BRINGING DINOSAURS INTO THE 2020S: CONSIDERING CURRENT
VISITATION AND FUTURE VIRTUAL TOURISM POSSIBILITIES FOR THE
TUMBLER RIDGE MUSEUM AND THE TUMBLER RIDGE UNESCO GLOBAL
GEOPARK (BC)
by
Yihang Zhang
B.A., Communication University of China, 2010

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
November 2024
© Yihang Zhang, 2024

Abstract
Designed in collaboration with the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the UNESCO Tumbler
Ridge Geopark, I adopted a mixed-methods approach in designing this project. My research
examines potential virtual tourism inclusions for the Geopark and the Museum, and considers
how these technologies can be used to enhance visitor experiences and accessibility. Core
project components are a literature review of virtual tourism technologies and possibilities
represented in the academic literature, and empirical data that I gathered via a visitor survey
and on-site observations in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada (summer 2022). My
literature review found inconsistencies in virtual tourism terminology. As a result, I am
proposing a new umbrella term, “virtual tourism experiences (VTEs),” to encourage clarity
and ease of access to this topic. VTEs include technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR),
Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), 360° photo view, live streaming, and
webcam-travel. All of these can be used to invite people to connect with remote places and/or
on-site experiences. VTEs can be employed engage people during different stages of a
user/visitor journey: pre-trip, during-trip, and post-trip. To clarify potential types and uses
with respect to trip stages, I am also forwarding a modified conceptual model. It illustrates
how various types of VTEs can be employed throughout the user/visitor journey. The
Tumbler Ridge visitor survey data that I collected and analyzed generally fits with prior
visitor data, but also provides new insights into stays and activities. It also raises some key
concerns and contrasting opinions about VTEs—some participants perceived VTEs as
potential helpful supplements to physical trips. Others raised concerns about VTEs as threats
to nature-based authenticity. My thesis closes with resulting tailored VTE recommendations
for the Tumbler Ridge Museum and Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Glossary ................................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 About Tumbler Ridge ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 About Virtual Tourism Experiences ................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Methodology And Methods............................................................................................. 4
1.4.1 A Literature Review .................................................................................................. 6
1.4.2 A Visitor Survey........................................................................................................ 7
1.4.3 On-Site Observation ................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2 Virtual Tourism Experiences And Their Use In Museums ......................................11
And Nature-Based Destinations ...............................................................................................11
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................11
2.2 Research Design .............................................................................................................11
2.3 Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................... 16
iii

2.3.1 VTE Use Throughout The User Journey (Before, During, And After Trip)........... 16
2.3.2 VTE Types And Technologies Used In Tourism .................................................... 19
2.3.3 VTE Use In Museums ............................................................................................ 32
2.3.4 VTE Use In A Nature-Based Context ..................................................................... 35
2.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 39
2.4.1 No Agreement On Terminology And Taxonomy .................................................... 39
2.4.2 Limitations Of VTE Research And Implementation In Tourism ............................ 41
2.4.3 Key Considerations For Tumbler Ridge, And Other Destinations With Museums
And Nature-Based Attractions ......................................................................................... 42
2.5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 3 Visitor Perceptions of Tumbler Ridge and Virtual Tourism Experiences .............. 45
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 45
3.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Methods: Visitor Surveys And Observation .................................................................. 46
3.3.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 46
3.3.2 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 47
3.3.3 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 48
3.4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.1 Tumbler Ridge Visitor Profile (Summer 2022) ...................................................... 49
3.4.2 Participant Perspectives On Virtual Tourism Experiences ..................................... 60

iv

3.4.3 Additional Observations, And Unexpected Benefits Of An In-Person Paper Survey
......................................................................................................................................... 65
3.5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 4 Discussion and Implications................................................................................... 70
4.1 Regional Appeal And Drive Tourism ............................................................................ 70
4.2 VTEs As A Way To Address Concerns About Distance And Age ................................. 72
4.3 VTES As Perceived Threats To Nature-Based Authenticity ......................................... 73
4.4 VTE Recommendations For The Tumbler Ridge Museum........................................... 76
4.5 VTE Recommendations For The Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark .............. 78
Chapter 5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 83
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 88
Appendix A Research Ethics Board (REB) Approval........................................................... 101
Appendix B TCPS 2: CORE 2022 Certificate ...................................................................... 105
Appendix C Information Letter / Consent Form For Visitors............................................... 106
Appendix D Tumbler Ridge Visitation Survey 2022 .............................................................110
Appendix E Information Letter / Consent Form For Businesses ...........................................119
Appendix F Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement ............................................... 123
Appendix G Copyright Clearance Center License Agreement ............................................. 125

v

List of Tables
Table 1 Criteria used for Web of Science search .................................................................... 13
Table 2 Included review papers .............................................................................................. 14
Table 3 Included research papers on VTEs and museums ..................................................... 15
Table 4 Included research papers on VTEs and parks and nature-based tourism .................. 16
Table 5 Participant demographics .......................................................................................... 50
Table 6 Single destination vs. multi-stop trips ....................................................................... 52
Table 7 Ways participants traveled to Tumbler Ridge ............................................................ 52
Table 8 Participant accommodation types .............................................................................. 53
Table 9 Participant length of stay ........................................................................................... 53
Table 10 Factors that attracted participants to Tumbler Ridge. .............................................. 55
Table 11 Participants’ planned activities ................................................................................ 55
Table 12 Participant prior VTE experiences .......................................................................... 61
Table 13 Stage of prior participant VTE experiences ............................................................ 61
Table 14 Purposes behind prior VTE use ............................................................................... 61
Table 15 Participant preferences for VTE Types.................................................................... 64

