herself in
the destination: ‘nowadays I can’t do that anymore. I don’t know if it’s because
I don’t use enough time for that or I’m just stupider or my brain doesn’t
function the same or just that I’m so used to being with my phone that I don’t
need to know these things anymore’. This aspect has been overseen by
previous research on travel information behaviour, which rarely focuses on
what tourists do not learn and what they are not able to do in connection with
the use of the smartphone.
The assumption critiqued here is that the object of the information search is the
destination itself, while it appears from these results that the object and centre
of the information search is the tourist. Moreover, while it is generally assumed
that the aim of information search is gaining knowledge, and research has
shown that the tourist experience has epistemic value (Williams & Soutar,
2000), these findings show that the epistemic dimension of information search
are different when information can be retrieved at all times and on-the-go.

Aiming for optimization

One aim of the on-site search appears to be the optimization of the trip, that is,
tourists try to make the most out of their limited resources, especially time and
energy. Through the smartphone, and in particular thanks to constant
connectivity, online maps, location-based services and specific apps, tourists
can avoid many of the negative experiences that are common in travel: getting
lost, staying hungry longer than necessary, getting caught in bad weather,
getting stuck in traffic, spending unnecessary money or being taken advantage
of.

14
Participants believed that such behaviour could either foster or hinder
serendipity, depending on one’s perspective on it. While some thought that this
made them more spontaneous because they could ‘spontaneously check’
everything (Fritz, Kaisa); others believed it made them less spontaneous
because they ended up ‘checking and double checking’ everything (Gabriela,
Olof). For instance, Olof explains how making the plan optimal can end up
hindering serendipity: ‘if google maps says 18 minutes with the car to there,
then you plan 20min but if you have no idea, you may plan 40 minutes and
then you have the time! And if you plan 40 minutes and there is not so much
traffic, you are like oh here is something, let’s stop here for a bit, we have some
time… then you live more in the moment’.
These data highlight the connection between optimization and serendipity,
which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but certainly influence each
other. Although the aim of information search has always been believed to be
to improve the experience, reduce risk and uncertainty and satisfy those needs
identified by Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998), the findings suggest another view,
in which the aim of information search is to optimize the experience through
the computational capabilities of the phone and the location based services it
offers.

Discussion and conclusions

The study has explored the use of smartphones for information search on-site
and identified four themes that highlight how tourist behaviour has changed in
light of smartphone use. Research into unplanned behaviour has shown the
importance of on-site decision-making, which can stem from a general
preference for flexibility and the wish to base decisions on information
encountered at the destination (Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2011; Kah & Lee, 2014;
Kang et al., 2020; Wozniak et al., 2017). The idea of a plan made before the
trip and followed to the letter has been challenged, because tourists now change
and evaluate their plans continually (Kang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022).
The present paper addresses this issue by proposing the concept of planned
serendipity as a way of pinpointing what happens when tourists can continually
change their plans based on the situations they encounter on-site. Such
behaviour is supported by the smartphone, which allows tourists to access up
to date information at any time and anywhere. The paper offers an empirically
grounded critique to in information search behaviour literature. The

15
characteristics of information search identified through the four themes show
that existing assumptions in tourist information theory must be questioned in
light of smartphone use at the destination, and form the basis for four counter
claims, summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Assumptions and counter claims
Theme Assumptions in literature Findings
Emergent and Tourists have information needs and Plans are contingent, emergent and
contingent plans strategies and make plans based on flexible.
those.
Cognitive effort on-site: Information search is carried out in Information search on-site is iterative
iterative and specific stages with different levels of and specific, requiring high cognitive
search cognitive effort. Cognitive effort is effort.
lower in the on-site stage.
Tourist-centric The object of information search is The object of information search is
orientation in time and the destination: tourists search for the tourist: tourists search to orient
space information to learn about the themselves.
destination.
Aiming for optimization The aim of information search is to The aim of information search is to
improve the experience and reduce optimize the experience by
risk and uncertainty by gaining calculating the optimal itinerary.
knowledge about the destination.

The assumption that tourists have information needs and distinct strategies for
their information search is challenged and an alternative view is proposed,
where information search is more contingent and emergent. The notion that
information search is carried out in stages and on-site information search only
regards simpler choices without high cognitive effort, can be questioned with
a continuous and progressive view of information behaviour. Moreover, if the
object of the information search is not the destination but the tourist, and
improvement of the experience is achieved by optimizing choices and
resources, it is easier to understand why tourists feel more flexibility in their
choices while at the same time feeling less spontaneous. In light of these
reflections, the concept of planned serendipity can be a useful bridge between
the apparently opposite concepts of spontaneity and planning. The dichotomy
of structure vs. serendipity is not sufficient to explain the role of serendipity in
travel planning, because mobile information technologies allow a degree of
spontaneity even in structured plans. Spontaneity and planning are not
opposites, but complement each other in a flexible travel plan, where room is
intentionally left for serendipitous encounters.
Methodologically, the paper contributes to the field by applying an innovative
method such as ESM in a qualitative study. Such a method not only allows the
researcher to gather data on-site and virtually follow the participants for several
days while they travel, but it does so in a relatively simple and cost-effective

16
way, using participants’ own smartphones as a research tool. The results have
shown that comparing and combining ESM data with follow-up interviews can
yield interesting results and a more accurate view of tourists’ actual behaviour
while they travel, increasing the ecological validity of the study, which
reinforces the trustworthiness of the qualitative methodology.

References
Agarwal, N. K. (2015). Towards a definition of serendipity in information
behaviour. Information research: an international electronic journal, 20(3).
Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2014). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist
behaviour approach. In Prebensen, N., Chen, J. S. & Uysal, M. (Eds) Creating
experience value in tourism. Cabi, 95-112.
Birenboim, A. (2016). New approaches to the study of tourist experiences in time
and space. Tourism Geographies, 18(1), 9-17.
Björneborn, L. (2017). Three key affordances for serendipity: Toward a framework
connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters.
Journal of Documentation, 73(5), 1053-1081
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory.
Sage.
Cary, S. H. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61–77.
Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F. R. (2013). Exploring memorable tourism
experiences: Antecedents and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Economics,
Business and Management, 1(2), 177-181.
Cho, M. H., & Jang, S. (2008). Information value structure for vacation travel.
Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 72-83.
Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., Morrison, A. M., & Jang, S. (2012). Structure of travel
planning processes and information use patterns. Journal of Travel Research,
51(1), 26–40
Coromina, L., & Camprubí, R. (2016). Analysis of tourism information sources using
a Mokken Scale perspective. Tourism Management, 56(1), 75–84.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent
activity and experience. Journal of youth and adolescence, 6(3), 281-294.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of tourism
research, 24(3), 503-523.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search
strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 108–119.

