The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

Exploring the influence of Virtual tours in

heritage travel
technical and sensory factors on
Malaysians’ intention to adopt
virtual tours in heritage travel
Ing Grace Phang and Yuting Zylvia Kong Received 23 April 2023
Revised 26 June 2023
Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia 1 August 2023
5 September 2023
Accepted 7 September 2023
Abstract
Purpose – Adopting the unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) and the theory of
substitutability, this study examines both the technical and sensory factors influencing Malaysians’ intention
to adopt virtual tours (IA) and subsequent intention to visit an actual heritage site (IV) in the heritage traveling
decision-making process.
Design/methodology/approach – This study collected a total of 278 valid survey responses via purposive
sampling. The data were analyzed using SPSS26 and SmartPLS4 software.
Findings – The findings support the significant positive effect of IA on IV, which supplements evidence to
subdue misapprehensions that virtual tours (VTs) are competitors or substitutes for in-person visitations.
Perceived substitutability was found to have an indirect impact on IV through IA, further proving the
mediating role of IA in influencing IV. Technical and sensory factors, namely performance expectancy, hedonic
motivation, habit and perceived substitutability of IA, were shown to be critical in influencing IA; however,
effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions were not.
Practical implications – This study offers sustainable and practical implications to the tourism industry as
well as potential visitors, who can utilize VTs to determine whether targeted tourism destinations are worthy of
investing their resources. The findings suggest that the virtual tour experience contributes to tourists’ IV by
successfully piquing tourists’ interest to physically visit heritage sites in the future. The virtual tour could be
utilized to generate demand in times of temporary replacement or closure. Destination marketing organizations
and destination management companies should consider the technical and sensory aspects of VTs, specifically
prioritizing the hedonic motivation factor.
Originality/value – This study integrates the UTAUT2 and theory of substitutability to shed light on the
adoption of technological alternatives in the heritage tourism context. Importantly, this study serves as the
pioneer effort in examining the interplay of perceived substitutability in the relationship between IA and IV.
Keywords Heritage tourism, Intention to adopt virtual tours, Intention to visit the actual heritage site,
UTAUT2, Theory of substitutability
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Heritage tourism serves as a medium to introduce a country to tourists and to deepen tourists’
understanding or knowledge about a country (Noor et al., 2019). By visiting heritage sites,
tourists get a glimpse of a country’s history and the uniqueness of its communities’ cultural
lifestyles. Accordingly, the Malaysian National Tourism Plan 2020 – 2030 (NTP) has
highlighted cultural and heritage tourism as one of its key focuses (Ministry of Tourism, Arts
and Cultural Malaysia, 2020), particularly stressing the importance of digitalization and
smart tourism. Indeed, the adoption of virtual reality (VR) technologies such as virtual tours
(VTs) offers feasible opportunities to advance innovative and digitalized tourism experiences

This research did not receive any funding. However, the paper was presented at a conference (ICRTH)
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
last year and the authors receive comments for improvement. The extended summary was published in Insights
their proceeding as well. The authors, therefore, would like to acknowledge the conference and the © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
attendees. DOI 10.1108/JHTI-04-2023-0281
JHTI (El-Said and Aziz, 2022). However, the adoption of VTs in heritage tourism in Malaysia is
relatively new and has never been treated seriously, as tourism destinations mainly rely on in-
person visitations to tourist destinations (El-Said and Aziz, 2022).
The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital transformation of the tourism industry
(Agostino et al., 2020). The closure of tourist destinations during the pandemic period has led
to tourism offerings being adapted to embrace virtual platforms and mixed reality
experiences (Bran et al., 2020). For example, museums have explored digital marketing
strategies to stay resilient (Agostino et al., 2020; Papagiannakis et al., 2018; Simone et al., 2021)
and engage with wider and more diverse audiences (Sylaiou et al., 2010). Like museums,
heritage sites are essential in providing an authentic experience; in this regard, visitors’
experience with and knowledge of heritage sites can be enhanced through immersive VR
onlife environments (Lee et al., 2020a; Simone et al., 2021).
A VT is a visual portrayal of a real tourist site that is designed to create opportunities for
tourists to gain first-hand experience before their actual visitation or to enhance their
previous experiences (Atzeni et al., 2021). VTs are better than static images in facilitating user
learning and enable users to control navigation easily (Burigat and Chittaro, 2016) while
generating positive attitudes (Feng, 2018). Unfortunately, recent studies have mostly focused
on how digital marketing tools such as social media benefit museum operators (Agostino
et al., 2020, 2021; Vassiliadis and Belenioti, 2017). The few existing empirical studies on VTs,
meanwhile have only examined the factors influencing the adoption of VR or VTs rather than
addressing the basic concern of destination operators—physical visitation to the heritage
sites. The relationship between these variables is thus understudied and unclear.
Furthermore, minimal studies have covered the functional and sensory aspects of VTs in
affecting tourists’ intention to visit a place after experiencing a VT. In brief, the returns on
investments of time, money, and effort from developing VTs are not fully comprehended, as
there is no firm grasp of the desired or expected user experience.