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1 Virtual and physical travel experiences as they relate to travel stages .................... 17
Figure 2 Potential VTE adoption during main travel stages .................................................. 18
Figure 3 Participant preferences for VTE Types .................................................................... 65
Figure 4 Recommended VTEs for the Tumbler Ridge Museum ........................................... 76
Figure 5 Recommended VTEs for the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark ............... 78

vii

Glossary
360° photo view: a panoramic-view image format that users can rotate and navigate
interactively using mouse or touchable screen.
AR: Augmented Reality, “the enhancement of a real-world environment using layers of
computer-generated images through a device” (Guttentag, 2010 and Jung et al., 2015,
as cited in Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019, p. 3).
Live streaming: a real-time video and audio transmission over the internet that allows users
to watch events or experiences remotely.
MR: Mixed Reality, an integration of VR and AR designed to combine reality and the virtual
world.
VR: Virtual Reality, “the use of a computer-generated 3D environment that the user can
navigate and interact with, resulting in real-time simulation of one or more of the
user’s five senses” (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017).
VTE: virtual tourism experiences, an umbrella term that I propose to represent all the various
types of technology-based tourism activities that use multimedia elements to create or
enhance interactive or immersive experiences for visitors that can be included.
Webcam-travel: the activity of observing places or destinations via a place-based webcam
(Jarratt, 2021).

viii

Acknowledgements
I would like to express sincere appreciation to all who helped during my Masters
degree. First, I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Zoe Meletis, for her constant
guidance, insightful input, as well as encouragement throughout the entire process of
research. Her expertise and kindness have been invaluable in helping me shape my work. I
also want to thank her for leadership on the MITACS Accelerate and RSIG Explore grants
that funded my initial internship and knowledge mobilization aspects. Special thanks to
Marcelo Mora from MITACS as well. Second, I want to thank the Tumbler Ridge Museum
Foundation and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark, particularly Zena Conlin, the
Executive Director of the Museum and Manda Maggs, the Executive Director of the
Geopark. Their collaboration and enthusiasm made the research process a very enjoyable
experience. I am grateful for having spent time in the stunning scenery and lovely
community of Tumbler Ridge, BC. Third, I truly acknowledge the local people, business
owners, and visitors to Tumbler Ridge who kindly volunteered their time, stories, and
perspectives. I am also thankful for the critical support from 2022 staff and summer students
from the Museum and the Tumbler Ridge Visitor Information Centre: Debby Gainor, Jenna
McQueen, Megan Lindahl, Kyra Bertrand, Daniella Brownrigg, Puneet Hundal, Shelby
Nickerson, Carissa Phalen, Ronan Deeley, Austin Bradley, Taylor Coonce, Daphne Belcourt,
and Andrea Sunción.
Lastly, I offer many thanks to my family and friends for their ongoing encouragement
and support. To my parents, thank you for always being there when I need. To my friends,
thank you for the company, gatherings, hikes, and incredible food.

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction
This study is an academic review of the literature on virtual tourism offerings,
combined with a case study of visitation and visitor perspectives on potential virtual tourism
inclusions in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia (BC), Canada. The research partners for this
project, Tumbler Ridge Museum Foundation and Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark,
are both considering future virtual inclusions. Both organizations are interested in keeping
the destination current and dynamic, and neither has the time to investigate the related
academic literature. As such, I designed this research to inform their future decision-making
about potential inclusions. I investigated virtual tourism experiences (VTEs) by consulting
the literature and integrating empirical data. I focused on travel motivations, expectations,
experiences, and perceptions of virtual tourism experiences. This project also specifically
emphasized VTEs used in nature-based destinations and museums given the local context
and partner specializations. In Tumbler Ridge, I used a visitor survey and observation to
think about potential virtual tourism integrations for the area. While I hope that academic
audiences will enjoy any resulting manuscripts from this thesis, the main purpose of this
project was to assist my partners in better understanding virtual tourism offerings and how
they might fit with future visitation to Tumbler Ridge.
1.1 About Tumbler Ridge
Tumbler Ridge is a small town in northern BC, Canada. Established in the 1980s as
the last “instant town” in BC, its roots are in coal mining—a history that continues to shape it
(Halseth & Sullivan, 2002). The town's reliance on the coal industry has made it sensitive to
shifts in global markets and regulatory changes. It should be noted that the Quintette Mine in
Tumbler Ridge returned to operation in 2024 after it closed in 2000 due to a decline in coal

1

prices (Petersen, 2024). The highs and lows of economic cycles have pushed leaders in
Tumbler Ridge to aim for greater economic diversification (Jackson & Illsley, 2006). As with
many other small rural towns in BC, recreation and tourism are part of this diversification
planning (Jackson & Illsley, 2006).
Attractions in the case study area for this project include the Tumbler Ridge
UNESCO Global Geopark and natural attractions within it such as dinosaur footprint trails
and waterfalls (Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark, n.d.). Despite its natural beauty,
the community faces logistical and accessibility-related challenges in drawing people to the
area and in facilitating visits. It is located at a great distance from large urban areas and main
highways. For example, it is approximately 4 hours from Prince George—the closest big city.
It lacks connections to regular air travel, trains, and other public transportation services. Also,
it currently offers limited accommodation and restaurant options. Accessibility challenges
impact both visitors and local residents, particularly seniors, whose love of trails remains
despite physical limitations. For these reasons, the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler
Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark are looking into VTEs as part of a possible suite of future
innovations. The goal is to connect/re-connect visitors and local users with their favourite
outdoor settings, while adding ways for prospective visitors (including return visitors) to
experience its beauty from a distance.
1.2 About Virtual Tourism Experiences
To date, there appears to be no widely accepted definition or classification of virtual
tourism inclusions. I am proposing the umbrella term virtual tourism experiences or VTEs to
include all the various types of interactions and formats in virtual sightseeing. I am doing this
to address inconsistent terminology use in the literature as it can create barriers to