17
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior.
Journal of travel research, 37(3), 220-230.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical
study. Journal of documentation, 59(3), 321-340.
Gretzel, U., Zarezadeh, Z., Li, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2019). The evolution of travel
information search research: a perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 319-
323
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information
search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353–373.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling
method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage.
Höpken, W., Tobias Eberle, ·, Fuchs, M., & Lexhagen, M. (2019). Google Trends
data for analysing tourists’ online search behaviour and improving demand
forecasting: the case of Åre, Sweden. Information Technology & Tourism, 21,
45–62.
Huang, W. J., Norman, W. C., Hallo, J. C., McGehee, N. G., McGee, J., &
Goetcheus, C. L. (2014). Serendipity and independent travel. Tourism
Recreation Research, 39(2), 169–183.
Hwang, Y. H., and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). Unplanned Tourist Attraction Visits by
Travellers. Tourism Geographies, 13(3), 398-416.
Hyde, K. F. (2004). A duality in vacation decision making. Consumer psychology of
tourism, hospitality and leisure, 3, 161-180.
Jeng, J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Conceptualizing the travel decision-making
hierarchy: A review of recent developments. Tourism analysis, 7(1), 15-32.
Kah, J. A., & Lee, S.-H. (2014). Beyond Adoption of Travel Technology: Its
Application to Unplanned Travel Behaviors. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 31(6), 667–680.
Kang, S., Jodice, L. W., & Norman, W. C. (2020). How do tourists search for
tourism information via smartphone before and during their trip?. Tourism
recreation research, 45(1), 57-68.
Kang, S., & Lee, A. (2022). Information search by smartphone and tourists’ spatial
behavior. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 36(4),
71-81.
Korneliussen, T. (2014). Tourist Information Search: A DIY Approach to Creating
Experience Value. In Prebensen, N., Chen, J. S. & Uysal, M. (Eds) Creating
experience value in tourism (pp. 169-181). Cabi.
Law, R., Chan, I. C. C., & Wang, L. (2018). A comprehensive review of mobile
technology use in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 27(6), 626-648.

18
Liu, X., Wang, D., & Gretzel, U. (2022). On-site decision-making in smartphone-
mediated contexts. Tourism Management, 88, 104424.
May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and research. McGraw-Hill
Education.
Muller, T., & Becker, L. (2012). Get lucky: How to put planned serendipity to work
for you and your business. John Wiley & Sons.
Quinlan Cutler, S., Doherty, S., & Carmichael, B. (2018). The experience sampling
method: examining its use and potential in tourist experience research. Current
Issues in Tourism, 21(9), 1052-1074.
Rennella, M., & Walton, W. (2004). Planned serendipity: American travelers and the
transatlantic voyage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Journal of Social
History, 38(2), 365-383.
Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience Sampling: Promises
and Pitfalls, Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 5–
34
Stewart, S. I., & Vogt, C. A. (1999). A case-based approach to understanding
vacation planning. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 79-95.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). The influence of innovativeness on on-site smartphone use
among American travelers: Implications for context-based push marketing.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(6), 806-823.
Vaez, S., Burke, M., & Yu, R. (2020). Visitors' wayfinding strategies and
navigational aids in unfamiliar urban environment. Tourism Geographies, 22(4-
5), 832-847.
van Berkel, N., Ferreira, D., & Kostakos, V. (2017). The experience sampling
method on mobile devices. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(6), 93.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information
search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551-578.
Wang, D., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2016). Smartphone Use in Everyday Life
and Travel. Journal Of Travel Research, 55(1), 52-63.
Wozniak, T., Schaffner, D., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., & Lenz-Kesekamp, V. (2017).
Psychological antecedents of smartphone users’ behaviour along the mobile
customer journey. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2017 (pp. 317-330). Springer, Cham.
Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2020). Travel information search. Handbook of e-
Tourism, 1-20.
Xiang, Z., Wang, D., O’Leary, J. T., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Adapting to the
internet: trends in travelers’ use of the web for trip planning. Journal of travel
research, 54(4), 511-527.

19
Yu, X., Anaya, G. J., Miao, L., Lehto, X., & Wong, I. A. (2018). The impact of
smartphones on the family vacation experience. Journal of Travel Research,
57(5), 579-596.
Zarezadeh, Z., Benckendorff, P., & Gretzel, U. (2019). Lack of progress in tourist
information search research: A critique of citation behaviour and knowledge
development. Current issues in tourism, 22(19), 2415-2429.

20
Paper IV
Phygital Time Geography: what
about Smartphones in Tourists’
Time-Space Behaviour?

Micol Mielia, Malin Zillingerb and Jan-Henrik Nilssonc

a
Department of service management and service studies, Lund University,
Helsingborg, Sweden; bDepartment of service management and service
studies, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden; cDepartment of service
management and service studies, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden
Submitted to: Tourism Geographies

Abstract
The paper uses Hägerstrand´s (1970) time geography to understand tourists’
space-time behaviour in relation to smartphones. It aims to contribute to the
development of time geography in tourism by adapting it to the digital
environment within which tourists move when they use smartphones. The
paper proposes the concept of phygitality to understand how digital
technologies are used and placed in physical space, and how this interaction of
physical and digital reconfigures Hägerstrand’s capabily, coupling and
authority constraints. By analysing fifteen qualitative semi-structured
interviews, the paper identifies several variations of the original constraints
that occur in connection with smartphone use. Capability constraints are
influenced by hardware, software and the tourists’ interaction with them;
coupling constraints are phygitally reconfigured in that bundling can happen
outside the vacation prims but ‘unbundling’ can also happen within. Authority
constraints are influenced by phygital factors such as physical, economical and
legal infrastructures, legal or organisational limitations, economic and political
power that manifest in digital maps and location-based services, and norms of

1
social behaviour. Through smartphone use, the spill over effect of activities
and functions of everyday life into travel, identified by previous literature,
extends to the logic, rationality and social norms of daily life. The phygitality
of tourists’ time-space challenges the liminality of the tourist experience, the
sense of magic and escape usually associated with travel. Tourists’ sense of
space is mediated by the device and the digital maps, and it is reconfigured
through the combination of physical and digital space.
Keywords: phygital, smartphones, time geography, constraints, digital

