Since the paper is investigating the implementation of provided technology, in a consumer experience, comparison is done between the users who participated into a digital nature experience and those respondents who did not activate any mobile device during the visit. As explained earlier study context, the nature experience included a virtual guided tour. Chart 1. does show how small difference there were between user groups when 40% of the respondents did not activate the mobile application yet 60% of respondents did use the application.
Chart 1. Variations of usage of the technology in the experience
Mixed realities such as VR and AR deliver other dimension and excitement for nature travellers (Juntunen et al. 2019) and hedonic benefits has a positive effect on attitudes towards AR (Rauschnabel & Ro 2016). Respondents K1, K2 and K3 did use the technology because of participating to the nature experience together, moreover they found the information sign for activating the QR-code. Social value was one clear inspiration to use the application with epistemic value.
“A good friend of mine did recommend this application but also we wanted get more information about the national park because we did not have any pre-searched information of the area but also, I find all new technology interesting and personally, I wanted to see if there is future potential to this kind of augmented reality application tool” (K3)
Witch social value, epistemic value which includes novelty factor and information desire, are perceived as the most important reasons for participants to activate the application according to the interviews. Multiple participants also mentioned the curiosity for new technology which support epistemic value as key force for the use of the application. Nevertheless, (2005) Lee et al studied how information overload can cause stress for human beings and, information overload and constant connectivity was seen as reasons for not to use technology in nature according to the respondents K6 and K8.
“Because of my work, I need to be connected 24/7 therefore for me it was important to get distance through disconnection from all the mobile devices”. (K8)
Group 1 Utilized the technology
Group 2 Did not utilize any added technology
Table 5. and Table 6. below are demonstrating the perceived values which arouse from the data when analysing derived values among the respondents who participated into the digital nature experience. Table 5 is revealing the values respondents got from the nature experience in general and Table 6. is specifying the values emerged from using added technology in the nature experience.
Table 5. Findings of value dimensions from nature experience
Functional value
Social value
Emotional value
Epistemic value
Conditional value
C& H value
K1 X X
K2 X X
K3 X X
K4 X
K5 X X
Table 6. Findings of value dimensions from digital nature experience
Functional value
social value
Emotional value
Epistemic value
Conditional value
C &H value
K1 X X
K2 X
K3 X X
K4 X X X
K5 X X
Figure 1. Differences from value dimensions in digital nature experience and natural nature experience
In figure 1. data does shows with light blue line what kind value dimensions was spotted with digital nature experience compared to deep blue line where value dimensions resulted from the pure nature experience is shown. As seen in Figure 1. there are clear differences in values achieved whereas nature experience itself promoted values concerning to emotional values comparing technology enhanced experience which provoked evenly values regarding to cultural and historical values with epistemic values. (1991) Sheth et al. conducted a study where he claims that it is desirable to maximize all consumption values but usually consumer attempts to accept less of one value in trade of obtaining more from other value. Common with majority of interviews is that all respondents mentioned how important it was to witness such an impressive view and respect our landscapes with full of history and stories. Consequently, technologies have been found to enhance cultural and historic value (Chiabai et al 2011; tom Dieck & Jung 2017).
Scholars shows that ICT’s enable interacting with each other and discussing with people therefore creating social value (Neuhofer et al 2014). However, interestingly in this paper respondents did not express any interest of social values gained from the digital nature experience. In fact, social value was not value derived from the experience according to all respondents including those who did not use any digital devices during the experience. But when analysing the devalue factors among the respondents, social value is one to mention. Few participants mentioned how social
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
Functional Social Emotional Epistemic Conditional C & H
Differences in values recognized
Technology No Technology 2
factors of nature experience got distracted with the mobile application since there is need to concentrate on several things at the same time.