Literature review
UTAUT2 and perceived substitutability
In understanding the underlying behavioral intention structure, a review of the VT-related
literature indicates that the Technology Adoption Model (TAM) has been frequently used to
investigate the impact of VT adoption intention on visit intention to the actual tourism site, which
addresses the factors of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. These factors cover only
technical components and might not be comprehensive enough to further explain tourists’
intention to visit a heritage site (hereafter IV). Furthermore, the issue of whether the perceived
substitutability of VR directly or indirectly impacts IV has not been previously discussed, even
though it is an important determinant of VR usage in tourism (El-Said and Aziz, 2022; Schiopu
et al., 2021). Considering the role of perceived substitutability, the joint adoption of the more
intensive Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) and the Theory of
Substitutability in one study allows a deeper examination of the critical variables that explain
users’ intention to adopt VTs (hereafter IA) and IV. Specifically, the inclusion of perceived
substitutability and perceived authenticity, along with technical and sensory factors like
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic
motivations and habit, facilitate a robust understanding of users’ IA and IV.
Unlike the original UTAUT which is more organizational based, the extended UTAUT2
focuses on the determinants of consumers’ behavior and intention to use new technologies
(Medeiros et al., 2022) or innovations in diverse cultural and social contexts (Faqih and
Jaradat, 2021). In addition to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and
facilitating conditions, the UTAUT2 incorporates sensory factors, namely hedonic
motivations, habit and price value. The incorporation of these new parameters has made
the theory a powerful tool in justifying variations in the intentional behavior to adopt newly Virtual tours in
introduced innovations (Faqih and Jaradat, 2021). However, the relationship between IA and heritage travel
IV is more complex. The examination of the technical and sensory factors influencing IA is
therefore critical in grasping its subsequent implications on IV.
Hendee and Burdge (1974) stated that recreation substitutability occurs when acceptably
equivalent outcomes are achieved through the interchangeability of recreation experiences
by altering the “timing of the experience, the means of gaining access, the setting and the
activity.” However, digital imitation is a concern for many tourism destination operators, as it
might dilute the sitting experience and potentially reduce tourists’ IV. Indeed, VR technology
like VT is argued to be a substitute for actual travel by removing physical barriers and
reducing distance (Atzeni et al., 2021), especially during situations like the pandemic (Schiopu
et al., 2021), heritage site conservation, accessibility problems, financial constraints, or
overcrowding (El-Said and Aziz, 2022). Previous studies have found that perceived
substitutability has a significant influence on individuals’ IA (Li et al., 2019). However, these
studies did not incorporate the UTAUT2 framework, which provides a more comprehensive
understanding of the factors that influence individuals’ intention to adopt technology.

Performance expectancy and the intention to adopt VTs (IA)

Performance expectancy is crucial as users are more prone to adopt a technology when they
experience useful and favorable outcomes from it (Gupta et al., 2018; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Past
studies have proven the significant relationship between performance expectancy and users’
behavioral intentions to adopt a technology (Gharaibeh et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2018; Merhi et al.,
2019). For instance, Gupta et al. (2018) observed a positive association between performance
expectancy and tourists’ behavioral intention to adopt smartphone usage for making travel
purchases. In the context of augmented reality (AR), Faqih and Jaradat (2021) and Paulo et al.
(2018) found performance expectancy to significantly influence the behavioral intention to adopt
AR systems in both the education and tourism industries. In tourism, the main difference
between an onsite visit and online initiatives may be the latter’s time flexibility and cost savings,
which could drive higher adoption intention (Agostino et al., 2020). Consistent with previous
studies on AR, people should have higher IA when VTs’ perceived substitutability is viewed to
be useful and productive in travel planning. The following hypothesis was hence proposed:
H1. Performance expectancy has a positive influence on IA.

Effort expectancy and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

Effort expectancy is understood as “the degree of ease associated with consumers’ use of
technology” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 450), which contributes to predicting individuals’
behavioral intention to accept technologies or innovations (Faqih and Jaradat, 2021). In the
education context, Faqih and Jaradat (2021) posited that a learner shows positive behavioral
intention in adopting AR technologies for educational purposes when its usage is perceived to
be effortless. Users are more inclined to use a technology that is easy to understand and
navigate while providing maximum benefits (Gharaibeh et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2018). As
such, individuals should have higher IA when they find that a VT application is easy to use,
clear and understandable (El-Said and Aziz, 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2012; Vishwakarma et al.,
2020). Therefore, the following hypothesis was presented:
H2. Effort expectancy has a positive influence on IA.

Social influence and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

As explained by Venkatesh et al. (2003), social influence is “the extent to which consumers
perceive that important individual (e.g. family and friends) believe they should use a particular
JHTI technology” (p. 451). A person is more inclined to participate in a behavior when that behavior
is embraced by his/her peer group or social surroundings (Gupta et al., 2018). This
corroborates Gharaibeh et al.’s (2021) proposition that social influence contributes to form the
intention to adopt mobile AR technology. Indeed, Faqih and Jaradat (2021) found social
influence to influence users’ intentional behavior or perceptions about AR technology. The
participatory processes through the adoption of smart objects or Internet of things (IoT) could
assist in viewers’ interactions with the cultural environment and acquisition of knowledge
(Simone et al., 2021). Hence, in the case of VT adoption in heritage tourism, individuals are
introduced to VTs and influenced to use them by people whom they think are important and
whose opinions they value in forming their IA. The following hypothesis was suggested, in
line with the context of this study:
H3. Social influence has a positive influence on IA.

Facilitating conditions and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

In general, expertise and resources are required when using a new technology or innovation;
hence, facilitating conditions reflect the importance of technical and organizational
infrastructure in supporting a new technology adoption (Gharaibeh et al., 2021; Venkatesh
et al., 2003). When a user receives considerable resources and service support, his or her
intention to adopt a new technology will increase. Consistently, substantial evidence from
past studies confirmed this relationship (Gharaibeh et al., 2018, 2021). Faqih and Jaradat
(2021) also highlighted facilitating conditions as an impactful factor in determining the
adoption of new technologies and innovations, where technical and organizational support is
critical. In the case of VT, which can be viewed as a relatively new technology application,
facilitating conditions may play a significant role in influencing IA. Therefore, the following
hypothesis was proposed:
H4. Facilitating conditions have a positive influence on IA.

Hedonic motivation and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

Hedonic motivation can be understood as “the fun or pleasure derived from using a
technology” (Venkatesh et al., 2012, p. 161). Gharaibeh et al. (2021) found that hedonic
motivation has a positive association with the intention to use a technology, whereby hedonic
systems involve aspects of novelty and uniqueness in using a technology. They also observed
that hedonic motivation plays a critical role in increasing the likelihood of users’ intention to
adopt new technology systems, particularly when the technology is characterized as smart,
enjoyable and innovative. This finding corroborates Vayghan et al.’s (2022) study on mobile
application adoption. Faqih and Jaradat (2021) further mentioned that VR and AR
technologies can add elements of excitement, engagement and motivation to a user’s
experience, which eventually drives the user to adopt the innovation. Consequently, in the
case of VT, it was proposed in this study that:
H5. Hedonic motivation has a positive influence on IA.