Introduction
Travelling implies movements in space and time, and a trip is defined by both
space and time coordinates (Caldeira & Kastenholz; 2020; Hall, 2005; Author,
2007). In theorising different time and space constraints that exist in people’s
mobility (i.e. capability, coupling and authority constraints), Torsten
Hägerstrand (1970, 1973) foresaw that telecommunications could have a
significant impact on these constraints. Nowadays, tourists are accompanied
by mobile technologies such as smartphones and global positioning systems
devices. Together, this travelling couple of humans and technology can engage
with different contexts simultaneously. In tourism and mobility research, such
as doubling, digital elasticity, and co-presence are used to describe tourists’
split between their physical and digital contexts (Ayeh, 2018; De Souza e
Silva, 2006; Pearce, 2011; Tribe & Mkono, 2017; Urry, 2002). Much attention
has been given to how space becomes digital, especially through the concept
of cyberspace (Crang, 2009; De Souza e Silva, 2006; Kitchin, 1998). However,
the term cyberspace neglects the physical element that is present in any space,
as material technologies are by necessity placed in physical time-spaces
(Schwanen & Kwan, 2008) and people engage with both physical and digital
worlds simultaneously (Wellner, 2016).
A new vocabulary is needed to understand that digital and physical do not only
exist side by side, but that they are enmeshed, overlayered, and merged. We
address this conceptually challenging issue by using the concept of phygitality.
As a combination of the words physical and digital, the term is used to describe
ways in which physical and digital elements amalgamate and create something
qualitatively new (Gaggioli, 2017; Zurlo et al., 2018; Lo Turco & Giovannini,
2020; Author, 2022a). Given the ability of smartphones to constantly connect
people, and to instantly transport individuals to different social settings, it is

2
increasingly difficult to distinguish in which place people actually are located
(Dickinson et al., 2014). For example, tourists can be at the destination and be
working at the same time, or they can be camping with their family and spend
time with friends on the other side of the world through postings on social
media. Hence, tourists are not either in a physical or in a digital world, but in
an intersection thereof.
Hägerstrand (1970) only wrote about telecommunication when discussing
coupling constraints, and at a time when telecommunications only included
television, radio and stationary telephone. By that time, he noted how
telecommunication technologies allow people to form bundles without losing
any time in transportation. He observed that with technologies like radio and
TV, a person could jump on and off a bundle at any time. However, he also
noted how telephony is an ‘outstanding instrument for breaking other
activities’ (Hägerstrand, 1970 p. 15). Of course, Hägerstrand had no idea how
relevant this statement would become decades later. In the ‘age of acceleration’
(Xiang, 2018 p. 147), tourists’ geographies still need to be understood
considering both space and time. In the present paper, we use Hägerstrand´s
(1970, 1973) time geography to understand tourists’ space-time behaviour
because it offers a dynamic view of space and time, which is also adaptable to
changing technological contexts.
In a digitalised context, previous conceptions of tourists´ mobile capacities and
constraints are overturned. When smartphone use turns physical and digital
space into phygital space, it allows tourists to transcend former spatial
limitations. Smartphones dissolve the basic materiality of tourism and alter
constraints on time-space behaviour. People do not need to be physically in
place anymore, to be in place. However, internet and mobile technologies have
created new and different constraints on people’s movements in time and space
(Schwanen & Kwan, 2008; Thulin & Vilhelmson, 2019). This article departs
from the notion that smartphones have a profound impact on the experiential
space in which tourism takes place, the phygital space where physical and
digital complement one another. Therefore, we discuss tourists’ phygital
behaviour from a time-space perspective. The first aim of the article is to
discuss how tourists with smartphones integrate digital and physical worlds in
their time-space behaviour. In this, we particularly build on the concept of
time-spatial constraints, inspired by Hägerstrand’s (1970) time geography.
Although time-geography was originally about everyday life, it has potential
for studying tourism as well. Tourists’ activities are also constrained by time
and space. While tourism literature initially insisted on differentiating
everyday life and tourism, more recent voices have argued that tourist

3
experiences are deeply intertwined with everyday life, they can even be seen
as a mirror or an extension of it (Larsen, 2008, 2019; McCabe, 2002; Xiang &
Fesenmaier, 2020). In fact, tourism researchers have fruitfully used time
geography to understand tourism mobility (Hall, 2005; Shoval, 2012; Author,
2007, Xiao-Ting and Bi-Hu, 2012; Grinberger et al., 2014; Quiström et al.,
2020; Author, 2011; Gu et al., 2021; Kang, 2016). In this article, we aim to
take the theory one step further and conceptualise a phygital time geography,
adapted to the technologically mediated tourist who always travels with the
smartphone. The study employs a qualitative, inductive, exploratory approach
to data collection. The data, collected through semi-structured interviews, can
offer new empirical insights and grounds for analysis, however the ambition
of the paper is to contribute to the conceptual discussion about time geography
and digitalisation in tourism. Therefore, significant weight was given in the
paper to the conceptual reflection on time geography.
The paper investigates the integration of digital and physical worlds and its
influence on tourism space by combining different perspectives. The
theoretical section begins with a review of the concept of phygitality, followed
by a literature review of smartphone development and its impact on tourist
behaviour from a spatial perspective. Thereafter comes a presentation of
conceptual framework of time geography. The qualitative methodology is
described in the following chapter. In the results section, material from the
empirical study is presented and discussed in relation to the three time-space
constraints on tourists’ behaviour in phygital space. A discussion of the
empirical results in connection with the theoretical framework concludes the
paper.

The digital and physical merge into phygitality

Research has traditionally viewed the digital as something distinct from the
physical, and focused on studying the former independently from the latter.
We tend to distinguish between physical reality and the digital, virtual and
simulated. The much debated ‘digital turn’ in geography has created digital
geographies that are ‘produced through, produced by and of the digital’ (Ash
et al., 2018, p. 27). The distinctions between physical and digital have been
useful in the past to understand the impact of new technology (Gretzel et al.,
2019). However, as innovations have blurred the lines between physical and
digital, such distinctions may limit our understanding of human behaviour,
including tourist behaviour. Thus, in our age the dichotomous paradigm of a

4
physical-digital separation has become anachronistic when digital
technologies make physical mobility unnecessary for social interaction (Adey,
2017; Crang, 2009), and ‘the proliferation and popularization of geolocation
technologies is itself engendering the flourishing of spatial ontologies and
epistemologies’ (Ash et al., 2018 p.38). Research has generated vocabulary on
such spatial relationships. There are, for example, concepts like enfolded space
(De Souza e Silva, 2006) and doubling (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Lamsfus et al.,
2015; Lalicic & Weismayer, 2016). But these terms still allude to a separation
of places and experiences. As we argue that the digital has not replaced the
physical, but become part of it instead (cf. Frith, 2012); we prefer the more
specific term phygital.
Phygital is a playful combination of the words physical and digital. It is used
to indicate how physical and digital elements blend together to create
something new. Gaggioli (2017) notes that the phygital approach results in a
new concept of space. The digital transformation in all contexts of life blurs
the distinction between physical and digital and leads to a living space that is
‘digitally enriched’ (Gaggioli, 2017, p. 774). While it often appears in
marketing and heritage studies (Belghiti et al., 2017; Lo Turco & Giovannini,
2020; Nofal et al., 2017), the term has only recently been used in tourism
(Gretzel et al., 2019; Ballina et al., 2019; Neuburger et al., 2018). With the
exception of Gaggioli’s (2017) short piece on phygital spaces, it seems almost
absent from geography scholarship. However, the concept is useful to
challenge the dichotomous paradigm mentioned above and instead emphasises
the intersections of physical and digital dimensions of the experience.
In the present paper, we build on Gaggioli’s (2017) spatial definition. We argue
that one needs to understand physical and digital space not as separate, but as
one and the same. Tourists are on the phone while they are at the destination,
and at work while lying by the pool. Through smartphone mediation, several
contexts blend into the vacation context, creating hybrid spaces that can be
defined phygitally. In this way, tourists’ relations to time, space, and place are
reordered. We argue that one cannot draw a line between physical and digital
experience of the tourist as the physical does not end where the digital begins
or vice versa; they exist simultaneously in the phygital.