“We were joining the tour with friends but in the end, everyone was focusing on their mobile devices rather than the nature nor the group itself. The technology affected to our common nature experience negatively.” (K2)
“I lost the ability to concentrate on the nature because of the application was stealing my time. Also, I felt the tour became too planned” (K1)
Information is evidently the most desired value resulted from the technology. According to K3, as a new technology, augmented reality is interesting platform which raises curiosity due to its novelty factor. K2, K4, K8 are all finding the technology as interesting tool where application
“deepen the knowledge about places’ offerings such as attractions and wide history” which relates to epistemic value as well as cultural and historic values. In the end, desired outcome of the technology is the provided additional information and storytelling. ICTs’ enable consumer to adapt determine information as well as create personalized experience according to the own preferences which support the co-creation of value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004; Neufoher 2011).
Several respondents clarify how the technology is “fun and useful tool prior to visit” although during the experience it does not offer added value instead it does decrease the value. Jung & tom Dieck (2017) express that technology inspired innovation in experiences can contribute co-creation of value for tourists in pre-visit, on-site and post-visit phases and augmented reality technology has been studied to create value for tourists in pre-visit phase especially (Cranmer al 2020).
“I feel the application does not provide any added value at that point when I am experiencing the site myself however I could use it in advance to familiarise myself with the destination”
(K2)
While practitioners argue that devalue of emotional experiences of local nature was resulted from using technologies such as VR in addition to decrease in support for the acquisition and preservation of local natural areas (Neuhofer et al 2011; Kocher & Levi 1999). The researcher of this study got some different perspective when several respondents highlighted the potential use of technology. Respondents would use the technology to get more information of the surroundings and especially if more information about the nature itself and how to prevent harming it as well as information of natures’ selection such as tree species and rare plants would feel valuable for the users.
Nevertheless, a founding from the data analysis is concerning the distracting effect of the application. 25% of the respondents experiences that application is distracting the valuable landscape in fact, decreases the value of the place. This supports the claim from Kahn et al (2018) where nature experience done with technology does not provide comparable benefit to time spend in real nature.
“These national park views are historical national landscapes. When there is some animated fish with child’s voice telling stories about destination it does not match with the reality and therefore the application does provide devalue rather than add value” (K1)
In table 7 concrete values and devalues are presented. There cultural and historic value are represented with respondents participating digital experience, as seen valuable matters are concerning area’s important presence such as historical national scenery and its rich connection to history. However, devalues from the same user group was contradictory because according to the table 7, the mobile applications was distracting the experience. Respondents who were not having a digital experience valued nature’s presence and the ability to disconnect from daily life and interestingly, devalues was not supported yet only devalue recognized by the K6 was the mobile device distracting the moment hence he did not use it for the experience.
Table 7. Findings regarding to values and devalues of the nature experience.
Value Devalue
K1 Grateful of historical settings Difficult to concentrate. Planned experience K2 Information and historical view of the place Difficult to use. Distracting the social event K3 Experience myself the national view and be part
of the historical settings
Difficult to get started. Lack of information
K4 Historical setting was impressive. App did not work. Difficult to find the QR- signs.
K5 Energy to continue. Be in present moment Nothing
K6 A break from the routines I was using too much phone, it caused devalue.
K7 Peaceful feeling Nothing that distracted the experience
K8 It was valuable to get a chance to disconnect and be in the nature
The noise from tourists was disrupting. The path wasn’t familiar.
Although some studies claims that mobile technology could create enjoyment and satisfaction at the nature-based destination, that is not always the case. Depending on the desired outcome and desired values from the experience whether the role technology has a benefit or not.
Digital nature experience participants had contradictory perspective on values achieved from the experience. This can be result from the demographics features where users are the generation who are used to stay connected throughout the day therefore functional features such as quality and content was causing devalue, not the actual use of mobile device. When examined the respondents who experienced the nature without mobile application, the study showed also that the same participants valued relaxation and escape nevertheless, same group mentioned in the interview that potential use for technology in similar experience would value the functional purpose such as navigating and information search.
4.2 Perceived values emerged from nature experience