Experiencing a Food Production Site Using Wearable Devices: The Indirect Impact of Immersion and Presence in VR Tours
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. VT Experience with VR Technology
3. Theoretical Background
3.1. TAM in VR
3.2. Research Hypotheses
4. Research Methods
4.1. Sample Composition
4.2. Measures
5. Results
5.1. Data Analysis and Measure Validity
5.2. Structural Model Results
5.2.1. Structural Paths Analysis: Direct Effects
5.2.2. Indirect Effects
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
7. Conclusions
7.1. Study Limitations
7.2. Recommendations and Future Research Agenda
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Canio, F.; Fuentes-Blasco, M.; Martinelli, E. Engaging shoppers through mobile apps: The role of gamification. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2021, 49, 919–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Ko, Y.J. The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Comput. Human Behav. 2019, 93, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhalis, D.; Leung, R. Smart hospitality—Interconnectivity and interoperability towards an ecosystem. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuhofer, B.; Buhalis, D. Understanding and Managing Technology-Enabled Enhanced Tourist Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Hospitality and Tourism Marketing & Management, Corfu, Greece, 31 May–3 June 2018; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/download/16392263/Neuhofer_and_Buhalis_2012_Understanding_and_Managing_Technology-Enabled_Enhanced_Tourist_Experiences.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Neuhofer, B.; Buhalis, D.; Ladkin, A. Experiences, co-creation and technology: A conceptual approach to enhance tourism experiences. Tour. Glob. Chang. Edge Something Big 2013, 546–555. [Google Scholar]
- Correia Loureiro, S.M.C.; Nascimento, J. Shaping a view on the influence of technologies on sustainable tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gretzel, U.; Fesenmaier, D.R.; O’leary, J. The transformation of consumer behaviour. In Tourism Business Frontiers: Consumers, Products and Industry; Buhalis, D., Costa, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Burlington, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 9–18. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780750663779500092?via%3Dihub (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Mohanty, P.; Hassan, A.; Ekis, E. Augmented reality for relaunching tourism post-COVID-19: Socially distant, virtually connected. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2020, 12, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, N.; Han, H.; Joun, Y. Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Comput. Human Behav. 2015, 50, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tussyadiah, I.P.; Wang, D.; Jung, T.H.; Tom Dieck, M.C. Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van, N.T.T.; Vrana, V.; Duy, N.T.; Minh, D.X.H.; Dzung, P.T.; Mondal, S.R.; Das, S. The Role of Human–Machine In-teractive Devices for Post-COVID-19 Innovative Sustainable Tourism in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scurati, G.W.; Bertoni, M.; Graziosi, S.; Ferrise, F. Exploring the use of virtual reality to support environmentally sustainable behavior: A framework to design experiences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiopu, A.F.; Hornoiu, R.I.; Padurean, M.A.; Nica, A.M. Virus tinged? Exploring the facets of virtual reality use in tourism as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 60, 101575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gegung, E.M. International Tourism and the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Use of Virtual Reality to Increase Tourism Destination Sustainability and How Users Perceive the Authenticity of Vr Experiences. J. Kepariwisataan Indones. J. Penelit. Dan Pengemb. Kepariwisataan Indones. 2021, 15, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harada, T.; Hideyoshi, Y.; Gressier-Soudan, E.; Jean, C. Museum experience design based on multi-sensory transformation approach. Proc. Int. Des. Conf. Des. 2018, 5, 2221–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Schaffer, V.; Timms, K. Virtual reality and mixed reality for second chance tourism. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Luca, G.; Dastgerdi, A.S.; Francini, C.; Liberatore, G. Sustainable cultural heritage planning and management of overtourism in art cities: Lessons from atlas world heritage. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhtar, N.; Khan, N.; Mahroof Khan, M.; Ashraf, S.; Hashmi, M.S.; Khan, M.M.; Hishan, S.S. Post-covid 19 tourism: Will digital tourism replace mass tourism? Sustainability 2021, 13, 5352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Said, O.; Aziz, H. Virtual Tours a Means to an End: An Analysis of Virtual Tours’ Role in Tourism Recovery Post COVID-19. J. Travel Res. 2021, 61, 528–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavallaro, S.; Grandi, F.; Peruzzini, M.; De Canio, F. Virtual Tours to Promote the Remote Customer Experience; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- De Canio, F.; Martinelli, E.; Peruzzini, M.; Marchi, G. The use of virtual tours to stimulate consumers’ buying and visit intentions: An application to the Parmigiano Reggiano cheese. Ital. J. Mark. 2021, 1, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyer, W.D.; Kroschke, M.; Schmitt, B.; Kraume, K.; Shankar, V. Transforming the Customer Experience through New Technologies. J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 51, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidiropoulos, V.; Bechtsis, D.; Vlachos, D. An augmented reality symbiosis software tool for sustainable logistics activities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Canio, F.; Pellegrini, D.; Aramendia-Muneta, M.E. The smartphoners: Consumer segmentation by smartphone usage. Mer. Comp. 2016, 1, 123–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antón, C.; Camarero, C.; Laguna, M.; Buhalis, D. Impacts of authenticity, degree of adaptation and cultural contrast on travellers’ memorable gastronomy experiences. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019, 28, 743–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, A.; Ismail, H. Development and evaluation of an interactive 360 virtual tour for tourist destinations. J. Inform. Technol. Impact 2009, 9, 137–182. [Google Scholar]
- Spielmann, N.; Mantonakis, A. In virtuo: How user-driven interactivity in virtual tours leads to attitude change. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 88, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koutsoudis, A.; Arnaoutoglou, F.; Chamzas, C. On 3D reconstruction of the old city of Xanthi. A minimum budget approach to virtual touring based on photogrammetry. J. Cult. Herit. 2007, 8, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Germak, C.; Di Salvo, A.; Abbate, L. Augmented Reality Experience for Inaccessible Areas in Museums. In Proceedings of the EVA London 2021 (EVA 2021), London, UK, 5–9 July 2021; pp. 39–45. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.C.; Backman, K.F.; Backman, S.J.; Chang, L.L. Exploring the implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated research framework. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 18, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S.; Orús, C. Impacts of technological embodiment through virtual reality on potential guests’ emotions and engagement. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ijsselsteijn, W.; Riva, G. Being there: The experience of presence in mediated environments. In Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurements of User Presence in Synthetic Environments; Riva, G., Davide, F., Jsselsteijn, W.A.I., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Nykänen, N. Achieving the Experience of Immersion in Virtual Reality. 2021. Available online: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/76748 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Correira Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Eloy, S.; Langaro, D.; Panchapakesan, P. Understanding the use of Virtual Reality in Marketing: A text mining-based review. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 514–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowman, D.A.; McMahan, R.P. Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer 2007, 40, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papagiannidis, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Li, F. Making real money in virtual worlds: MMORPGs and emerging business opportunities, challenges and ethical implications in metaverses. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 610–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, A.M.; Kim, J.; Lee, H.H. Effect of image interactivity technology on consumer responses toward the online retailer. J. Interact. Mark. 2005, 19, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; So, K.K.F.; Mihalik, B.J.; Lopes, A.P. Millennials’ virtual reality experiences pre-and post-COVID-19. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 48, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yung, R.; Khoo-Lattimore, C.; Potter, L.E. VR the world: Experimenting with emotion and presence for tourism marketing. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koufaris, M. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Cyworld User Behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blazquez Cano, M.; Perry, P.; Ashman, R.; Waite, K. The influence of image interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 77, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.L.; Lu, H.P. Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 853–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongsakul, V.; Ali, F.; Wu, C.; Duan, Y.; Cobanoglu, C.; Ryu, K. Hotel website quality, performance, telepresence and behavioral intentions. Tour. Rev. 2020, 76, 681–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudson, S.; Matson-Barkat, S.; Pallamin, N.; Jegou, G. With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzig, P.; Strahringer, S.; Ameling, M. Gamification of ERP systems—Exploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs. In Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2012—Tagungsband der MKWI 2012, Braunschweig, Germany, 21–22 March 2012; pp. 793–804. [Google Scholar]
- Sylaiou, S.; Mania, K.; Karoulis, A.; White, M. Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2010, 68, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pine, B.J.; Pine, J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999; ISBN 0875848192. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, A.H.; Mossberg, L. Consumer immersion: A key to extraordinary experiences. In Handbook on the Experience Economy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jung, T.H.; tom Dieck, M.C. Augmented reality, virtual reality and 3D printing for the co-creation of value for the visitor experience at cultural heritage places. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2017, 10, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Forsythe, S. Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparel shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 2008, 22, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombard, M.; Ditton, T. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. J. Comput. Mediat. Comm. 1997, 3, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yim, M.Y.C.; Chu, S.C.; Sauer, P.L. Is Augmented Reality Technology an Effective Tool for E-commerce? An Interactivity and Vividness Perspective. J. Interact. Mark. 2017, 39, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1989, 13, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, L.F.; Oliveira, A.; Costa, C.J. Does ease-of-use contributes to the perception of enjoyment? A case of gamification in e-banking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Zhang, P. Causal Relationships between Perceived Enjoyment and Perceived Ease of Use: An Alternative Approach. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 7, 618–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.C.; Backman, S.J.; Backman, K.F.; Moore, D.W. Exploring user acceptance of 3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism marketing. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 490–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helin, K.; Kuula, T.; Vizzi, C.; Karjalainen, J.; Vovk, A. User experience of augmented reality system for astronaut’s manual work support. Front. Rob. AI 2018, 5, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ohk, K.; Park, S.B.; Hong, J.W. The influence of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, interactivity, and ease of navigation on satisfaction in mobile application. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2015, 84, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Healy, N.; van Riper, C.J.; Boyd, S.W. Low versus high intensity approaches to interpretive tourism planning: The case of the Cliffs of Moher, Ireland. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 574–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosser, A.E. Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Purchase Intentions. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 30, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.J.; Shin, J.H.; Ponto, K. How 3D Virtual Reality Stores Can Shape Consumer Purchase Decisions: The Roles of Informativeness and Playfulness. J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 49, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buonincontri, P.; Marasco, A.; Ramkissoon, H. Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nian, S.; Zhang, H.; Mao, L.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, H.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y. How Outstanding Universal Value, service quality and place attachment influences tourist intention towardsworld heritage conservation: A case study of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sudari, S.A.; Tarofder, A.K.; Khatibi, A.; Tham, J. Measuring the critical effect of marketing mix on customer loyalty through customer satisfaction in food and beverage products. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhee, H.L.; Lee, K.H. Enhancing the sneakers shopping experience through virtual fitting using augmented reality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Yoon, J.H.; Kwon, J. Impact of experiential value of augmented reality: The context of heritage tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, G.; Al-Nabhani, K.; Wilson, A. Developing a Mobile Applications Customer Experience Model (MACE)—Implications for Retailers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 85, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chung, N.; Lee, H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Koo, C. The role of augmented reality for experience-influenced environments: The case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Most Popular Social Networks Worldwide as of January 2022, Ranked by Number of Monthly Active Users. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/ (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Danaher, P.J.; Haddrell, V. A comparison of question scales used for measuring customer satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1996, 7, 4–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papagiannidis, S.; Pantano, E.; See-To, E.W.K.; Bourlakis, M. Modelling the determinants of a simulated experience in a virtual retail store and users’ product purchasing intentions. J. Mark. Manag. 2013, 29, 1462–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, T.; Chung, N.; Leue, M.C. The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tour. Manag. 2015, 49, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E.A. The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017, 98, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.; Wende, M.S.; Becker, J.M. Smart PLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Goodhue, D.L.; Lewis, W.; Thompson, R. Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Q. 2012, 36, 981–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2015, 81, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miles, J.N.V.; Shevlin, M.E. Applying Regression and Correlation: A Guide for Students and Researchers; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaviors Science, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Buhalis, D.; Harwood, T.; Bogicevic, V.; Viglia, G.; Beldona, S.; Hofacker, C. Technological disruptions in services: Lessons from tourism and hospitality. J. Serv. Manag. 2019, 30, 484–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.C. Food tourism reviewed. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro-Ruiz, S.; McKercher, B. The usability of visitor attractions: State-of-the-art. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Weber, J.; Buhalis, D. Gamification in tourism. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Tian, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J.; Zhang, H. Tourists as mobile gamers: Gamification for tourism marketing. J. Trav. Tour. Mark. 2016, 33, 1124–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J. Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourfakhimi, S.; Duncan, T.; Coetzee, W.J.L. Electronic word of mouth in tourism and hospitality consumer behaviour: State of the art. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 637–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, J.Y.; Buhalis, D. Information needs in online social networks. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2008, 10, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelet, J.-É.; Lick, E.; Taieb, B. The internet of things in upscale hotels: Its impact on guests’ sensory experiences and behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 4035–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | N | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 55 | 39.3% |
Female | 85 | 60.7% | |
Age | <25 | 1 | 0.7% |
25–35 | 4 | 2.9% | |
36–50 | 38 | 27.1% | |
51–65 | 75 | 53.6% | |
>65 | 22 | 15.7% | |
How often do you consume the Parmigiano Reggiano cheese? | Everyday | 68 | 48.6% |
Usually (1–2 times/week) | 59 | 42.1% | |
Sometimes (2–3 times/month) | 11 | 7.9% | |
Rarely (a few times/year) | 1 | 0.7% | |
Never | 1 | 0.7% | |
How many times have you visited a Parmigiano Reggiano dairy? | Never | 92 | 65.7% |
1 time | 27 | 19.3% | |
2 times | 6 | 4.3% | |
3 times | 5 | 3.6% | |
4 times | 10 | 7.1% | |
5 or more times | - | - |
Constructs | Factor Loadings | t-Values | C.A. * | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to visit a Parmigiano Reggiano dairy (INT) adapted from [21,38,72] | The likelihood that I’ll visit a Parmigiano Reggiano dairy in the future is high | 0.936 | 40.520 | 0.945 |