Smartphones and space

Contemporary technologies such as smartphones have a major effect on
tourists’ consumption of space. Internet connection, moreover, has become
more broadly accessible thanks to the reduction or elimination of internet

5
roaming fees (for example, within the EU) (Author, 2018). The use of internet-
enabled smartphones influences how tourists move in time and space, as well
as tourists’ connection to their homes (Anaya & Lehto, 2020). Smartphones
allow tourists ‘to connect over distance, as they allow for co-presence, i.e., to
be physically in one location and virtually in another’ (Gössling, 2017 p.1030).
This digital elasticity has the power to displace the concept of liminality, as it
mitigates the effects of travelling to a new place (Pearce, 2011), and it possibly
removes the sense of magic and escape associated with travel (Benckendorff
et al., 2019). Moreover, Wellner (2016) technologies bring new social norms
regarding acceptable social behaviour.
Although written before smartphones, White and White (2007) observe how
tourists through their mobile phones can have a feeling of being simultaneously
at home and away. In fact, information and communication technologies
constitute a link between home and away (Zhang & Zhang, 2022). While this
may make physical distance irrelevant, psychological and emotional
consequences are more complex, as people feel both far and near (White &
White, 2007). In this way, mobile technologies transform tourists’ ‘experience
of space by enfolding remote contexts inside the present context’ (De Souza e
Silva, 2006 p.262). This phenomenon of feeling co-present, also named
‘doubling’, occurs when tourists’ attention is divided between their physical
and digital contexts (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Lamsfus et al., 2015; Lalicic &
Weismayer, 2016). Smartphone use also causes a ‘spill over effect’ of
everyday functions and activities into travel, including communication with
people who are not in the travel party and mundane activities such as online
banking and answering work emails (Wang et al., 2016; Author, 2022b). This
makes some travel possible that otherwise would have been impossible to
conduct because of the necessity to be co-present at home or in the workplace
(Tan & Chen, 2021). This is what is so peculiar with mobile technologies: they
offer the possibility of moving through space, and of interacting with others
both in remote and contiguous places.
While ‘communication on-the-go’ emerged already with mobile phones,
smartphones offer more than just communication: their multifunctionality
includes information search, facilitation, spatial navigation and
contextualisation, to name a few (Benckendorff et al., 2019). Through their
ability to provide contextualised, personalised spatial information to tourists,
smartphones can transform tourists’ interactions with places, activities, other
tourists and locals. As we have seen, smartphones connect tourists with both
physical and digital, virtual and informational contexts (Lemos, 2014). Hybrid
spaces can change how physical space is negotiated and understood (Frith,

6
2012). For example, Duignan et al. (2018) showed how digital spaces
complemented physical ones to overcome the dichotomy between core and
peripheral locality in food festivals. Vaez et al. (2020) studied tourists’
wayfinding strategies with different navigational aids. They found that tourists
who used GPS recognised less spatial information and used fewer strategies
than those who only relied on analogue sources, and preferred to follow the
route suggested by the device. Conti and Heldt Cassel (2020) illustrated how
social media use contributes to tourism spatialities and space-making,
especially by mediating the role of liminality in nature-based experiences.
Baum and Ribak (2021) explored how different representational practices of
navigation apps reproduce neoliberal logics in which navigation must
constantly create value, where maps become a tool for producing specific types
of behaviour. Markers have always been indicators of ‘what ought to be seen’
(Koshar, 1998), however as observed by Vaez et al. (2020) digital maps hold
considerable power over tourists’ routes and choices of what to see. Moreover,
Lamsfus et al. (2015) acknowledge the ability afforded by smartphones to
micro-coordinate activities with other people.

Hägerstrand’s spatial constraints in tourism

For more than 50 years, time geography has offered a perspective that
understands space in terms of time-related processes. A location, Hägerstrand
(1970, 1973) states, has both space and time coordinates. Individuals move
along paths in time-space and the operations they perform along such paths
create projects. When people come together in one place, their paths gather in
a bundle. As people move with variable speed, their time-spatial movements
look like prisms. Depending on how long and how fast people travel, and how
long they stay in one place, prisms are decreasing or increasing in size. Given
that a trip is clearly defined in terms of both space and time, we can say that
tourists have a ‘vacation prism’ within which they move and form bundles. As
Hägerstrand himself notes, telecommunication allows people to avoid losing
time at junctions and in transportation, at least apparently.
When people plan and live their lives, they are affected by three types of
constraints that limit what they can accomplish in time-space. Capability
constraints are of two types: physiological (e.g., eating and sleeping), and
transportation related (faster or slower means of transport). Hall (2005)
includes both modes of transportation and routes in tourists’ capability
constraints. In relation to mobile phones, Schwanen and Kwan (2008) added
that people are constrained by how long their phone can last without being

7
recharged. Coupling constraints refer to where, when and for how long a
person needs to join other individuals, tools and materials. However, Zhang
and Zhang (2022, p. 2) argue that digital technologies enable people to come
together in ‘inconsistent space-time’. Applying the concept to tourism, Shoval
(2012) included the composition of the travel party among coupling
constraints. The third type, Authority constraints, are related to time-
geographical aspects of power, for example access to certain places by means
of visas or monetary capital. For Hägerstrand (1970, p.16), authority
constraints create ‘control areas’ or ‘domains’, spatio-temporal areas that are
under the control of individuals or groups. Such domains are either not
accessible or only accessible through payment, invitation, or fight. Authorities
and organisations can also forbid or restrict activities allowed within a certain
space: it may be forbidden to take photos or take phone calls in places like
churches or museums, or to use the phone at all, for example in planes
(Schwanen & Kwan, 2008). Grinberger et al. (2014) include social barriers and
norms among authority constraints.
Hägerstand (1970) argued that every person needs a home base, even if
temporary, a metaphorical island where they can store their belongings, receive
mail and to which they can return. The size of the island is determined by how
far a person can travel each day to be able to make it back to their home base,
depending on the deadlines they have (regular sleep, eating, family
commitments). The size of the island, Hägerstrand (1970) observes, is also
determined by available means of transportation, improvements in
transportation technology have significantly enlarged the island in the latest
centuries. Although Hägerstrand’s (1970) concept of a home base and
metaphor of the island refer to people in everyday life, it does not require too
much imagination to extend it to tourists, who have a ‘base camp’, if not a
home base. The base can be a hotel room or a campsite, but it is the departure
point from which tourists can move during their trip, limited by their time-
budget.
Research on time geography in the digital age has found that new constraints
are created by the pervasive use of technologies (Schwanen & Kwan, 2008;
Thulin et al., 2020; Thulin & Vilhelmson, 2019). Thulin et al. (2020) explore
the consequences of smartphone use on young people’s everyday constraints
and conclude that it leads to new logics and a reordering of time, space, and
place. Smartphone use leads to a decoupling and a more flexible use of space,
but brings along other constraints connected to changing rhythms of social
interaction. Thulin & Vilhelmson (2019) analyse how background and
foreground activities are conducted simultaneously and in parallel, in bundles