Habit and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

As defined by Merhi et al. (2019), a habit is “the degree of observed automatic behavior followed
by accumulated learning after the use of a technology” (p. 4). Habits are developed after the
continued behaviors over an extended period (Lewis et al., 2013). The role of users’ habits in
the adoption of interactive technologies such as mobile technology and social media is proven
(Merhi et al., 2019; Morosan and DeFranco, 2019). Gupta et al. (2018) revealed that tourists’
behavioral intention to adopt smartphone travel is positively influenced by habit. Aligning
with previous studies, in the context of heritage tourism, it is predicted that people would Virtual tours in
have a higher IA after their continued usage of perceived substitutability in their travel heritage travel
planning. Thus, the following hypothesis was presented:
H6. Habit has a positive influence on IA.

Perceived substitutability and intention to adopt VTs (IA)

Perceived substitutability, as described by Schiopu et al. (2021), reflects a user’s belief that the
VR related activities could substitute his or her physical visitation to a tourist site. The
creation of new technologies has ultimately changed users’ experiences, and in some
instances, these technologies have become a substitute for a real product or experience.
Examples of such innovations include e-books, online third-party marketplaces and e-wallets.
Cha and Chan-Olmsted (2012) concluded that users who do not adopt online video platforms
believe that those platforms tend to substitute television. On the contrary, users of online
video platforms showed negative perceived substitutability towards online video platforms
for television, which means that online video platform users are less inclined to view online
video platforms as a replacement for television. Lin (2004) further showed that the interest to
adopt webcasting (i.e. the process of video broadcasting over the Internet in real-time,
allowing active conversations to occur between the webcaster and their viewers) is partially
predicted by Internet users’ perceived substitutability of offline media content with online
media content. In the case of VR, Schiopu et al. (2021), for instance, found that the users’
behavioral intention to use VR could be influenced by perceived substitutability, as they view
the VR experience as a close substitute or an equal of the actual experience (Lamberton and
Rose, 2012; Schiopu et al., 2021). Therefore, in the case of heritage site VTs, the following
hypothesis was proposed:
H7. The perceived substitutability of VTs has a positive influence on IA.

Perceived authenticity and perceived substitutability

Authenticity summarizes what consumers perceive as authentic, genuine, real and true
(Schiopu et al., 2021). In the case of VR, a user’s perceived authenticity of VR experiences
could affect his or her acceptance of VR as a proxy for physical visitation (Guttentag, 2010).
Along these lines, Mura et al. (2016) found out that users’ sensory participation actively
affects their perceptions on VR experience. As a result, when users have authentic
experiences through VR platforms, the perceived substitutability of VR tourism activities for
physical visitation could be higher. This finding has been corroborated by Schiopu et al.’s
(2021) study, which reported that people view VT as a substitute to an actual visit to a
heritage site when the former provides authentic, genuine, unique and exceptional
experiences (Kim et al., 2020b). Hence, the following hypothesis was postulated:
H8. The perceived authenticity of the VT experience has a positive influence on the
perceived substitutability of VTs.

Intention to adopt VTs (IA) and intention to visit an actual heritage site (IV)
According to Schweibenz (2019), virtual museum tours are effective in initiating interest and
drawing visitors’ intention to visit the destinations physically. People are highly motivated to
visit real sites after pleasant encounters with virtual 3D world tourism sites (Huang et al.,
2016). Skard et al. (2021) observed that VR creates a stronger impact on mental imagery due to
its ability to create vivid simulations of a destination and promote feelings of ‘reality’ as if one
is visiting the destination physically. The feel-good emotions obtained from VR heighten
hedonic expectations of future happiness, which in turn, increases one’s potential willingness
JHTI to visit the destination in real life. In other words, VR exposure strengthens mental imagery
and happiness, such that a person will have greater travel intentions after gaining positive
VR experiences. To illustrate, Lee et al.’s (2020b) study found that tourists’ attitude and
telepresence are positively affected by the content quality, system quality and vividness of
VTs, which result in positive IV. Accordingly, in this study, the following hypothesis was
proposed:
H9. IA has a positive influence on IV.

The mediating effect of the intention to adopt VTs (IA)

The mediating influence of the intention to adopt a new technology is proven in several
studies across different fields (Budu et al., 2018; Nassar et al., 2019). However, few studies
have explored the mediation of IA in the relationships between the UTAUT2’s antecedents,
perceived substitutability and IV. The significant effects of effort expectancy, performance
expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit and perceived
substitutability on adoption intention have been widely established (Li et al., 2019). Despite
the importance of these factors in predicting an individual’s IA, it is unclear how they are
related to IV. The mediation proposition of IA is therefore based on several arguments. The
immersive experience provided by VTs may enhance an individual’s perception of the
physical heritage site. Accordingly, research has shown that VTs can increase an individual’s
motivation to visit physical heritage sites. On the contrary, VTs may serve as a substitute for
physical heritage site visits, thereby reducing an individual’s motivation to visit such sites.
Finally, an individual’s IA may influence their social networks, leading to changes in the
social influence and facilitating conditions that influence their IV. Hence, the following
hypotheses were proposed:
H10a. IA mediates the effect of performance expectancy on IV.
H10b. IA mediates the effect of effort expectancy on IV.
H10c. IA mediates the effect of social influence on IV.
H10d. IA mediates the effect of facilitating conditions on IV.
H10e. IA mediates the effect of hedonic motivation on IV.
H10f. IA mediates the effect of habit on IV.
H10g. IA mediates the effect of perceived substitutability on IV.