2

understanding VTEs and their applications (see further discussion in Chapter 2). VTEs
include a host of different technological options that can be included as features associated
with an existing site or attraction, such as the 360-degree view tour provided by the Louvre
Museum (Louvre Museum, n.d.). Alternatively, a VTE can be an independent offering, acting
as a form of virtual travel (off-site). For instance, during COVID-19, both Airbnb
(https://www. airbnb.com) and Amazon Explore (https://www. amazon.com) developed
innovative online products that enable users to book live, interactive, virtual experiences led
by local experts/hosts around the world, and these can be experienced by people who will
never be on site.
In terms of actual trips that will take place, VTEs can be used at various stages.
During the pre-trip stage, VTEs can provide information for potential visitors and impact
their decision-making process (Beck et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2022; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore,
2017). For example, someone might first take an online tour and then decide to follow up
with an in-person visit. In the during-trip stage, visitors can experience VTE options such as
Virtual Reality (VR). This can be complemented with on-site offerings that can make the
trips more fascinating or informative (Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010; Lee et al., 2020).
VTEs can also serve as additional offerings during other parts of travel. Post-trip, they can be
used to relive favourite sites and experiences, and/or to add experiences not had in person
(Jarratt, 2021; Resta et al., 2021).
1.3 Research Questions
This project included a dual focus on the distinct aspects of tourism to Tumbler Ridge
and the concept of virtual experiences in tourism. I aimed to investigate how technological

3

resources can improve accessibility and visitor experiences in remote, nature-based
destinations like Tumbler Ridge. My study asked three questions:
1) What are virtual tourism experiences (VTEs), and what are common contemporary
types of virtual tourism experiences during the user journey (pre-, during-, and posttrip)?
2) What are Tumbler Ridge visitors’ experiences, and what are their perceptions of
potential VTE use in Tumbler Ridge?
3) What types of virtual tourism experiences are appropriate for the Tumbler Ridge
Museum, the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark, and other destinations like
these?
1.4 Methodology And Methods
I adopted a case study methodology to explore visitor perceptions of VTEs. In
tourism research, case studies are most often used with respect to tourism development,
tourism planning, and community perceptions of the impacts of tourism (Xiao & Smith,
2006). Case studies are also employed to investigate tourist experiences, destination
marketing and images, the segmentation of tourist markets, management issues (Xiao &
Smith, 2006), and tourism industry operations. I aimed to explore potential VTE adoption
associated with the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge
Museum, drawing upon a visitor survey on-site and literature review. A case study made
sense because I was seeking to explore the topic of VTEs as it applies to a particular place,
and grounded in data about larger phenomena (tourism; VTEs) playing out a particular
context.

4

The strengths of case study methodology include its ability to provide a holistic
understanding of the subject matter. It allows for exploring “why” or “how” research
questions rather than “how many” or “how often” questions and may contribute to research
topics with little or limited empirical evidence (Yin, 2014, as cited in Çakar & Aykol, 2021).
Building this case study was challenging as there is limited academic research and practical
information on tourism in Tumbler Ridge (exceptions include Halseth & Sullivan, 2002;
Hardy, 2023). Visitation data exists from annual surveys carried out by the Tumbler Ridge
UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum. However, most of the data
collected until now is quantitative and limited in scope. There is no detailed information on
tourist motivations, experiences, and preferences. I sought to collect data on such aspects to
inform recommendations about potential future VTEs for the area.
This project is meant to inform Tumbler Ridge Museum and Geopark planning and
marketing decisions about VTEs, over the next few years. I used mix-methods to collect data
in Tumbler Ridge, including a literature review on VTEs to answer my first research question
(Chapter 2) and a visitor survey to answer my second research question (Chapter 3). The
combination of qualitative and quantitative data collected offers a more comprehensive
understanding of my topic (Creswell and Creswell, 2023; Truong et al., 2020). It also offers
useful information for planning by destination decision makers (Hewlett & Brown, 2018).
The thesis closes with Chapter 4 which integrates findings and analyses from Chapters 2 and
3, and answers my third research question. Details on project methodology and methods can
be found in the two main chapters of this thesis but I offer some in the sections that follow.

5

1.4.1 A Literature Review
To answer my first research question, I conducted a literature review to gather
existing knowledge on VTEs, their types, applications, and impacts across different tourism
settings. This included a special focus on nature-based tourism destinations and museums,
and in the end-- an emphasis on review papers that surveyed across the literature, simplifying
trends and patterns. A literature review is a fundamental research method used to summarise
and integrate findings from previous studies to find trending topics, gaps, and developments
related to an area of study (Creswell and Creswell, 2023; Snyder, 2019). In tourism research,
literature reviews can be useful when investigating new topics such as VTEs, as prior
research is often spread across multiple disciplines such as technology, economy, psychology,
geography, marketing and management (Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019; Snyder, 2019). I
expected existing literature, especially review papers, to help me find clear definitions of
VTEs and to reveal common types of VTEs used in tourism (Snyder, 2019). Within the
review, I also paid attention to current VTEs in nature-based destinations and museums.
The strength of a literature review is its capacity to combine various sources of
information and provide a comprehensive examination of the topic at hand (Paulus et al.,
2014). Literature reviews can identify gaps where data is missing, leading researchers to
areas in need of further research (Creswell and Creswell, 2023). However, the shortcoming
of my review is that it is possible I missed some relevant papers. This could have been
exacerbated by the variety of terms and labels used (see details of search terms in Chapter 2).
For example, some research might have been missed due to the lack of consistent
terminology, such as those that use alternative phrases such as “smart tourism,” “digital tour,”
or “e-tourism”. This challenge is heightened by the fact that VTEs are an interdisciplinary

6

topic explored in various ways. This means, for example, that some essential research might
be in publications outside of the typical tourism journals that I was encountering. My focus
on review papers rather than on all possible papers on VTEs also limited the scope of my
review. Further, I only used the Web of Science academic database, potentially leaving out
research indexed in other academic databases (Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019). Constant
technological innovation also implies that the VTE environment is always changing. This
means that the latest VTE developments are not included in my literature review, as much of
it was done in 2022.
1.4.2 A Visitor Survey
I used a visitor survey to collect primary data from visitors, as existing and potential
VTEs users. Questionnaire-based surveys are increasingly used in tourism research to collect
data (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2021). I chose surveys as they are a valuable tool for investigating
people’s behaviours, experiences, social interactions, attitudes, perspectives, and
comprehension of events (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2021). Surveys are useful because they can
reach a large number of people and provide valuable data on individual and group
perspectives (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2021). This is particularly crucial in tourism research,
where considering visitor attributes, patterns, and preferences can help determine destination
management strategies and marketing approaches (Veal, 2006). Closed questions in surveys
are typically used to collect data about attributes (such as demographic information) and
behaviours (visiting habits, activity preferences, etc.) (Sarankatos, 2013), and results from
these tend to be aggregated into percentages or other representative numbers. Open-ended
questions allow participants to share details about their experiences and perceptions, as well
as explain their perspectives in their own words (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2021; Sarankatos,