When possible, I’ll visit a Parmigiano Reggiano dairy | 0.951 | 91.028 | ||
I intend to visit a Parmigiano Reggiano dairy | 0.961 | 107.931 | ||
VR tour satisfaction (SAT) adapted from [67,73] | I am satisfied with the VR tour | 0.971 | 141.309 | 0.960 |
The VR tour met my expectations | 0.949 | 80.150 | ||
I am pleased to have been on the VR tour | 0.909 | 35.169 | ||
I am satisfied with the contents offered by the VR tour experience | 0.950 | 89.567 | ||
Enjoyment (ENJ) adapted from [1] | The VR tour was enjoyable | 0.955 | 106.016 | 0.949 |
The VR tour was captivating | 0.943 | 72.355 | ||
The VR tour was interesting | 0.912 | 39.330 | ||
The VR tour was funny | 0.916 | 44.124 | ||
Ease of use (EOU) adapted from [74] | The VR tour was easy to do | 0.948 | 93.244 | 0.944 |
It was easy to surf through the VR tour | 0.920 | 34.979 | ||
I have found that the VR tour experience offers a lot of interaction flexibility | 0.905 | 33.475 | ||
I had no difficulty using the VR tour | 0.927 | 50.592 | ||
Presence (PRE) adapted from [74] | During the VR tour, I had no external distractions | 0.867 | 30.933 | 0.916 |
During the VR tour, I felt in another world | 0.936 | 81.509 | ||
It was strange to come back to reality after experiencing the VR tour | 0.897 | 44.914 | ||
During the VR tour, I lost track of time | 0.872 | 26.864 | ||
Immersion (IMM) adapted from [45,53] | Not at all engrossed/Totally engrossed | 0.809 | 15.635 | 0.945 |
Not concentrated at all/Totally concentrated | 0.931 | 38.354 | ||
Not at all absorbed/Totally absorbed | 0.941 | 55.172 | ||
Not at all immersed/Totally immersed | 0.928 | 40.783 | ||
Not focused at all/Totally focused | 0.918 | 41.385 |
AVE * | CR * | INT | SAT | ENJ | EOU | PRE | IMM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INT | 0.901 | 0.965 | 0.949 | 0.758 | 0.633 | 0.687 | 0.654 | 0.287 |
SAT | 0.893 | 0.971 | 0.722 | 0.945 | 0.811 | 0.782 | 0.713 | 0.453 |
ENJ | 0.868 | 0.963 | 0.600 | 0.775 | 0.932 | 0.875 | 0.858 | 0.604 |
EOU | 0.856 | 0.960 | 0.650 | 0.746 | 0.860 | 0.925 | 0.861 | 0.507 |
PRE | 0.799 | 0.941 | 0.612 | 0.674 | 0.806 | 0.811 | 0.894 | 0.558 |
IMM | 0.822 | 0.958 | 0.271 | 0.434 | 0.575 | 0.484 | 0.528 | 0.907 |
Enjoyment | VR Tour Satisfaction | Intention | R2 Adjusted | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Immersion | 1.527 | |||
Presence | 2.143 | |||
Ease-of-use | 2.046 | 3.768 | ||
Enjoyment | 3.768 | 0.788 | ||
VR tour satisfaction | 1.000 | 0.619 | ||
Intention | 0.518 |
Hypothesis | Path | β | t-Value | f2 | Remarks |
H1 | Presence → Enjoyment | 0.255 | 3.730 *** | 0.100 | Supported |
H2 | Immersion → Enjoyment | 0.162 | 3.494 *** | 0.091 | Supported |
H3 | Ease-of-use → Enjoyment | 0.574 | 7.590 *** | 0.539 | Supported |
H4 | Ease-of-use → VR tour satisfaction | 0.304 | 2.131 ** | 0.064 | Supported |
H5 | Enjoyment → VR tour satisfaction | 0.513 | 3.799 *** | 0.183 | Supported |
H6 | VR tour satisfaction → Visit intention | 0.722 | 12.713 *** | 0.987 | Supported |
Indirect Paths | β | t-Value | |||
Presence → VR tour satisfaction | 0.131 | 2.691 ** | |||
Presence → Visit intention | 0.095 | 2.397 ** | |||
Immersion → VR tour satisfaction | 0.083 | 3.213 *** | |||
Immersion → Visit intention | 0.060 | 3.121 *** | |||
Ease-of-use → VR tour satisfaction | 0.295 | 5.669 *** | |||
Ease-of-use → Visit intention | 0.433 | 4.615 *** | |||
Enjoyment → Visit intention | 0.371 | 4.157 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Canio, F.; Martinelli, E.; Peruzzini, M.; Cavallaro, S. Experiencing a Food Production Site Using Wearable Devices: The Indirect Impact of Immersion and Presence in VR Tours. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053064
De Canio F, Martinelli E, Peruzzini M, Cavallaro S. Experiencing a Food Production Site Using Wearable Devices: The Indirect Impact of Immersion and Presence in VR Tours. Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):3064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053064
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Canio, Francesca, Elisa Martinelli, Margherita Peruzzini, and Sara Cavallaro. 2022. "Experiencing a Food Production Site Using Wearable Devices: The Indirect Impact of Immersion and Presence in VR Tours" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 3064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053064
APA StyleDe Canio, F., Martinelli, E., Peruzzini, M., & Cavallaro, S. (2022). Experiencing a Food Production Site Using Wearable Devices: The Indirect Impact of Immersion and Presence in VR Tours. Sustainability, 14(5), 3064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053064