Methodology
This study adopted the purposive sampling technique, which is suitable for social science or
human behavior research because it specifies the types of people who can provide the desired
information based on criteria pre-set by the researcher (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009).
Specifically, the respondents in this study were those who met the following criteria: (1)
Malaysian; (2) aged between 18 and 45 years old; and (3) had traveled before or were
interested in traveling soon. These criteria were consistent the profile of the largest market
segment for Malaysian smartphone and Internet users (Malaysian Communications and
Multimedia Commission (MCMC), 2021).
Performance expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation and habit were measured
with three items each, while effort expectancy and facilitating conditions were measured with
four items each. These constructs’ measurement items were adapted from the works of El-
Said and Aziz (2022), Venkatesh et al. (2012) and Vishwakarma et al. (2020). In addition, four
items were adapted from Kim et al. (2020b) to measure perceived authenticity, whereas Virtual tours in
perceived substitutability was measured with four items adapted from Schiopu et al. (2021). heritage travel
Four items were drawn from the scales of Huang et al. (2013) to measure IA. IV was measured
using four items modified from the works of Kim et al. (2020a).
The original questionnaire survey was developed in English and then translated into
the Mandarin and Malay languages to reach a wider respondent base in Malaysia. The
translation process utilized the collaborative and iterative translation approach to ensure
accuracy (Douglas and Craig, 2007). Translation accuracy is crucial in addressing
conceptual equivalence, so that the respondents’ comprehension of the translated survey
questions is as close as possible to the meaning of the original questions. Before the
distribution of the finalized questionnaires, 10 cognitive interviews were conducted to
affirm the content validity of the questionnaire.
The minimum required sample size was calculated using G*Power. The a priori test (two-
tailed, effect size of 15%, alpha of 0.05 and 90% confidence level) yielded a minimum sample
size of 262 (Faul et al., 2009). Data was collected by disseminating the questionnaire online
from 10 June 2022 to 8 July 2022. A total of 278 valid responses were acquired and analyzed
using SPSS 26 and SmartPLS 4.0 software.

Findings
The data was first checked for common method variance (CMV) using a full collinearity
test (Kock and Lynn, 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Harman’s single factor test result
indicated the total variance for the first component was 39.45%, which was less than 50%.
In addition, the full collinearity test showed both lateral and vertical variance inflation
factors (VIFs) were less than the threshold value of 3.3. Both tests showed that CMV was of
no concern.
Next, convergent validity and internal consistency were determined by examining the items’
outer loadings, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The results
indicated satisfactory convergent validity and internal consistency as all three indicators were
above the prescribed acceptance levels. Only PS3 was deleted due to a low factor loading (refer to
Table 1 and Figure 1 for measurement model). The heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations
(HTMT) criterion was adopted to determine the discriminant validity. Discriminant validity was
established for all the constructs as the values were lower than the threshold of HTMT0.85 (Kline,
2016; refer to Table 2). Finally, a check on the inner VIF values indicated that collinearity was of no
concern as all inner VIF values were below the prescribed acceptance level of 5.0 (Hair et al., 2017;
refer to Table 3).
Research framework is shown in Figure 2. Upon verifying the measurement model, the
bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 subsamples was performed to assess the structural
model (Hair et al., 2014; refer to Figure 3). As shown in Table 3, significant direct influences
were found for performance expectancy (β 5 0.134; t 5 2.087), hedonic motivation
(β 5 0.252; t 5 4.120), habit (β 5 0.208; t 5 3.107) and perceived substitutability (β 5 0.110;
t 5 2.736) on IA, supporting H1, H5, H6 and H7. In addition, perceived authenticity
(β 5 0.652; t 5 16.708) exhibited a significant direct impact on perceived substitutability,
confirming H8. However, the results did not support the significant effects of effort
expectancy (β 5 0.053; t 5 0.761), social influence (β 5 0.096; t 5 1.515) and facilitating
conditions (β 5 0.026; t 5 0.381) on IA, thereby rejecting H2, H3 and H4. Nonetheless, IA
(β 5 0.460; t 5 6.283) demonstrated a significant relationship with IV, validating H9. For
the mediating hypotheses, IA only significantly mediated the influences of performance
expectancy, hedonic motivation, habit and perceived substitutability on IV, hence
supporting H10a, H10e, H10f and H10g.
JHTI Factor Composite Average variance
Construct Indicator loadings reliability extracted

Performance expectancy PE1 0.831 0.886 0.722

PE2 0.871
PE3 0.848
Effort expectancy EE1 0.877 0.929 0.765
EE2 0.850
EE3 0.869
EE4 0.901
Social influence SI1 0.923 0.948 0.860
SI2 0.935
SI3 0.923
Facilitating conditions FC1 0.849 0.894 0.679
FC2 0.882
FC3 0.741
FC4 0.817
Hedonic motivations HM1 0.928 0.950 0.864
HM2 0.939
HM3 0.922
Habit HT1 0.909 0.950 0.864
HT2 0.944
HT3 0.936
Perceived authenticity PA1 0.890 0.940 0.797
PA2 0.905
PA3 0.909
PA4 0.866
Perceived substitutability PS1 0.881 0.904 0.758
PS2 0.868
PS3 (deleted)
PS4 0.863
Intention to adopt VTs IA1 0.824 0.926 0.759
IA2 0.894
IA3 0.881
IA4 0.884
Intention to visit the actual IV1 0.880 0.931 0.771
heritage site IV2 0.886
IV3 0.898
Table 1. IV4 0.849
Convergent validity Source(s): Author’s own work

Discussion and implications

This study aimed to explore the factors influencing Malaysian users’ IA, as well as IA’s
impact on IV in the context of heritage tourism. The results indicate that Malaysian domestic
travelers universally express positive reactions to the measured factors. Notably,
performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, habit, perceived authenticity and perceived
substitutability are important factors influencing Malaysian consumers’ IA in heritage
tourism, while effort expectancy, facilitating conditions and social influence are not. The
results contradict the findings of past studies which reported these factors to be equally
important as performance expectancy, hedonic motivation and habit in predicting a person’s
intention to adopt a new technology (Faqih and Jaradat, 2021; Gharaibeh et al., 2021; Gupta
et al., 2018). Based on the extracted path coefficients, hedonic motivation is the most
significant factor for IA, corroborating the findings of El-Said and Aziz (2022), Faqih and
Jaradat (2021), Gharaibeh et al. (2021), Medeiros et al. (2022) and Merhi et al. (2019). Evidently,
 Virtual tours in
heritage travel