8
of online and off-line activities. The authors call for a theoretical development
of digital geography, which we aim to address using time geography. The
concept of constraints is implemented as a means to describe and analyse
tourists´ behaviour in phygital space, with their smartphones.

Methodology
The empirical data consists of fifteen semi-structured interviews, collected
between May 2019 and March 2020 within a larger study on tourist behaviour
and smartphones. Participants were recruited, in line with principles of
grounded theory, through theoretical sampling (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
Since the study was about tourists’ relationship with their smartphones during
their trip, the first criterion was that they should be smartphone users and take
a trip during the research period. Secondly, participants were born in the 1980s
and 1990s, roughly falling within the so-called generation Y or ‘millennials’.
The concept of generation is used here to identify a group of people born before
digital, mobile and internet-enabled technologies became common, and grew
up along their development. For this reason, people born in those years can be
considered aware of their use of mobile technologies and likely critical of their
significance. Moreover, millennials are the demographic group that uses the
internet the most during their travels (Kim et al., 2015; Kang et al., 2021). All
participant names were anonymised using nicknames.
The study combined interviews, conducted after the trip, with data collected
during the trip through the Experience Sampling Method (ESM). ESM allows
the researcher to collect short self-reports from participants during their trip
through mini-survey on their smartphones administered at random intervals
several times a day, for several days (for a more detailed description of the
ESM method, see Author, 2022b). In the present study, only interviews were
analysed. However, through ESM, participants were asked to reflect on their
smartphone use during the trip and their answers were later used as a starting
point for the interview. Interview questions departed from smartphone use for
information related purposes but expanded into general use of smartphone.
Interviews were conducted by one of the authors using an interview guide,
which was updated throughout the research process to include emerging
themes, according to the principle of constant comparison of grounded theory
(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
analysis was conducted in three steps: a first round of in-vivo coding was
carried out by one of the researchers and then further rounds of coding and

9
analysis were conducted in collaboration with the other authors to ensure inter-
coder reliability (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). In the second step, thematization,
two broad themes were identified (phygital connectivity and spatial
orientation), which included respectively four and three sub-themes. The last
step, theory-building, consisted of the conceptual work of connecting the
analysis of the empirical material to the theory of time geography, and in
particular to the three constraints.

Analysis
Just like new constraints emerge in daily life as shown by Thulin and
Vilhelmson (2019), new and different constraints exist on tourists’ behaviour
in connection with smartphone use. The analysis will focus on tourists’
behaviour in relation to smartphones, and how they integrate digital and
physical worlds in their time-spatial behaviour. We analyse capability,
coupling and authority constraints for the technologically mediated tourist and
include quotes from the interviews along the argumentation.

Capability constraints
Besides people’s physical abilities to walk for a certain length of time without
sleep and food, the technological tourist has additional constraints related to
the technical capabilities of the device, in particular duration of the battery,
internet connectivity, and operation of Global Positioning System (GPS).
Amira, for example, dealt with the limited battery by carrying more devices:
‘Actually, I have two phones and a power bank all the time in case I run out of
battery’. Apart from a charged battery, already observed by Schwanen and
Kwan (2008) about mobile phones, smartphones also need internet connection
to be fully operational. Therefore, additional capability constraints derive from
the physical parts of the phone which allow it to connect to the network.
Anastasia, for example, remembers ‘going in circles’ and being late to meet a
friend once because the phone was old and not navigating fast enough.
As noted by Hall (2005), it is not only speed of transport, but also the route
taken which imposes a constraint: the distance one is able to cover in a certain
time depends on GPS and computational capabilities of the phone, especially
through location-based services (LBS). Using online maps does not only allow
tourists to locate themselves in space, but also to achieve an efficient use of

10
time and space and to keep record of distances. Olof reflected: ‘Google maps
makes you navigate the fastest possible way, but it doesn't matter so much if
you're on vacation. Maybe driving around a bit could be really nice […] instead
of Google maps-ing’. In fact, Vaez et al. (2020) found that tourists who use
smartphones for wayfinding prefer to follow the route suggested by the
application, and Baum and Ribak (2021) noted how this use of maps for
efficiency reproduces a neoliberal logic in which time always must be used
efficiently to create value. Such rational logic is, however, usually believed to
be foreign to the tourist experience and only belong in everyday life (Zhang &
Zhang, 2022). What spills over from everyday life, therefore, are not only
activities and functions as noted by Wang et al. (2016) and Author (2022b),
but also the logic and aim for optimising and achieving efficiency. This may
contribute to reducing that sense of magic, escape and liminality associated
with tourist experiences (Benckendorff et al., 2019; Conti & Heldt-Cassel,
2020; Pearce, 2011).
Another constraint derives from tourists’ perceived inability to locate
themselves and navigate without online maps, which Vaez et al. (2020) also
observed. Sofia, for example, said: ‘I think London is so big that occasionally
I went on [online map] to see where we were, to locate myself… to zoom out
and oh now we are in the West’. Ines also pointed out: ‘I could by no means
tell you in which direction something was. Because I was so focused looking
on the [digital] map that I forgot to actually look around’. This suggests that
tourists do not have a sense of where they are and trust the device to let them
know. We call this sense a sense of space. As suggested by Duignan et al.
(2018) this means that space can be reconfigured through the combination of
physical and digital spaces, where concepts of ‘centrality’ or ‘periphery’ lose
their absolute meaning and become relative. In this sense, space is phygital.
These constraints derive from both physical and digital characteristics of the
device and their interaction with tourists’ perceptions and behaviour in space.
Therefore, three new types of capability constraints can be recognised in
connection with the phygitality of tourists’ time-space behaviour:
1. Hardware: battery, internet and GPS antenna and chips.
2. Software: route calculation, navigation, LBS.
3. User: perceived inability to orientate without navigational aid.