7

2013). The use of both closed and open-ended questions enables a more complete
examination, combining quantitative data such as counts of answers like “yes” or “no” with
the depth of qualitative insights provided in answers to questions addressing “why” or “why
not” type inquiries.
My survey design was informed by discussions with project partners, data from prior
related surveys, and Tumbler Ridge tourism marketing materials. Survey questions explored
tourism experiences, tourism motivations, visitor perceptions of Tumbler Ridge, tourist
satisfaction, tourism offerings and related challenges and possibilities, as well as visitor
demographic information. I chose a face-to-face survey method instead of an online survey
as face-to-face surveys tend to have higher participation rates (Babbie, 2016). I used
purposive sampling, a sampling strategy often used in qualitative studies (Guest et al., 2013;
Sarankatos, 2013). Purposive sampling helps when the objective is to collect insights from a
selected group people who can provide relevant information about a certain topic
(Sarankatos, 2013). This can ensure data collected is more targeted and more relevant. My
sampling goal was to focus on visitors to Tumbler Ridge since they will be the main users of
VTEs. I also purposively sampled them at a few different known tourism sites in the area, to
include some diversity. My questionnaires included closed questions and open-ended
questions, and I was able to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. The responses to
closed questions resulted in basic statistics drawn from the answers, such as percentages or
frequency distributions, showing general trends of visits or visitors. Including open-ended
questions allowed me to invite more in-depth responses about perceptions, preferences, and
attitudes (e.g. regarding the quality of visitation experiences, and about visitor willingness to
use virtual tourism experiences, etc.).

8

Surveys also have drawbacks, such as the possibility of response bias affecting
answers and the limitations of self-reported data, which may not always accurately reflect
real behaviours or beliefs (Grigsby, R., 2001; Hoggart et al., 2002, as cited in McGuirk &
O'Neill, 2021). For example, participants may change their replies to make themselves sound
more socially acceptable or provide what they assume to be the “right” or “needed” answer
rather than their real opinion (Grigsby, R., 2001). Also, while purposive sampling allowed me
to focus on the visitor group and to ensure data collection at different sites, using a nonrandom sample means that my data is not generalizable to larger populations like simple
random sampling would be (McLafferty, 2016). This means that the findings from my
purposive sample should not be assumed to constitute representative data on visitation for
Tumbler Ridge.
1.4.3 On-Site Observation
During my 55-day stay in Tumbler Ridge in the summer of 2022, I also carried out
on-site observation that provided further qualitative insights into the local tourism
environment. My supervisor Dr. Zoe Meletis joined me for two weeks. On-site observation is
a useful method in qualitative research since it allows researchers to directly interact with the
place in person (Bailey, 2018; Creswell and Creswell, 2023; Sarankatos, 2013). This method
allowed me to participate in the daily life in Tumbler Ridge, to observe the local social
environment, to make connections with the local community, and to record my own
experiences (Watson, 2021). The power of observation is being able to record behaviours and
reactions in the moment, offering valuable details about the local community (Creswell and
Creswell, 2023; Watson, 2021). For example, walking the trails, seeking out signs, and
attempting to access services gave me greater insights into what visitors were writing and

9

telling me. On-site observation allowed me to observe local tourism infrastructure, services,
and accessibility concerns firsthand, which added valuable qualitative information into the
larger picture of tourism in Tumbler Ridge. It also allowed me to have informal discussions
with business owners, decision-makers, and residents, which helped me understand the
community's perspectives on tourism. Conducting the face-to-face survey also provided an
excellent opportunity to observe participant behaviours and reactions beyond survey answers
(May & Perry, 2022). The face-to-face approaches allowed me to invite comments during the
exact moments when people were noticing and thinking about aspects of their visits, which
extended greater discussion of emergent results. I also found that using and collecting paper
surveys allowed participants to add additional comments to the pages as well as to share
them orally. For instance, several participants annotated the edges of their surveys, and others
commented when returning the surveys, which would not have happened if the survey had
been conducted on-line.
On-site observation also has limitations. Observations can be subjective since they are
interpreted through the researcher's view and may be impacted by personal biases or
stereotypes (Grigsby, R., 2001; Iacono et al. 2009; Sarankatos, 2013). Also, given that my
fieldwork occurred within one summer during the COVID-19 period, my observations
and findings may not entirely reflect situations during other seasons or years (Sarankatos,
2013).

10

Chapter 2 Virtual Tourism Experiences And Their Use In Museums
And Nature-Based Destinations
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a review of VTEs in parks and museums— contexts most
relevant to the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum. It
is meant to serve both academic and applied audiences. The main audiences include my
research partners and academics who are looking for a comprehensive review of VTE types,
uses, and related research. It is also meant to inform future planning in Tumbler Ridge in
terms of potential VTE integration. I combined an academic literature review with an online
review or environmental scan of VTE offerings at relevant park sites, museum sites, and
geological tourism sites. This literature-based chapter aims to answer my first research
question: What are virtual tourism experiences (VTEs), and what are common
contemporary types of virtual tourism experiences during the user journey (pre,
during, and post-trip)? It also provides background information on VTE types, features,
functions, and applications, with special emphasis on parks and museums.
2.2 Research Design
To find research articles on VTE use in tourism, I used the Web of Science academic
database and employed search terms such as “virtual” AND “tourism”, “virtual” AND
“travel”, and “virtual” AND “tour”. This first general search yielded 6,164 articles. I then
refined the search to emphasize the tourism industry and to exclude overly technologyfocused articles on VTE product design, development, and optimization. I further refined the
results by selecting the following categories for inclusion: Hospitality Leisure Sport Tourism,
Geography, Archaeology, Geology, Humanities Multidisciplinary, and Social Sciences
Interdisciplinary. The search was limited to English-language articles, and early access
11