Figure 1.
Measurement model

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Performance expectancy
2. Effort expectancy 0.525
3. Social influence 0.597 0.484
4. Facilitating conditions 0.536 0.674 0.617
5. Hedonic motivations 0.582 0.457 0.554 0.535
6. Habit 0.566 0.427 0.750 0.619 0.603
7. Perceived authenticity 0.580 0.406 0.595 0.563 0.735 0.674
8. Perceived substitutability 0.489 0.424 0.568 0.520 0.630 0.657 0.742
9. Intention to adopt VTs 0.608 0.452 0.618 0.514 0.688 0.683 0.717 0.696
10. Intention to visit the 0.496 0.333 0.365 0.456 0.431 0.410 0.348 0.336 0.509
actual heritage site Table 2.
Source(s): Author’s own work HTMT criterion
JHTI Std.
Hypothesis Std. Beta Error t-values p-values LLCI ULCI VIF R2 F2 Q2

H1: PE → IA 0.134 0.063 2.087 0.037 0.011 0.263 1.630 0.025

H2: EE → IA 0.053 0.070 0.761 0.447 0.066 0.208 1.662 0.004
H3: SI → IA 0.096 0.063 1.515 0.130 0.030 0.220 2.259 0.009
H4: FC → IA 0.026 0.069 0.381 0.703 0.159 0.114 1.985 0.001
H5: HM → IA 0.252 0.061 4.120 0.000 0.131 0.368 1.846 0.079
H6: HT → IA 0.208 0.067 3.107 0.002 0.073 0.335 2.451 0.041
H7: PS → IA 0.238 0.078 3.046 0.002 0.082 0.385 1.738 0.425 0.075 0.317
H8: PA → PS 0.652 0.039 16.708 0.000 0.569 0.722 1.000 0.738
H9: IA → IV 0.460 0.073 6.283 0.000 0.303 0.591 1.586 0.566 0.160 0.415
H10a: PE → IA → IV 0.061 0.033 1.872 0.061 0.005 0.134
H10b: EE → IA → IV 0.024 0.033 0.737 0.461 0.029 0.101
H10c: SI → IA → IV 0.044 0.030 1.481 0.139 0.014 0.104
H10d: FC → IA → IV 0.012 0.032 0.377 0.707 0.075 0.054
H10e: HM → IA → IV 0.116 0.036 3.216 0.001 0.056 0.197
H10f: HT → IA → IV 0.096 0.033 2.916 0.004 0.036 0.165
H10g: PS → IA → IV 0.110 0.040 2.736 0.006 0.037 0.193
Note(s): PE – Performance Expectancy; EE – Effort Expectancy; SI – Social Influence; FC – Facilitating
Conditions; HM – Hedonic Motivations; HT – Habit; PS – Perceived substitutability; PA – Perceived
Table 3. Authenticity; IA – Intention to Adopt VTs; IV – Intention to Visit the Actual Heritage Site
Hypothesis testing Source(s): Author’s own work

people experience fun and joy when using VT apps; these positive hedonic experiences bring
significant positive impacts to IA.
The findings highlight the impactful role of performance expectancy in predicting
Malaysian consumers’ IA, corroborating numerous research from different service
industries, such as that of Venkatesh et al. (2012), Gupta et al. (2018), Kalinic et al. (2019),
Merhi et al. (2019), El-Said and Aziz (2022), Gharaibeh et al. (2021), Paulo et al. (2018) and Faqih
and Jaradat (2021). Consumers need to experience useful and favorable outcomes in adopting
a new technology. The technical benefits of VT assists consumers in achieving their goals or
increasing their productivity, such as travel planning, which is a way to initiate their IA.
Habit is also observed to be a powerful factor driving Malaysian consumers’ IA, which is
consistent with the findings of Gupta et al. (2018), Merhi et al. (2019) and Morosan and
DeFranco (2019). This result has proven that habit successfully predicts consumers’
behavioral intention to adopt a technology in the heritage tourism setting.
Interestingly, contrary to the hypothesis, effort expectancy does not appear to be a
predictor of Malaysian consumers’ IA, contradicting previous research by Gupta et al. (2018),
Gharaibeh et al. (2021), Faqih and Jaradat (2021) and Medeiros et al. (2022). This might be
attributed to respondents’ high familiarity with the application technology, especially with
the substantial increment in the number of Internet users at present (Merhi et al., 2019). Merhi
et al. (2019) also obtained similar results, arguing that familiarity limits the impact of effort
expectancy to consumers who are less familiar with a certain technology.
The hypothesis on social influence’s positive influence on consumers’ IA also failed to be
supported in this study, which refutes past studies by Faqih and Jaradat (2021), Gharaibeh
et al. (2021) and Gupta et al. (2018). However, this result is in accordance with a former study
by Kalinic et al. (2019), who explained this phenomenon based on modern users’ increasing
familiarity with VTs. Since VTs are normalized as entertainment or informative videos and
are increasingly becoming a part of everyday life, many people have mastered the skills of
using VTs, especially those who travel frequently or are interested in travel. Such increased
familiarity decreases the importance of environmental influences while enhancing self-
 Virtual tours in
Performance heritage travel
Effort Expctancy Expectancy (PE)
(EE)

Social Influence (SI) H1

H2
H10a, H10b, H10c, H10d,
H10e, H10f, H10g
H3

H9
Facilitating Conditions Intention to Adopt Virtual Intention to Visit the Actual
(FC) Toure (IA) Heritage Site (IV)
H4