11
Coupling constraints
In the empirical data, we find that bundles can be joined outside tourists’
vacation prisms, within or without the travel party. First, tourists can stay
connected with friends and family in other places, including back home. Ines,
for example, said: ‘around 5-6 I know it’s time... It’s starting to be morning
back home so I can call my family, or I can check WhatsApp’. This connection
with home, paradoxically, becomes an integral part of the vacation: ‘[Being on
vacation] of course it’s also sending pictures to your parents and WhatsApp
and it’s like uh we’re here look at the pool’ (Liisa). Second, work-related
activities like digital meetings, reading e-mails talking with colleagues are now
easy to conduct on site and have become part of the vacation. Fritz said: ‘I even
had my work phone and I checked my office emails maybe once a day, but it
didn't bother me because I don't have any bad feelings connected with it, so I
don't feel like it stresses me’. Third, connections with everyday life can also be
kept through chores such as banking, apartment hunting, and paying rent. In
fact, keeping connections to everyday life may be a way of feeling more
relaxed, like for Zoe, who did not have any desire to disconnect because ‘I was
looking for a new place to live so I was still very much connected […] I was
worried that apartment hunting would be a big damper on the holiday, and I
wouldn’t be able to fully relax’.
Previous literature has focused on the social aspect of co-presence or doubling
and has shown that tourists feel both near and far, blurring the distinctions
between home and away (Ayeh, 2018; De Souza e Silva, 2006; Pearce, 2011;
Tribe & Mkono, 2017; Urry, 2002; Gössling, 2017; White & White, 2007).
However, Hägerstrand’s theory is useful in calling the attention to another
aspect of coupling constraints: materials, tools, and activities. Smartphones do
not only allow people to connect with other people over distance, but also to
access and utilise materials and tools and conduct activities that were
previously linked to a specific place (the bank, the office, etc.). Moreover, this
shows that everyday functions and activities do not merely spill over into the
tourist experience, but have become an integral part of it. However, although
this reduces the liminality of the experience, tourists are not necessarily
bothered by it, as Fritz and Zoe’s examples show. The idea that social
obligations can be put aside during vacation (Zhang & Zhang, 2022) is absent
from these tourists’ intentions. The ability to work and to continue everyday
activities on vacation makes it possible to travel even when social and
professional obligations keep tourists tied to everyday life. This, as Tan and
Chen (2021) noted, makes an otherwise impossible trip possible but

12
simultaneously challenges the idea that the tourist experience is an escape from
everyday life (cf. Zhang & Zhang, 2022).
Additionally, the data shows that bundles are also affected within the vacation
prism, as some can become looser: one can separate from their travel partner
for a while, go do different activities, and then re-connect later through online
communication which allows micro-coordination (cf. Lamsfus et al., 2015). A
tourist can entirely disconnect with their travel partners without even leaving
the physical bundle by immersing themselves in the digital context on the
phone. Tourism is a social practice that brings people closer together, people
engage in tourism to strengthen social bonds (Haldrup & Larsen, 2009). And
yet, people take time off from their travel partners too. Gabriela for example
reflects on her job hunt during her backpacking in India: ‘I was actually kind
of happy that I had something else to do as well other than just being a tourist.
[…] Also it was nice to have a break from my co-traveller’. Or Nuray:
‘sometimes it happened that I was too tired after touristing a lot and mostly at
dinner time everybody is not talking to each other but just on their phones’. On
the other hand, this can cause some undesired lack of connection to travel
partners because of distractions caused by the phone, like Ines’ boyfriend who
complained about her checking emails during the trip. While previous research
has explored the co-presence that can occur with people who are not in the
travel party, less attention has been given to what happens to the bundles that
exist within the vacation prism. The data presented above shows that an
unbundling phenomenon can take place also when tourists exist in a phygital
space.
In the case of coupling constraints, therefore, two variations can be found at
the intersection of physical and digital space:
1. Bundling outside the vacation prism, thereby blurring the dichotomy
home and away.
2. Unbundling within the vacation prism.

Authority constraints
In our analysis, new constraints emerge that are typically connected with
domains in phygital space. The clearest example is that of roaming fees and
internet costs while travelling. Amira described how this constraint affected
her behaviour: ‘I was relying on the Wi-Fi, I wanted to get some foreign
packages or something but when I asked all of the options in Geneva wouldn’t
work in Germany so I didn’t want to buy something [that I couldn’t use in

13
Germany too]’. Fritz, instead, was positively surprised by the availability of
internet connection during his trip: ‘It was amazing in Scotland. I was in the
most remote areas of Scotland on some small islands, with no people, no
civilization, no nothing, but there was always 4G and it worked perfectly
everywhere’. Unlike the capability constraint seen above in connection with
the phone’s hardware (4.1), here the internet connection can be limited by
infrastructural factors. First, the so-called ‘grid’ has to be in place through
antennas, poles and cables that can convey electricity across space. Second,
the national and supra-national regulations, for example, EU regulations on
roaming fees (Author, 2018). Third, private contracts with and among phone
providers, as well as Wi-Fi connections for example in cafés and hotels. All
these factors can generate authority constraints to people’s movements.
Other types of authority constraints are directly connected to possibilities
offered by the mobile internet. Legal or organisational constraints to working
abroad can exist, such as matters of insurance, company policy, or simply a
boss’ will. Moreover, although people can work more easily during their trips,
they are still constrained by some requirements: they need a physical place that
is appropriate for work, for example silent, without other people around. In
fact, as noted by Schwanen and Kwan (2008), material technologies need to
be placed in physical space-times. This is where the concept of cyberspace falls
short: merely considering the digital space is not enough to understand the
physical and digital constraints on tourists’ activities.
Lastly, interactive, online maps that provide LBS can also be seen as an
authoritative source of information about what is and what is not a place to
visit. Ines remembers: ‘there was one day in Berlin that I saw a food market
and I told [my boyfriend] ahh let’s go see it, and he’s like yeah but it doesn’t
appear here [on Google maps], maybe there aren’t that many things to see’.
Ines and her boyfriend ended up visiting the food market anyway and found it
a very nice experience. However, like in Hägerstrand’s analysis, it is important
to note that both political and economic powers are involved in the creation of
these online maps (Baum & Ribak, 2021). Such powers are represented and
exerted through the maps, effectively functioning as an authority constraint by
instructing tourists on ‘what ought to be seen’ (Koshar, 1998). Gabriela clearly
acknowledged this point: ‘I was only limited to seeing things that Google maps
showed me. I’m pretty sure that there were so many more things that I missed
out on just because I was only using this platform’.
Social norms are also reconfigured as Wellner (2016) noted. For example,
Anastasia explained that during the trip she was using her phone a lot, but a
few times she wondered whether she should be ‘here or there’, meaning in the

14
physical or the digital world. However, she justified: ‘my mom is a very chill
person’ so she was not complaining about her being on her phone too much,
which made it acceptable social behaviour. These constitute informal barriers,
and smartphone use leads to challenging old norms of behaviour which were
taken for granted. This aspect is neglected in tourism literature.
Thus, several phygital authority constraints emerge:
1. Network infrastructure (physical, economic, legal).
2. Legal or organisational constraints to conducting specific activities in
specific spaces.
3. Economic, political and cultural influences that determine ‘what ought
to be seen’ through maps.
4. Social norms of acceptable online and offline behaviour.

