Exploring the key factors influencing tourists’ intention to use mobile AR educational applications from the perspective of structural equation modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
The current development of cultural heritage, tourism, and education shows an increasing trend of integration, with technological innovation accelerating this fusion. Mobile augmented reality (MAR) technology, due to its widespread accessibility and mobility, has broad application and development prospects. The application of this emerging technology in cultural heritage tourism needs to be given more attention. However, MAR technology remains relatively new to the general tourist, and its widespread acceptance and adoption still require further effort. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the factors influencing tourists’ acceptance and use of MAR educational applications. This research constructs an integrative theoretical framework that synthesizes the technology acceptance model with diffusion of innovations theory to explore this issue more comprehensively. A total of 373 survey questionnaires were collected from visitors who used the GY-MAR application to visit the Ancient Kilns of China, and the data was analyzed using SPSS and SMARTPLS. The findings revealed that: (1) Trust, information quality, and enjoyment positively affect tourists’ perceived usability and ease of use of MAR educational applications. (2) Facilitating conditions positively impact tourists’ perceived ease of use. (3) Perceived usability and ease of use significantly influence tourists’ attitudes toward MAR educational applications, thereby promoting their intention to use them. (4) Perceived usability significantly influences tourists’ perceived relative advantage, thereby fostering their intention to use. This study holds theoretical and practical significance for the future design, development, and promotion of mobile augmented reality technology in cultural heritage tourism.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Technology Adoption and User Behaviour · Digital Marketing and Social Media · Augmented Reality Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (85)
Show source-provided references
1. Lin, J. et al. Can cultural tourism experience enhance cultural confidence? The evidence from Qingyuan Mountai. Front. Psychol. 13, 1063569 (2022).10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063569 ↗
2. Yan, W. J. & Li, K. R. Sustainable cultural innovation practice: heritage education in universities and creative inheritance of intangible cultural heritage craft. Sustainability 15, 1194 (2023).10.3390/su15021194 ↗
3. Cai, Z. et al. Joint development of cultural heritage protection and tourism: the case of Mount Lushan cultural landscape heritage site. heritage. Science 9, 86 (2021).
4. Yang, M. et al. Survey on tracking and registration technology for mobile augmented reality. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 18, 99–140 (2022).10.1504/IJWGS.2022.121960 ↗
5. Esther Shein, 7 top technologies for metaverse development, https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/tip/7-top-technologies-for-metaverse-development (Accessed 7 Feb 2024).
6. Gharaibeh, M. K. et al. Intention to use mobile augmented reality in the tourism sector. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 37, 187–202 (2021).10.32604/csse.2021.014902 ↗
7. Wissink, H. Sustainable tourism for local and regional development in South Africa: unlocking economic potential through responsible tourism strategies. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 12, 1163 (2023)
8. Cerisola S. & Panzera E. Heritage tourism and local prosperity: an empirical investigation of their controversial relationship. Tour. Econ. 13, 13548166241234099 (2024).10.1177/13548166241234099 ↗
9. Schaub M. Natural and cultural heritage in tourism on Gotland: heritage tourism characteristics and the relation of natural and cultural heritage (2020).
10. Pratisto, E. H., Thompson, N. & Potdar, V. Immersive technologies for tourism: a systematic review. Inf. Technol. Tour. 24, 181–219 (2022).10.1007/s40558-022-00228-7 ↗
11. Iacono, S. et al. Virtual reality in cultural heritage: a setup for Balzi Rossi museum. Appl. Sci. 14, 3562 (2024).10.3390/app14093562 ↗
12. Boboc, R. G. et al. Augmented reality in cultural heritage: an overview of the last decade of applications. Appl. Sci. 12, 9859 (2022).10.3390/app12199859 ↗
13. Sood, M. & Bhandari, H. Integrating smart technologies in heritage interpretation of historic gardens for enhancing visitor experiences. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Technological Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICTACS) 1249–1255 (IEEE, 2023)10.1109/ICTACS59847.2023.10390015 ↗
14. Vlachos, A., Perifanou, M. & Economides, A. A. A review of ontologies for augmented reality cultural heritage applications. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 14, 160–174 (2022).10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2021-0110 ↗
15. Bakar, J. A. A. et al. Augmented reality meets artificial intelligence towards personalised user experience in cultural heritage sites. The Future Human–Computer Integration 134–148 (CRC Press, 2024).10.1201/9781003479727-12 ↗
16. Al-Ansi, A. M. et al. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 8, 100532 (2023).
17. Marto, A. & Gonçalves, A. Mobile AR: User evaluation in a cultural heritage context. Appl. Sci. 9, 5454 (2019).10.3390/app9245454 ↗
18. Engberg, M. & Bolter, J. D. Cultural expression in augmented and mixed reality. Convergence 20, 3–9 (2014).10.1177/1354856513516250 ↗
19. Cheng, D. et al. Editorial integrated optoelectronics for VR/AR/MR. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quant. Electron. 30, 1–3 (2024).10.1109/JSTQE.2024.3383910 ↗
20. Lian, Y. & Xie, J. The evolution of digital cultural heritage research: identifying key trends, hotspots, and challenges through bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 16, 7125 (2024).10.3390/su16167125 ↗
21. Bekele, M. K. et al. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 11, 1–36 (2018).10.1145/3145534 ↗
22. Yin, C. Z. Y. et al. Mobile augmented reality heritage applications: meeting the needs of heritage tourist. Sustainability 13, 2523 (2021).10.3390/su13052523 ↗
23. Chen, Y. et al. Why people use augmented reality in heritage museums: a socio-technical perspective heritage. Science 12, 108 (2024).