H5

Hedonic Motivation
(HM) H7

H6

Habit (HT)
Perceived Perceived
Substitutability (PS) Authenticity (PA)
H8

Source(s): Author’s own work

Figure 2.
Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012); El-Said and Aziz (2022); Schiopu et al. Research framework
(2021)

judgment on the benefits and procedures of VT usage (Kalinic et al., 2019). Individuals thus no
longer require opinions from peer groups to influence their decisions to adopt technology.
Finally, this study failed to support the hypothesis that facilitating conditions are
positively correlated with IA, inconsistent with previous empirical evidence (Faqih and
Jaradat, 2021; Gharaibeh et al., 2018). However, this finding is compatible with that of
Medeiros et al. (2022) and Herrero and San Martin (2017). Similar to social influence, VT
videos are readily available to consumers and neither foster nor inhibit the requirement for
additional support or assistance from their surroundings.
On the other hand, the results suggest that perceived substitutability is an impactful
predictor of consumers’ IA in the Malaysian heritage tourism context. This finding is
consistent with previous studies by Cha and Chan-Olmsted (2012), Lin (2004) and Schiopu
et al. (2021). VT could never replace physical visitation to a heritage site even though it is
viewed as a potential substitute in times of crisis or when other unavoidable circumstances
occur. Real tourism experiences are unlikely to be hard to fully replicate in the virtual
environment. Hence, it is critical to emphasize on the substitutability of VT experience in the
mind of the consumers (Guttentag, 2010; Schiopu et al., 2021), which can be achieved through
increased authentic experiences in VTs. Indeed, Mura et al. (2016) provided evidence that
users are more inclined to perceive the substitutability of VTs for actual trips positively when
they experience authentic experiences in VTs. The current study’s finding that the perceived
JHTI

Figure 3.
Structural model

authenticity of VT experiences positively influences the perceived substitutability of VTs

further supports this notion.
Importantly, the findings verify the results obtained by Guttentag (2010) and Schiopu et al.
(2021) on the significant positive effect of IA on IV. It can be deduced that pleasant
experiences gained from browsing VTs motivate Malaysian consumers to visit actual
heritage tourism sites. According to Skard et al. (2021), VTs could create vivid simulations of
destinations and invoke feelings of visiting the destinations physically, which helps to shape
stronger mental imagery than traditional channels. El-Said and Aziz (2022) and Tussyadiah
et al. (2018) also confirmed that enjoyment of the VR experience generates positive impacts on
the intention to visit a destination. Their findings were supported by their respondents’
comments that VTs offer information in a much more entertaining way compared to other
methods of learning about a destination. The VT experience also gives participants a feeling
of the destination’s atmosphere, which stimulates their interest and motivates them to visit
the heritage site.
 In this study, the findings imply that perceived substitutability has a significant and Virtual tours in
positive indirect effect on IV through the mediating role of IA. This means that consumers heritage travel
must intend to adopt VTs for their perceived substitutability to increase their intention to
physically travel to heritage sites. Additionally, this study demonstrates that IA mediates the
influences of performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, habit and perceived
substitutability on IV. On the contrary, there is no significant mediating effect of IA on the
effects of effort expectancy, facilitating condition and social influence on IV, indicating that
IA is not necessary for these relationships to exist. Overall, this study is among the first to test
and prove IA as a mediator of IV in the heritage tourism context.
The results obtained in this research highlight several important theoretical implications.
Predominantly, the current study contributes original and significant findings to the existing
literature by incorporating antecedents from the Theory of Substitutability into the UTAUT2
framework. This research has demonstrated how the integration of the UTAUT2 and Theory of
Substitutability sheds light on the application of technological alternatives in the heritage tourism
context. Moreover, the current study offers meaningful implications on how IA influences IV,
answering the call of El-Said and Aziz (2022). Going further, this study has reaffirmed the direct
impact of performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, habit and perceived substitutability on
IA, as well as their indirect impact on IV via the mediating effect of IA.
Notably, by incorporating the two theories into one framework, the findings have identified
the most influential factors to enhance IA and IV during special occasions such as pandemic (El-
Said and Aziz, 2022) or substituting physical site visits with VTs as an alternative offering for
people with disabilities or less privilege people to explore and experience tourist destinations.
Since some circumstances are unavoidable, in the tourism context, VTs may be a good
substitute for physical visit experiences to tourist destinations that are attractive and unique
but are unfortunately difficult or harmful to reach in person (El-Said and Aziz, 2022).
This study also provides several marketing and managerial implications. In line with the
Tourism Malaysia Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026 (Tourism Malaysia, 2021) and the NTP – 2030, this
study found that VT is a feasible and effective online promotional tool to increase tourists’
interest in visiting heritage sites in Malaysia. VT is a valuable approach for tourists to gain
information about a destination or attraction and subsequently, determine the targeted site that
suits their interests (El-Said and Aziz, 2022). VTs can also be used as introductory videos that
include site overviews, the benefits of visiting, or any precautions that the tourists should be
aware of before undertaking the tour (El-Said and Aziz, 2022).
The findings are vital for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and destination
management companies (DMCs) to consider VTs as a core medium for customer engagement (El-
Said and Aziz, 2022) and image building. As seen from the results obtained in this study, DMOs
and DMCs should prioritize the hedonic motivation factor when developing and designing VTs. It
is crucial for VTs to be interactive and creative, as well as to have more appealing sensory devices
(e.g. high-quality audiovisual elements and different sensory stimulations), for users to experience
a greater sense of immersion (Wu and Lai, 2021). Alternatively, a voiceover could be included to
explain site information or background music relevant to the destination to improve the
consumer experience and stimulate their pleasant feelings. Previous studies have obtained
similar results, which further justify the present findings on the direct and influential effect of
pleasurable experiences on the prolonged use of VTs.
Apart from the entertainment aspect, this study asserts the need for VT producers to focus
more on the usefulness of VTs to draw more attention to tourism destinations. It is equally
important for VTs producers to ensure user-friendly interfaces, specifically for 360 VT
videos, to ensure the navigation is responsive and easy to understand. Online modules or
explanatory videos could assist in minimizing the negative impact of non-familiarity with a
technology on consumers’ intention to use it. In addition, the perceived authenticity of VTs
should be improved to stimulate potential tourists’ engagement with tourist destinations.
JHTI Digital technologies would allow for better preservation of important historical data,
monuments and artifacts (Simone et al., 2021) and at the same time provide solutions for time
and cost limitations (Styliani et al., 2009). DMOs and DMCs could utilize VTs for generating
future demand in times of temporary replacement (e.g. on loan) or closure (e.g. renovations,
climate considerations, conservation requirements, or pandemic crises). Moreover,
underprivileged people could benefit by experiencing physical sites online, which further
provides critical social and educational functions. Ultimately, this study profoundly
contributes to the tourism sector by introducing the adoption of VTs as a strategic flexibility
component of a tourism destination (Schiopu et al., 2021).