Conclusions
This article has aimed to conceptualise a phygital time geography, adapted to
the technologically mediated tourist. It shows how tourists’ time-space
constraints have changed due to smartphone use. While enabling abilities of
smartphones have been on the agenda in much of previous tourism research,
we show that smartphones may simultaneously limit tourist behaviour. The
strength of the phygital concept lies in the amalgamation of the digital and the
physical, and in the ability to see human behaviour not as either digital or
physical, but as both at the same time. Smartphones dissolve the basic
materiality of tourism and alter time-spatial constraints that were described by
Hägerstrand more than 50 years ago. Results show that phygital tourist
behaviour alters time-spatial constraints in nine different ways. Capability
constraints arise from technical potentials of the device (hardware and
software), and from users’ perceived inabilities to orientate independently
therefrom. Coupling constraints arise from both bundling outside and
unbundling inside vacation prisms. Authority constraints arise from social
norms on what to see and how to behave, and from external restrictions that
are imposed on the tourist (network infrastructure, legal or contractual
restrictions, economical, political and cultural influences reproduced in
navigational aids).

15
This article shows that time geography is still a fertile perspective to
understand time-spatial behaviour. Tourists’ ability to be in different places
has changed, though. With smartphones, tourists can not only travel between
places, but they can digitally jump between them in a fraction of a second.
Rationalities from everyday life spill over into the tourist experience, eroding
the sense of magic, escape and liminality of holidays as such. More
importantly, the ability to digitally jump between places changes the
ontological understanding of time-space, and the constraints that exist on them.
We want to highlight the uncoupling function of smartphones, as this is not
only an alteration of the original coupling constraint, but a reversal thereof. In
addition to human connections that are formed across space via digital
connections, tourists use smartphones to unbundle from their travel
companions by means of phygital behaviour. Such an unbundling takes place
within the vacation prism.
While it is true that tourists can work during travel, they can only travel-and-
work where internet connections are available, and where phone batteries can
be recharged. Further, navigation and orientation are enhanced by the
computational capabilities of the smartphone, offering digital maps and
location-based services. However, they are also weakened by tourists’ reduced
ability to navigate independently from these aids, and by tourists’ decreased
willingness to explore routes that are not identified by digital maps. In the end,
phygital tourist behaviour not only influences tourists’ sense of place, but also
their sense of space: it influences how tourists move, what determines these
movements, and where tourists believe they are in relation to other places. This
article shows how such a new spatial approach takes place during travel, and
how spatial behaviour changes when tourists with smartphones integrate
digital and physical worlds.

References
Adey, P. (2017). Mobility. Routledge.
Anaya, G.J., & Lehto, X. (2020). Traveler-facing technology in the tourism
experience: a historical perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
37(3), 317-331.
Ash, J., Kitchin, R., & Leszczynski, A. (2018). Digital turn, digital geographies?.
Progress in Human Geography, 42(1), 25-43.
Ayeh, J. K. (2018). Distracted gaze: Problematic use of mobile technologies in
vacation contexts. Tourism management perspectives, 26, 31-38.

16
Ballina, F. J., Valdes, L., & Del Valle, E. (2019). The Phygital experience in the
smart tourism destination. International Journal of Tourism Cities. 5(4), 656-
671
Baum, I., & Ribak, R. (2021). Neoliberal cartography: a visual-semiotic analysis of
three navigation apps. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research.
Belghiti, S., Ochs, A., Lemoine, J.F. and Badot, O. (2017). The Phygital shopping
experience: an attempt at conceptualization and empirical investigation. In
Rossi P. & Krey, N. (Eds.) Academy of Marketing Science World Marketing
Congress, Springer International Publishing, 61-74.
Benckendorff, P., Sheldon, P. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2019). Tourism information
technology (2nd ed.). CABI.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory.
Sage.
Caldeira, A. M., & Kastenholz, E. (2020). Spatiotemporal tourist behaviour in urban
destinations: a framework of analysis. Tourism Geographies, 22(1), 22-50.
Conti, E., & Heldt Cassel, S. (2020). Liminality in nature-based tourism experiences
as mediated through social media. Tourism Geographies, 22(2), 413-432.
Crang, M. (2009). Cyberspace. In Gregory, D. (Ed). The dictionary of human
geography (5th ed.). Blackwell.
De Souza e Silva, A. (2006). From cyber to hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces
of hybrid spaces. Space and culture, 9(3), 261-278.
Dickinson, J. E., Ghali, K., Cherrett, T., Speed, C., Davies, N., & Norgate, S. (2014).
Tourism and the smartphone app: Capabilities, emerging practice and scope in
the travel domain. Current issues in tourism, 17(1), 84-101.
Duignan, M., Everett, S., Walsh, L., & Cade, N. (2018). Leveraging physical and
digital liminoidal spaces: The case of the# EATCambridge festival. Tourism
Geographies, 20(5), 858-879.
Frith, J. (2012). Splintered space: Hybrid spaces and differential mobility. Mobilities,
7(1), 131-149.
Gaggioli, A. (2017). Phygital spaces: When atoms meet bits. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(12), 774-774
Gössling, S. (2017). Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an
exploratory review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(7), 1024-1041.
Gretzel, U., Zarezadeh, Z., Li, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2019). The evolution of travel
information search research: a perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 319-
323
Grinberger, A. Y., Shoval, N., & McKercher, B. (2014). Typologies of tourists’
time–space consumption: a new approach using GPS data and GIS tools.
Tourism Geographies 16(1), 105-123.