articles (articles available online with publication pending). This process narrowed the results
to 588 eligible articles (Table 1).
Next, I read the titles and abstracts and further screened selections. I only retained
review papers and studies discussing VTE products, product definitions, forms, types,
features, functions, application scenarios, impacts, advantages and disadvantages, and
comparisons of two or more VTEs. Over and above general articles about VTEs in a tourism
context, I selected articles about VTEs used to enhance destination image, tourist
experiences, and accessibility as those represent partner interests. Through this further
refinement, I narrowed the sample to 105 relevant articles. I then began reading papers more
deeply in order to respond to the research questions. The first goal I had was to define and
explain the various forms of VTEs. To do this, I drew heavily on review papers. Of the 105
relevant papers from Web of Science, I focused on 8 review papers to provide this
foundational piece (Table 2).
Then, to meet partner needs about specific existing and potential virtual relevance for
the Museum and Geopark, I used another two rounds of Web of Science searching. I used
combinations of search terms such as: 1. “virtual” AND “museum”; 2. “virtual” AND “park”,
“virtual” AND “nature”, “virtual” AND “outdoor”, “virtual” AND “mountain”, and “virtual”
AND “geopark”. I refined results using the same categories and criteria from the first round
of searching (See Table 1). This produced 345 results about VTEs and museums, while the
VTEs and park/nature combination yielded 579 results. Since my research partners are a
museum and a Geopark, I chose to exclude articles emphasizing VTE in hotels, restaurants,
and other hospitality settings. For the same reason, articles about games, online communities,
booking agencies, and themed tourism (e.g., wine tastings, theme parks, slum tourism, dark

12

tourism, etc.) unrelated to nature or museums were excluded. After checking abstracts for
relevance and removing duplicates, I identified 10 articles about VTEs and museums (Table
3) and 6 about VTEs and parks and nature-based tourism (Table 4) for further analysis.
Search terms

For definition and types of

“virtual” AND “tourism”, “virtual”

VTEs during the user journey

AND “travel”, and “virtual” AND
“tour”

For VTEs for the Museum

“virtual” AND “museum”

For VTEs for the Geopark

“virtual” AND “park”, “virtual” AND
“nature”, “virtual” AND “outdoor”,
“virtual” AND “mountain”, and
“virtual” AND “geopark”

Web of Science

Hospitality Leisure Sport Tourism, Geography, Archaeology, Geology,

categories

Humanities Multidisciplinary, and Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Document Types

Articles, Early Access

Languages

English

Table 1 Criteria used for Web of Science search

13

No. Authors

Title of article

VTE types
covered

1

Beck et al.,
2019

Virtual Reality In Tourism: A State-Of-The-Art Review

VR

2

Liang & Elliot, A Systematic Review Of Augmented Reality Tourism
2021
Research: What Is Now And What Is Next?

AR

3

Lin et al., 2022 Live Streaming In Tourism And Hospitality: A Literature
Review

Live
streaming

4

Moro et al.,
2019

Analysing Recent Augmented And Virtual Reality
Developments In Tourism

VR, AR

5

Pratisto et al.,
2022

Immersive Technologies For Tourism: A Systematic
Review

VR, AR

6

Wei, 2019

Research Progress On Virtual Reality (VR) And
Augmented Reality (AR) In Tourism And Hospitality A
Critical Review Of Publications From 2000 To 2018

VR, AR

7

Yung et al.,
2021

Virtual Reality And Tourism Marketing: Conceptualizing A VR
Framework On Presence, Emotion, And Intention

8

Yung & Khoo- New Realities: A Systematic Literature Review On Virtual VR, AR
Lattimore,
Reality And Augmented Reality In Tourism Research
2019

Table 2 Included review papers

14

No.

Authors

Title of article

VTE types covered

1

Angeloni,
2023

Digitization And Virtual Experience Of Museum
Collections. The Virtual Tour Of The Civic Art
Gallery Of Ancona

360° photo view

2

Carrozzino Beyond Virtual Museums: Experiencing
&
Immersive Virtual Reality In Real Museums
Bergamasco,
2010

VR

3

Errichiello
et al., 2019

Exploring The Implications Of Wearable Virtual
Reality Technology For Museum Visitors'
Experience: A Cluster Analysis

VR

4

He et al.,
2018

When Art Meets Tech: The Role Of Augmented
Reality In Enhancing Museum Experiences And
Purchase Intentions

AR

5

Lee et al.,
2020

Experiencing Immersive Virtual Reality In
Museums

VR

6

Resta et al.,
2021

The Impact Of Virtual Tours On Museum
360° photo view
Exhibitions After The Onset Of COVID-19
Restrictions: Visitor Engagement And Long Term
Perspectives

7

Serravalle et Augmented Reality In The Tourism Industry: A
al., 2019
Multi-Stakeholder Analysis Of Museums

AR

8

Trunfio &
Campana,
2020

A Visitors' Experience Model For Mixed Reality
In The Museum

MR

9

Trunfio et
al., 2022

Mixed Reality Experiences In Museums:
MR
Exploring The Impact Of Functional Elements Of
The Devices On Visitors’ Immersive Experiences
And Post-Experience Behaviours

10

Zollo et al.,
2022

How Do Museums Foster Loyalty In Tech-Savvy VTEs including VR,
Visitors? The Role Of Social Media And Digital AR, videos,
Experience
touchscreens, and
‘smart’ devices
Table 3 Included research papers on VTEs and museums

15

No. Authors

Title of article

VTE types covered

1

Clark &
Nyaupane,
2022

Understanding Millennials' Nature-Based
Tourism Experience Through Their
Perceptions Of Technology Use And Travel
Constraints

VR/AR (and non-VTE types
of technology, including GPS,
digital cameras, video
cameras, music devices, cell
phones, drones, wi-fi at site,
and laptops with wireless
access)

2

Jarratt, 2021

An Exploration Of Webcam-Travel:
Connecting To Place And Nature Through
Webcams During The COVID-19
Lockdown Of 2020

Webcam-travel

3

Orru et al.,
2019

Satisfaction With Virtual Nature Tour: The
Roles Of The Need For Emotional Arousal
And Pro-Ecological Motivations

The type of the virtual tour
was not clarified in the
research methods, but it might
be VR or semi-immersive VR
video, since VR was discussed
in the literature.