Limitations, future research and conclusion

The current results are subject to several limitations. First, this study only examined the VTs
offered by heritage sites in Malaysia, which might not be generalizable to other heritage sites.
Future studies could extend across a broader array of heritage sites within the virtual world in
different cultural settings. Second, the current study investigated only antecedents of UTAUT2
to predict users’ behavioral intentions in the virtual tourism context. It also examined only IA as
the sole outcome of the VT experience. The efficacy of other key factors, such as satisfaction,
electronic word of mouth, perceived value, destination loyalty and visitor engagement could be
included in the future. Third, this study did not consider the possible moderating effects of socio-
demographic variables on the model. Thus, multi-group analysis can be performed in future
research to investigate how the relationships in the current model vary across consumers’ diverse
characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, educational level, experience and life stage.
This study was carried out with the hope of increasing the adoption of VTs as a promotional
tool in Malaysia’s heritage tourism. DMOs and DMCs should bear in mind that VTs neither
substitute the experience of an actual visit nor hinder IV but provide added value to potential
visitors’ travel decision-making process. The visit intentions of VT users can be encouraged
through the enjoyment and usefulness of VTs in travel planning. In conclusion, the adoption of
the UTAUT2 and the theory of substitutability effectively explain Malaysians’ IA and IV.
Through immersive VT experiences, visitors can make more informed decisions on their travel
activities and choose wisely between tourism destinations to gain the maximum benefit from
their efforts and the resources they are about to invest.