17
Gu, Q., Zhang, H., Huang, S. S., Zheng, F., & Chen, C. (2021). Tourists’
spatiotemporal behaviors in an emerging wine region: A time-geography
perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 19, 100513.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Ninth European
Congress of the Regional Science Association 24, 6–21.
Hägerstrand, T. (1973). The domain of human geography. In Chorley I.R. (Ed.)
Directions in Geography. London: Methuen.
Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2009). Tourism, performance and the everyday:
Consuming the orient. Routledge.
Hall, C.M. (2005). Time, Space, Tourism and Social Physics. Tourism Recreation
Research 30(1), 93-98.
Kang, S. (2016). Associations between space–time constraints and spatial patterns of
travels. Annals of Tourism Research 61(1), 127-141.
Kang, S., Kim, W. G., & Park, D. (2021). Understanding tourist information search
behaviour: the power and insight of social network analysis. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(3), 403-423.
Kim, H., Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Use of the internet for trip planning:
A generational analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(3), 276–
289.
Kitchin, R. M. (1998). Towards geographies of cyberspace. Progress in human
geography, 22(3), 385-406.
Koshar, R. (1998). ‘What ought to be seen’: Tourists’ guidebooks and national
identities in modern Germany and Europe. Journal of Contemporary History,
33(3), 323–340.
Lalicic, L., & Weismayer, C. (2016). The passionate use of mobiles phones among
tourists. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(2), 153-173.
Lamsfus, C., Wang, D., Alzua-Sorzabal, A., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Going mobile:
Defining context for on-the-go travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 54(6),
691-701.
Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the
move. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 21-34.
Larsen, J. (2019). Ordinary Tourism and Extraordinary Everyday Life: Re-thinking
Tourism and Cities. In Frisch, T.; Stors, N.; Stoltenberg, L & Sommer, C.
(Eds.) Tourism and Everyday Life in the City. Routledge, 24-41
Lemos, A. (2010). Post—mass media functions, locative media, and informational
territories: New ways of thinking about territory, place, and mobility in
contemporary society. Space and Culture, 13(4), 403-420.
Lo Turco, M., & Giovannini, E. C. (2020). Towards a phygital heritage approach for
museum collection. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 34, 102639.

18
McCabe, S. (2002). The tourist experience and everyday life. In Dann G. (Ed.) The
tourist as a metaphor of the social world. Cabi, 61-75.
Neuburger, L., Beck, J., & Egger, R. (2018). The ‘Phygital’tourist experience: The
use of augmented and virtual reality in destination marketing. In Camilleri, M.
A. (Ed.) Tourism planning and destination marketing. Emerald Publishing
Limited, 183-202
Nofal, E., Reffat, M., & Vande Moere, A. (2017). Phygital heritage: an approach for
heritage communication. Immersive Learning Research Network Conference.
Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, 220-229.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research:
debates and practical guidelines. International journal of qualitative methods,
19, 1-13.
Pearce, P. L. (2011). Tourist behaviour and the contemporary world. Channel view
publications.
Qviström, M., Fridell, L., & Kärrholm, M. (2020). Differentiating the time-
geography of recreational running. Mobilities 15(4), 575-587.
Schwanen, T., & Kwan, M. P. (2008). The Internet, mobile phone and space-time
constraints. Geoforum, 39(3), 1362-1377.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. (2006). The New Mobilities Paradigm. Environment and
Planning A, 38(2), 207-26.
Shoval, N. (2012). Time geography in tourism. In Wilson J. (Ed.) The Routledge
Handbook of Tourism Geographies. Routledge, 174-180.
Tan, W. K., & Chen, Y. C. (2021). Tourists’ work-related smartphone use at the
tourist destination: making an otherwise impossible trip possible. Current
Issues in Tourism, 24(11), 1526-1541.
Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2019). Bringing the background to the fore: time-
geography and the study of mobile ICTs in everyday life. In Ellegård K. (Ed.)
Time Geography in the Global Context Routledge, 96-112.
Thulin, E., Vilhelmson, B., & Schwanen, T. (2020). Absent friends? Smartphones,
mediated presence, and the recoupling of online social contact in everyday
life. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(1), 166-183.
Tribe, J., & Mkono, M. (2017). Not such smart tourism? The concept of e-
lienation. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 105-115.
Urry, J. 2002 Mobility and Proximity. Sociology 36, 255–274.
Vaez, S., Burke, M., & Yu, R. (2020). Visitors' wayfinding strategies and
navigational aids in unfamiliar urban environment. Tourism Geographies, 22(4-
5), 832-847.
Wang, D., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. (2016). Mobile Technology, Everyday
Experience and Travel. Travel & Tourism Research Association, 2–11.

19
Wellner, G. (2016). A postphenomenological inquiry of cell phones: Genealogies,
meanings, and becoming. Lexington Books.
White, N. R., & White, P. B. (2007). Home and away: Tourists in a connected world.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 88-104.
Xiang, Z. (2018). From digitization to the age of acceleration: On information
technology and tourism. Tourism management perspectives, 25, 147-150.
Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2020). Travel information search. Handbook of e-
Tourism, 1-20.
Xiao-Ting, H., & Bi-Hu, W. (2012) Intra-attraction Tourist Spatial-Temporal
Behaviour Patterns. Tourism Geographies, 14(4), 625-645.
Zhang, M., & Zhang, X. (2022). Between escape and return: Rethinking daily life
and travel in selective unplugging. Tourism Management, 91, 104521.
Zurlo, F., Arquilla, V., Carella, G., & Tamburello, M. C. (2018). Designing
acculturated phygital experiences. In Linghao, Z., Yanyan, L., Dongjuan, X.,
Miaosen, G., Di, S. (Eds.) Cumulus Conference Proceedings Wuxi 2018
Diffused Transition & Design Opportunities. Wuxi Huguang Elengant Print
Co. Ltd, 153-164.

20
 NORDIC SWAN ECOLABEL 3041 0903
Smartphoned Tourists in the
Phygital Tourist Experience

Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund 2022

This thesis explores how the tourist experience is re-articulated through
the mediation of smartphones. Through the postphenomenological
approach, a technologically mediated tourist is conceptualised and pla-
ced in a technologically mediated tourist experience at the intersection
between physical and digital worlds. The new tourist that emerges from
smartphone mediation is the smartphoned tourist, that is a tourist who-
se experience is shaped by the availability and use of this technology.

The thesis focuses on two aspects: first, how smartphones mediate

tourist information behaviour. The concept of planned serendipity is
proposed to indicate how smartphone-mediated information behavio-
ur is complex and cannot be reduced to a dichotomy of serendipity
and planning. Second, the thesis explores how smartphones mediate
tourists’ experiences of phygital worlds. The term phygital is adopted to
indicate how the technologically mediated tourist experience is neither
physical nor digital, but both. These questions are answered through
four papers, which address empirically, conceptually, and methodolo-
gically the issues of planned serendipity, the phygital experience and
tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour.

Micol Mieli is an interdisciplinary researcher

with a background in law, service studies
and tourism. After taking an undergraduate
degree in law in Italy, she moved to Sweden to
continue her studies with an MSc and then a
PhD in service management at Lund University.
Her research interests focus on exploring the
role of technology in human behaviour and
experience.
9 789180 393508

Lund University
Faculty of Social Sciences
The Department of Service Management
and Service Studies

ISBN 978-91-8039-350-8