4

Skard et al.,
2021

How Virtual Reality Influences Travel
Intentions: The Role Of Mental Imagery
And Happiness Forecasting

360° photo view using VR
headsets VS 2D pictures of
the same images on smart
phones

5

tom Dieck et Tourists' Virtual Reality Adoption: An
al., 2018
Exploratory Study From Lake District
National Park

6

Wu & Lai,
2022

VR

The Use Of 360-Degree Virtual Tours To
VR
Promote Mountain Walking Tourism:
Stimulus-Organism-Response Model
Table 4 Included research papers on VTEs and parks and nature-based tourism
2.3 Findings and Discussion
2.3.1 VTE Use Throughout The User Journey (Before, During, And After Trip)
Aspects of the tourism and travel process begin before a visitor arrives on site, and
they continue after a visitor has returned home. It is, therefore, not surprising that VTEs can
be included in various ways at different points in the tourism experience (Figure 1). They can
be incorporated pre-trip to prepare and plan, such as, using a 360-degree view map to explore

16

a destination and determine what to visit. They can also be employed during a trip to enhance
experiences. This might include using VR headsets in a museum to gain additional
information and perspectives. VTEs can also be used post-trip to recall memories or to share
experiences with others. For example, this might include revisiting a destination via an online
video tour or sharing such a tour with friends and family unfamiliar with the destination.

Figure 1 Virtual and physical travel experiences as they relate to travel stages
(Conceptual Model: Technology Enhanced Destination Experiences, Neuhofer et al., 2012, p.
42)
In addition to being used across multiple trip phases, VTEs can be used to supplement
trips or as standalone experiences that act as tourism replacements. For example, people can
pre-explore a destination using a 360-degree view map to help them decide if they want to

17

add a destination or activity to an upcoming trip. People can also choose to watch a TikToker
travel around the world for pure entertainment value rather than for trip preparation purposes.
VTEs can be used on-site and remotely. For instance, a VR tour can be taken from one’s
home with personal VR headsets, or on-site, as part of the overall suite of activities in a
museum or other venue. This study explored documented VTE uses across travel stages.
In addition to proposing the unifying term VTE, I suggest a modified
conceptualization of VTEs, how they fit with each other, how they can be used at various
stages of travel (and non-travel), and experienced on and off-site. Building on Neuhofer et
al.’s (2012) conceptual model, I am proposing this conceptualization of VTE use in travel:

Figure 2 Potential VTE adoption during main travel stages

18

Pre-trip, VR, AR, 360° photo view, live streaming, and webcam-travel offer ways for
travellers in the planning stages to explore places, do research, and to make choices about
their forthcoming visits. During a trip, VR, AR, and MR can enhance traveller experiences by
offering additional immersive engagements and/or adding virtual environments on top of
physical environments. In the post-trip stage, travellers can recapture memorable moments
using VR, AR, 360° photo view, or Webcam-travel, share them with others, and create longlasting recollections.
I did not find evidence of 360° photo view, live streaming, and webcam-travel use
during trip in the articles I reviewed. One of the reasons could be that these three types of
VTEs offer actual real-world scenes. While visitors are on-site, real-world scenarios are
nearby. Therefore, they might not need assistance with or simulation of the very same scenes
via VTEs. Furthermore, live streaming and webcam-travel can be time-consuming. Users
typically have to spend a certain amount of time on devices watching live streaming or
webcams (Jarratt, 2021, p. 121). While on site, visitors might prefer to focus on physical
movement and experiences rather than to spend time on screen. Post-trip, live streaming
might be less appealing because visitors might prefer to share photos and videos collected
during their own trip since those represent unique travel moments rather than generic
footage.
2.3.2 VTE Types And Technologies Used In Tourism
In conducting this review, I could not find a clear, unified, agreed upon or oft-cited
definition for VTE. Further, there were no clearly defined or agreed upon categories or types
of VTEs. The common types of VTE applications in the literature reviewed include Virtual
Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), 360° photo view, live

19

streaming, and webcam-travel. I will now offer details on these types of VTEs and how they
might be used.
2.3.2.1 Virtual Reality. Of the 8 review articles I examined, 6 specifically address
VR. Within the 24 articles I reviewed in all, VR is discussed in 15. In contrast, the combined
number of articles covering 360° photo view, live streaming, and webcam use only amounted
to 5. These imbalances indicate the uneven coverage and treatment that exist within this
literature.
Inconsistent terminology also emerged in terms of how VR is discussed in the articles
I reviewed. For one, the terms virtual environment, VR, and virtual worlds are used
inconsistently and without clear definitions provided (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017).
Despite this, VR can generally be understood as “the use of a computer-generated 3D
environment that the user can navigate and interact with, resulting in real-time simulation of
one or more of the user’s five senses” (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017, p. 2, citing Burdea &
Coiffet, 2003; Gutierrez, Vexo, & Thalmann, 2008; Guttentag, 2010).
Focusing on tourism, Beck et al. (2019) state that VR:
creates a virtual environment by the provision of synthetic or 360-degree real life
captured content with a capable non-, semi-, or fully-immersive VR system, enabling
virtual touristic experiences that stimulate the visual sense and potentially additional
other senses of the user for the purpose of planning, management, marketing,
information exchange, entertainment, education, accessibility, or heritage
preservation, either prior to, during, or after travel. (Beck et al., 2019, p. 591)