24. Shen, S. et al. Exploring the factors influencing the adoption and usage of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality applications in tourism education within the context of COVID-19 pandemic. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 30, 100373 (2022).
25. Tyagi, P. et al. Tourist experiences through mobile augmented reality. In Proc. International Conference on Electronics and Renewable Systems (ICEARS) 1605–1610 (IEEE, 2022).10.1109/ICEARS53579.2022.9752325 ↗
26. Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989).10.2307/249008 ↗
27. Rogers Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press of Glencoe, 1962).
28. Lin, S. Y., Juan, P. J. & Lin, S. W. A tam framework to evaluate the effect of smartphone application on tourism information search behavior of foreign independent travelers. Sustainability 12, 9366 (2020).10.3390/su12229366 ↗
29. Shi, M., Wang, Q. & Long, Y. Exploring the key drivers of user continuance intention to use digital museums: evidence from China’s Sanxingdui Museum (IEEE Access, 2023).10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3297501 ↗
30. Wu, Y. et al. What drives users to adopt a digital museum? A case of virtual exhibition hall of the National Costume Museum. Sage Open 12, 21582440221082105 (2022).10.1177/21582440221082105 ↗
31. Moore, G. C. & Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 192–222 (1991).10.1287/isre.2.3.192 ↗
32. Joshua, S. R. et al. Trust components: an analysis in the development of type 2 diabetic mellitus mobile application. Appl. Sci. 13, 1251 (2023).10.3390/app13031251 ↗
33. Lu, W. et al. How to promote telemedicine patient adoption behavior for greener healthcare? J. Clean. Prod. 434, 139884 (2024).10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139884 ↗
34. Xu, J. et al. Is everyone an artist? A study on user experience of AI-based painting system. Appl. Sci. 13, 6496 (2023).10.3390/app13116496 ↗
35. Gao, G. et al. Drivers of downloading and reasons for not downloading COVID-19 contact tracing and exposure notification apps: A national cross-sectional survey. PLOS One 17, e0269783 (2022).10.1371/journal.pone.0269783 ↗
36. Seo, K. H. & Lee, J. H. The emergence of service robots at restaurants: Integrating trust, perceived risk, and satisfaction. Sustainability 13, 4431 (2021).10.3390/su13084431 ↗
37. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 60–95 (1992).10.1287/isre.3.1.60 ↗
38. Yavuz, M. et al. Augmented reality technology adoption: case of a mobile application in Turkey. Technol. Soc. 66, 101598 (2021).10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101598 ↗
39. Camilleri, M. A. & Kozak, M. Utilitarian motivations to engage with travel websites: an interactive technology adoption model. J. Serv. Mark. 37, 96–109 (2022).10.1108/JSM-12-2021-0477 ↗
40. Tyagi, S. K., Sharma, S. K. & Gaur, A. Determinants of continuous usage of library resources on handheld devices: findings from PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Electron. Libr. 40, 393–412 (2022).10.1108/EL-02-2022-0026 ↗
41. Van Der Heijden, H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 28, 695–704 (2004).10.2307/25148660 ↗
42. Al-Adwan, A. S. et al. Extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) to Predict University Students’ intentions to use metaverse-based learning platforms. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 15381–15413 (2023).10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3 ↗
43. Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11, 342–365 (2000).10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 ↗
44. Abdullah, F., Ward, R. & Ahmed, E. Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 75–90 (2016).10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014 ↗
45. Alhasan, A. et al. A case study to examine undergraduate students’ intention to use Internet of things (IoT) services in the smart classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 10459–10482 (2023).10.1007/s10639-022-11537-z ↗
46. Venkatesh, V. et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 425–478 (2003).10.2307/30036540 ↗
47. Lu, J. et al. Determinants of accepting wireless mobile data services in China. Inf. Manag. 45, 52–64 (2008).10.1016/j.im.2007.11.002 ↗
48. Ebadi, S. & Raygan, A. Investigating the facilitating conditions, perceived ease of use and usefulness of mobile-assisted language learning. Smart Learn. Environ. 10, 30 (2023).10.1186/s40561-023-00250-0 ↗
49. Man, S. S. et al. Acceptance of online mapping technology among older adults: technology acceptance model with facilitating condition, compatibility, and self-satisfaction. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 11, 558 (2022).10.3390/ijgi11110558 ↗
50. Rosli, M. S. et al. Factors determining the acceptance of E-wallet among gen Z from the lens of the extended technology acceptance model. Sustainability 15, 5752 (2023).10.3390/su15075752 ↗
51. Li, Q. & Chan, K. K. Test takers’ attitudes of using exam-oriented mobile application as a tool to adapt in a high-stakes speaking test. Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 219–237 (2024).10.1007/s10639-023-12297-0 ↗
52. Dutta, A. et al. Internet of Things adoption: unpacking the role of perceived brand credibility. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. (2023).10.1108/GKMC-05-2023-0160 ↗
53. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989).10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 ↗
54. Correia, M., Cunningham, N. & Roberts-Lombard, M. Use of mobile apps when purchasing apparel: a young male adult perspective. South Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 25, 1–14 (2023).