References
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M. and Lampis, A. (2020), “Italian state museums during the COVID-19 crisis: from
onsite closure to online openness”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 362-372.
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M. and Lema, M.D. (2021), “New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital
transformation in public service delivery”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 69-72.
Atzeni, M., Chiappa, G.D. and Pung, J.M. (2021), “Enhancing visit intention in heritage tourism: the
role of object-based and existential authenticity in non-immersive virtual reality heritage
experiences”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, pp. 240-255.
Bran, E., Bautu, E. and Popovici, D.M. (2020), “Towards a sustainable future: ubiquitous knowledge
mixed reality museum”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 176, pp. 2878-2885.
Budu, K.W.A., Yinping, M. and Mireku, K.K. (2018), “Investigating the effect of behavioral intention
on E-learning systems usage: empirical study on tertiary education institutions in Ghana”,
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 201-216.
Burigat, S. and Chittaro, L. (2016), “Passive and active navigation of virtual environments vs
traditional printed evacuation maps: a comparative evaluation in the aviation domain”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 87, pp. 92-105.
Cha, J. and Chan-Olmsted, S.M. (2012), “Substitutability between online video platforms and Virtual tours in
television”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 261-278.
heritage travel
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (2007), “Collaborative and iterative translation: an alternative approach
to back translation”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
El-Said, O. and Aziz, H. (2022), “Virtual tours a means to an end: an analysis of virtual tours’ role in
tourism recovery post COVID-19”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 528-548.
Faqih, K.M.S. and Jaradat, M.I.R.M. (2021), “Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate the
adoption of augmented reality technology in education: perspective from a developing country”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 67, 101787.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.G. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1:
tests for correlation and regression analyses”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41, pp. 1149-1160.
Feng, Y. (2018), “Facilitator or inhibitor? The use of 360-degree videos for immersive brand
storytelling”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Gharaibeh, M.K., Arshad, M.R.M. and Gharaibh, N.K. (2018), “Using the UTAUT2 model to determine
factors affecting adoption of mobile banking services: a qualitative approach”, International
Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 123-134.
Gharaibeh, M.K., Gharaibeh, N.K., Khan, M.A., Abu-ain, W.A.K. and Alqudah, M.K. (2021), “Intention
to use mobile augmented reality in the tourism sector”, Computer Systems Science and
Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 187-202.
Gupta, A., Dogra, N. and George, B. (2018), “What determines tourist adoption of smartphone apps?
An analysis based on the UTAUT-2 framework”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 50-64.
Guttentag, D.A. (2010), “Virtual reality: applications and implications for tourism”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31, pp. 637-651.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K.O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: a
comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modelling methods”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Hendee, J.C. and Burdge, R.J. (1974), “The substitutability concept: implications for recreation research
and management”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 6 Spring, pp. 157-162.
 and San Martın, H. (2017), “Explaining the adoption of social networks sites for sharing
Herrero, A.
user-generated content: a revision of the UTAUT2”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 71,
pp. 209-217.
Huang, Y.-C., Backman, S.J., Backman, K.F. and Moore, D. (2013), “Exploring user acceptance of
3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism marketing”, Tourism Management, Vol. 36,
pp. 490-501.
Huang, Y.C., Backman, K.F., Backman, S.J. and Chang, L.L. (2016), “Exploring the implications of
virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: an integrated research framework”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18, pp. 116-128.
Kalinic, Z., Marinkovic, V., Djordjevic, A. and Liebana-Cabanillas, F. (2019), “What drives customer
satisfaction and word of mouth in mobile commerce services? A UTAUT2-based analytical
approach”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Kim, M.J., Lee, C.-K. and Jung, T. (2020a), “Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism
using an extended Stimulus-Organism-Response Model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 69-89.
Kim, M.J., Lee, C.-K. and Preis, M.W. (2020b), “The impact of innovation and gratification on authentic
experience, subjective well-being, and behavioral intention in tourism virtual reality: the
moderating role of technology readiness”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 49, 101349.
JHTI Kline, R.B. (2016), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 4th ed., Guilford, New
York, NY.
Kock, N. and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580.
Lamberton, C.P. and Rose, R.L. (2012), “When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and
altering participation in commercial sharing systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76, pp. 109-125.
Lee, H., Jung, H., Dieck, M.C.T. and Chung, N. (2020a), “Experiencing immersive virtual reality in
museums”, Information and Management, Vol. 57, 103229.
Lee, M., Lee, S.A., Jeong, M. and Oh, H. (2020b), “Quality of virtual reality and its impact on behavioral
intention”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 90, 102595.
Lewis, C.C., Fretwell, C.E., Ryan, J. and Parham, J.B. (2013), “Faculty use of established and emerging
technologies in higher education: a Unified Theory of Acceptance and use of technology
perspective”, International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 22-34.
Li, X., Li, M., Li, Y. and Song, H. (2019), “Understanding the continuance intention of virtual tour
websites: an extended expectation-confirmation model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 58
No. 6, pp. 1006-1020.
Lin, C.A. (2004), “Webcasting adoption: technology fluidity, user innovativeness, and media
substitution”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 446-465.
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) (2021), “Hand phone users survey
2021 (HPUS 2021)”, available at: http://www.mcmc.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf2/
FULL-REPORT-HPUS-2021.pdf on 29 July 2022
Medeiros, M., Ozturk, A., Hancer, M., Weinland, J. and Okumus, B. (2022), “Understanding travel
tracking mobile application usage: an integration of self-determination theory and UTAUT2”,
Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 42, 100949.
Merhi, M., Hone, K. and Tarhini, A. (2019), “A cross-cultural study of the intention to use mobile
banking between Labanese and British consumers: extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy
and trust”, Technology in Society, Vol. 59, 101151.
Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Cultural Malaysia (2020), “National tourism policy 2020-2030: executive
summary”, available at: http://www.tourism.gov.my/files/uploads/Executive_Summary.pdf on 22
April 2022
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2019), “Co-creation of value using hotel interactive technologies:
examining intentions and conversion”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1183-1204.
Mura, P., Tavakoli, R. and Sharif, S.P. (2016), “‘Authentic but not too much’: exploring perceptions of
authenticity of virtual tourism”, Information Technology and Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Nassar, A.A.M., Othman, K. and Nizah, M.A.B.M. (2019), “The impact of the social influence on ICT
adoption: behavioral intention as mediator and age as moderator”, International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 11, pp. 963-978.
Noor, A.Y.M., Mokhtar, A.M., Sharif, S.M., Long, A.S., Rahman, Z.A. and Wahab, N.A.A. (2019), “Main
tourism sectors in Malaysia: a contribution towards economic growth”, Journal of Development
Economics and Finance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Papagiannakis, G., Geronikolakis, E., Pateraki, M., Lopez–Menchero, V., Tsioumas, M., Sylaiou, S.,
Liarokapis, F., Grammatikopoulou, A., Dimitropoulos, K., Grammalidis, N., Huebner, N.,
Dhemre, N., Partarakis, N., Margetis, G., Drossis, G., Vassiliadi, M., Chalmers, A., Stephanidis,
C., Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2018). “Mixed reality gamified presence and storytelling for virtual
museums (No. IKEEBOOKCH-2019-233)”, Springer, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1-14.
Paulo, M.M., Rita, P., Oliveira, T. and Moro, S. (2018), “Understanding mobile augmented reality adoption
in a consumer context”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 142-157.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in Virtual tours in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. heritage travel
Schiopu, A.F., Hornoiu, R.I., Padurean, M.A. and Nica, A.M. (2021), “Virus tinged? Exploring the facets
of virtual reality use in tourism as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 60, 101575.
Schweibenz, W. (2019), “The virtual museum: an overview of its origins, concepts, and terminology”,
Museum Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, M. (2009), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John
Wiley & Sons.
Simone, C., Cerquetti, M. and La Sala, A. (2021), “Museums in the infosphere: reshaping value
creation”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 322-341.
Skard, S., Knudsen, E.S., Sjastad, H. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2021), “How virtual reality influences travel
intentions: the role of mental imagery and happiness forecasting”, Tourism Management, Vol. 87,
104360.
Styliani, S., Fotis, L., Kostas, K. and Petros, P. (2009), “Virtual museums, a survey and some issues for
consideration”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 520-528.
Sylaiou, S., Mania, K., White, M. and Karoulis, A. (2010), “Presence-centred usability evaluation of a
virtual museum”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 68 Nos IKEEART-
2018-1072, pp. 243-253.
Tourism Malaysia (2021), “Tourism Malaysia strategic plan 2022-2026”, available at: http://www.
tourism.gov.my/files/uploads/TM_Strategic_Plan.pdf on 22 April 2022
Tussyadiah, I.P., Wang, D., Jung, T.H. and Dieck, M.C. (2018), “Virtual reality, presence, attitude
change: empirical evidence from tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 66, pp. 140-154.
Vassiliadis, C. and Belenioti, Z.C. (2017), “Museums and cultural heritage via social media: an
integrated literature review”, Tourismos, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 97-132.
Vayghan, S., Baloglu, D. and Baloglu, S. (2022), “The impact of utilitarian, social and hedonic values
on hotel booking mobile app engagement and loyalty: a comparison of generational cohorts”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. doi: 10.1108/JHTI-06-2022-0229.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
Vishwakarma, P., Mukherjee, S. and Datta, B. (2020), “Travelers’ intention to adopt virtual reality: a
consumer value perspective”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 17, 100456.
Wu, X. and Lai, I.K.W. (2021), “The use of 360-degree virtual tours to promote mountain walking tourism:
stimulus-organism-response model”, Information Technology and Tourism, Vol. 24, pp. 85-107.

Corresponding author
Ing Grace Phang can be contacted at: gracep@ums.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com