20

In addition to understanding VR, its different possible formats, and how it is typically
experienced, it is important to consider the range of immersion levels. There are three levels
of immersion: non-immersive, semi-immersive, and fully immersive (Beck et al., 2019). The
main types of VR used in tourism include:
1) Fully immersive virtual use a headset and 360-degree video views for artificial
experiences;
2) Semi-immersive VR tours display 360-degree movies on a projector's screen or
wall; and
3) Non-immersive VR tours involve 360-degree synthetic or realistic images
displayed on regular-size computer screens (Beck et al., 2019)
The application of VR in tourism contexts can span all stages of the travel experience.
It can be used in pre-trip preparation, as part of during-trip exploration, and also as part of
post-trip information sharing. Firstly, VR can be used pre-trip, to provide information (Beck
et al., 2019, citing Rainoldi et al., 2018; Tussyadiah et al., 2018), as well as to pre-test or
compare destinations during trip planning (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017, citing Cheong,
1995; Berger et al., 2007; Guttentag, 2010). Secondly, VR can be utilized during-trip, in the
form of on-site VR experiences at sites such as museums (Beck et al., 2019, citing Cheong,
1995; Hobson and Williams, 1995; Guttentag, 2010; Loizides et al., 2014; Jung et al., 2016).
Last, post-trip VR allows users to share user-generated content from their trip (Marasco et al.,
2018, as cited in Beck et al., 2019).
In addition to facilitating trip planning, trip activities, and trip memory sharing, VR
also has destination marketing applications. VR can be used to increase engagement, evoke

21

favourable feelings, produce suggestions, support sustainability objectives, enable virtual
access to varied destinations, and to reduce barriers to access (e.g., physical, financial,
cultural, and temporal). VR is an effective tool for destination marketing because enhanced
engagement can heighten emotional connections to a place (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017,
citing Huang et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2016; Kim & Hardin, 2010). According to research by
Skard et al. (2021), participants using VR had greater “predicted happiness” than those
limited to 2D experiences (p. 4). Building on prior research, they also suggest links between
VR use, predictive happiness, mental imagery, and increased purchase intentions (ibid).
Furthermore, the use of VR can increase positive word-of-mouth (Griffin et al., 2017, as
cited in Beck et al., 2019 and Yung et al., 2021) as well as users’ curiosity to compare the real
place to the VR version (Pantano and Servidio, 2011, as cited in Yung & Khoo-Lattimore,
2017). Therefore, allowing potential visitors to explore remote destinations such as Tumbler
Ridge via VR may stimulate their desire to visit. VR can also increase accessibility to sites
and attractions for individuals who would normally face obstacles in trying to reach them
(Beck et al., 2019, citing Hobson and Williams, 1995; Salter and Sanchez-Vives, 2016), by
bringing destinations or elements of sites to them.
VR can be used in lieu of travel as well. VR can be interpreted as a form of
sustainable travel since it does not include the same degree of negative impacts associated
with actual travel (Wiltshier and Clarke, 2016, as cited in Beck et al., 2019). VR can also be
used to offer virtual access to protected areas, including those with limits to visitation (e.g.,
science-only areas of parks with limited entry). It can also be used to travel to imaginary
places and places that no longer exist (Beck et al., 2019, citing Hobson and Williams, 1995;
Sussmann and Vanhegan, 2000; Egger, 2016) as well as places that are now closed to visitors.

22

In addition to possible uses and benefits, VR also has shortcomings. VR raises
challenges to do with authenticity for some visitors and some destinations (Beck et al., 2019,
citing Hobson & Williams, 1995; Dewailly, 1999). VR travel can be characterised as less
authentic than actual travel experiences because it cannot fully replicate travel and visitation
experiences in terms of physicality, sensory richness (e.g., smelling and tasting food), and
chance encounters with people. A prospective tourist’s willingness to embrace VR as a
replacement for traditional tourism is a key factor and varies widely (Guttentag, 2010, as
cited in Beck et al., 2019). Therefore, although VR can bring benefits such as increasing
accessibility and reducing undesirable environmental impacts, many are not yet ready to
embrace it as a replacement for travel. With this in mind, viewing VR as a possible
complement to travel and visitation rather than a substitute makes more sense for some
scholars (Beck et al., 2019, citing Musil and Pigel, 1994; Hobson and Williams, 1995;
Sussmann & Vanhegan, 2000; Guttentag, 2010; Mura et al., 2017; Slater and Sanchez-Vives,
2016).
In addition to psychological and sensory limitations, not all bodies react equally well
to VR technology and equipment. Motion sickness and related symptoms such as discomfort,
dizziness, nausea, and vomiting feelings can detract from VR use and satisfaction with VR
experiences (Williams and Hobson, 1995, as cited in Beck et al., 2019). Since motion
sickness remains a barrier to uptake, use, and satisfaction, more research should be conducted
on its presence in VR use. The resulting information could be used to refine user experiences.
It could also be used to improve its accessibility of individuals with physical or mobility
restrictions—a group that could particularly benefit from travel and visitation via VR.

23

2.3.2.2 Augmented Reality. I analyzed AR applications in 9 of the reviewed articles.
AR is generally defined as “the enhancement of a real-world environment using layers of
computer-generated images through a device” (Guttentag, 2010 and Jung et al., 2015, as cited
in Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019, p. 3). AR typically adds additional virtual elements to real
life user experiences (Azuma et al., 2001, as cited by Liang & Elliot, 2020). This is in
contrast with VR, which completely immerses the user in a virtual environment. AR usually
requires the use of equipment such as smartphones, smart glasses, laptops, or tablets (Liang
& Elliot, 2020). For example, people might use a smartphone camera viewfinder to scan a
poster or sign to gain additional information about the attraction or something within it (Yung
& Khoo-Lattimore, 2017). Museums can use AR to bring exhibits to life. Via AR applications
on mobile devices (a phone or a tablet, for example), visitors can be invited to access extra
information, experience interactive displays, or view 3D reconstructions associated with reallife items or exhibits. Wearable smart glasses with a built-in AR system can be employed in
museums as well, but these entail additional costs (Pratisto et al., 2022). Smart glassesassociated AR provides a more immersive experience for users than AR applications linked
only to mobile devices. The glasses can also offer a more appealing balance between the
physical item and the AR add-ons (Mason 2016, as cited in Pratisto et al., 2022). Another
form of AR adoption in tourism is the use of an AR destination guide that allows tourists to
scan their surroundings with AR applications on phones or AR-enabled devices. In doing
this, the user typically receives information about nearby attractions, restaurants, and points
of interest. Visitors can gain historical context, fun facts, and reviews of the places as they
interact with scan-ready elements of their surroundings.