55. Wang, Y., Meister, D. & Wang, Y. Reexamining relative advantage and perceived usefulness: an empirical study. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 7, 46–59 (2011).10.4018/jicte.2011010105 ↗
56. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovation (3rd.ed) (The Free Press, 1983).
57. Coskun, M., Saygili, E. & Karahan, M. O. Exploring online payment system adoption factors in the age of COVID-19—evidence from the Turkish banking industry. Int. J. Finan. Stud. 10, 39 (2022).10.3390/ijfs10020039 ↗
58. Nezamdoust, S., Abdekhoda, M. & Rahmani, A. Determinant factors in adopting mobile health application in healthcare by nurses. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 22, 47 (2022).10.1186/s12911-022-01784-y ↗
59. Tait, M., Nkoyi, A., Van & der Walt, F. Predicting the attitude towards electronic banking continued usage intentions among rural banking customers in South Africa. South Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 21, 1–8 (2019).
60. Nasrolahi Vosta, L. & Jalilvand, M. R. Electronic trust-building for hotel websites: a social exchange theory perspective. J. Islam. Mark. 14, 2689–2714 (2023).10.1108/JIMA-05-2022-0119 ↗
61. Norman D. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things (Basic Books, 2007).
62. Chin W. W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).
63. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94 (1988).10.1007/BF02723327 ↗
64. Li, X. Z., Chen, C. C. & Kang, X. et al. Research on relevant dimensions of tourism experience of intangible cultural heritage lantern festival: Integrating generic learning outcomes with the technology acceptance model. Front. Psychol. 13, 943277 (2022).10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943277 ↗
65. Al-Aulamie, A. et al. The effect of intrinsic motivation on learners’ behavioral intention to use e-learning systems. In Proc. International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). 1–4 (IEEE, 2012).10.1109/ITHET.2012.6246057 ↗
66. Wongyai, P. H. et al. The adoption of self-service check-in kiosks among commercial airline passengers. Heliyon 10, e38676 (2024).10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38676 ↗
67. Sulaiman, T. T. et al. Understanding antecedents of learning management system usage among university y lecturers using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Sustainability 15, 1885 (2023).10.3390/su15031885 ↗
68. Gong, K. et al. A study on the audience psychological effects of “cloud tourism” based on webcast: a new mechanism for sustainable development in the tourism. Sustainability 15, 9728 (2023).10.3390/su15129728 ↗
69. Salloum, S. A. et al. Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access 7, 128445–128462 (2019).10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467 ↗
70. Alismaiel, O. A. Using structural equation modeling to assess online learning systems’educational sustainability for university students. Sustainability 13, 13565 (2021).10.3390/su132413565 ↗
71. Wang, C. et al. Exploring short video apps users’ travel behavior intention: empirical analysis based on SVA-TAM mode. Front. Psychol. 13, 912177 (2022).10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912177 ↗
72. Zhang, W. & Hou, Z. College Teachers’ behavioral intention to adopt artificial intelligence assisted teaching systems. IEEE Access 12, 152812–152824 (2024).10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3445909 ↗
73. Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N. & Aldraiweesh, A. A. et al. Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: an empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access 7, 26797–26809 (2019).10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899368 ↗
74. Engels, F. Dialectics of Nature (Wellred Books, 1960).
75. Pavlou, P. A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7, 101–134 (2003).10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275 ↗
76. Bøe, T. E-learning technology and higher education: the impact of organizational trust. Tert. Educ. Manag. 24, 362–376 (2018).
77. Wu, L. & Chen, J. L. An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 62, 784–808 (2005).10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003 ↗
78. Bhattacherjee, A.& Sanford, C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quart. 30, 805–825 (2006).10.2307/25148755 ↗
79. Park, Y., Son, H. & Kim, C. Investigating the determinants of construction professionals' acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Autom. Constr. 22, 377–386 (2012).10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.016 ↗
80. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22, 1111–1132 (1992).10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x ↗
81. Mun, Y. Y. & Hwang, Y. Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59, 431–449 (2003).10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9 ↗
82. Chen, K. & Chan, A. H. S. Predictors of geotechnology acceptance by older Hong Kong Chinese. Ergonomics 34, 126–135 (2014).
83. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis. Sci. 27, 451–481 (1996).10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x ↗
84. Sánchez, R. A. Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 1632–1640 (2010).10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011 ↗
85. Arpaci, I. Antecedents and consequences of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 382–390 (2017).10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.024 ↗