24

My review did not yield many details about the phased use of AR (pre, during, and
post-trip). When the user is physically situated at a tourism destination, AR is considered the
most appropriate technology to adopt (Pratisto et al., 2022). It is also a sound choice for
increasing user satisfaction while on site, bolstering their desire to re-visit (Jung et al., 2016;
tom Dieck and Jung, 2018; Tussyadiah et al., 2018, as cited by Liang & Elliot, 2020). For
instance, lingering scannable entrance tickets can act as souvenirs that can be used to reignite AR content post-trip (Lee et al., 2017, as cited in Pratisto et al., 2022).
Whether employing AR in museums or other environments, the most essential
requirement is high quality content (Dueholm & Smed, 2014, Jung et al., 2015, and tom
Dieck & Jung, 2015, as cited in Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017). Since AR can be used to
augment information provision in an interactive way, it is a good fit with heritage and
museum-type settings (Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017). For example, the participants in a
study at a Danish museum welcomed the use of novel AR components in the space and
responded positively to the associated increased engagement (Dueholm & Smed's, 2014, as
cited in Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017).
2.3.2.3 Mixed Reality. MR is an integration of VR and AR that is designed to
combine reality and the virtual world. This allows users to interact with objects in both the
virtual world and the real world as part of the user experience (Yusoff et al., 2011, as cited in
Beck et al., 2019). The most advanced current MR product is the newly released Apple
Vision Pro. Apple Vision Pro does not require a screen, keyboard, or mouse. Instead, digital
material is displayed on top of the physical surroundings, mixed in with the actual
environment. Users use their hands, voice, and eyes to navigate through this combined world.
Rather than acting like blinders to the real world, MR headsets such as the Apple Vision Pro

25

allow people around them to see each other, moving freely between virtual and real
components.
MR and its effects are analyzed in 2 of the articles I reviewed, and the lead author on
both of them is Trunfio. Both investigate MR use in Italian museums. In each, they
conducted research with users who had experienced MR on site. Trunfio & Campana (2020)
built a new model to assess the impact of MR on visitor experiences and satisfaction. They
highlighted the potential of human-technology interaction in the museum to enhance cultural
preservation, virtual accessibility, and cultural diffusion. Trunfio et al. (2022) also examined
the relationship between MR experiences and post-experience intentions and behaviours.
They inquired about the intention to revisit, links to the museum's authenticity, and
participant intentions to engage with technologies. However, my review highlights a lack of
research on MR use pre-trip and post-trip.
2.3.2.4 360° Photo View. My review did not capture much information on the use of
360° photo view. Only 3 of the 24 papers focus on the 360° photo view. These articles are
also illustrative of the confusing and inconsistent use of terminology in VTE scholarship as
they contain inconsistent definitions and uses of the term “virtual tour.” Resta et al. (2021)
and Angeloni (2023) both use “virtual tour” to label 360° photo view tours. It is important to
note that virtual tours can also refer to VR tours, video tours, etc. For this reason, I think it is
useful to separate out 360° photo views as distinct from other kinds of virtual tours. Typical
360° photo view examples are Google Earth and Google Street View on Google Maps. Some
360° photo views can be experienced through VR devices, but VR devices are not required
for all. Visual effects are the primary experience that a 360° photo view offers, while sound
effects are optional. Voiceovers, videos, and other types of popup content are available upon

26

clicking (Resta et al., 2021; Angeloni, 2023). These research papers indicate that some 360°
photo views are compatible with VR headsets (Skard et al., 2021). Google Arts & Culture
(formerly Google Art Project) is also mentioned as a way to let users “walk” virtually around
galleries, enjoying works of art (Proctor, 2011, as cited in Angeloni, 2023).
Museums can also incorporate 360° photo views (Resta et al., 2021; Angeloni, 2023).
The 360° photo view documented in these papers cited above allows visitors to interactively
move around museums. By clicking the mouse or touching the screen, users can control the
tour and the visual landscape they move through. 360° photo view can also be adopted in
outdoor nature-based destinations. Compared with 2D still images, the use of 360° photo
view via VR headsets can facilitate participants’ mental imagery of a destination and
“predicted happiness” (Skard et al., 2021, p. 2), even when image content is the same. 360
photo view can also be used pre-trip and post-trip. It can be used to facilitate travel planning,
add to pre-trip excitement, to prompt ticket purchases, and to augment post-trip memories
(Resta et al., 2021; Skard et al., 2021). I did not encounter much discussion about the use of
360° photo view during trips.
2.3.2.5 Live Streaming. Lin et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of the
literature on the use of live streaming in tourism and hospitality. Although live streaming is
popular on social media in the tourism sector, this is the only review article I found that
focuses on the use of live streaming in tourism. In tourism and travel, live streaming is
currently used to display real-time scenery, to capture and share experiences, and to advertise
travel destinations and tourism products (Deng et al., 2019 and Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2020,
as cited in Lin et al., 2022: p. 298-299). This includes offering online tours of hotel rooms in
collaboration with celebrities or influencers. This allows for leveraging the “celebrity effect”

27

to attract user attention (Lau, 2020, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). It also allows for the
incorporation of in-stream associated discounts.
Live streaming can be used pre-trip as well. Lin et al. (2022) analyzed user
perspectives on the use of live streaming in different stages of trips. Pre-trip, live streaming
may inform and speed up potential visitors’ decision-making processes (Dai et al., 2022, as
cited in Lin et al., 2022). First, live streaming encourages pre-trip visitation, adding “travel
inspiration” (Dai et al., 2022, p. 1). By presenting beautiful vistas or destination features
during live streaming, tourism providers can create a positive destination image for viewers.
This in turn can help to stimulate the desire for a return visit (Xu et al., 2021, as cited in Lin
et al., 2022). Tourism providers can employ live streaming’s unedited nature to create realtime videos and audio effects that contribute to an immersive, authentic, trustworthy
environment before visitors arrive (Deng et al., 2019, Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2020, and
Zhang et al., 2021, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). Moreover, the unedited nature of live
streaming guarantees authenticity. The focus is on actual places and events, fostering
connection and trust. This authentic peek into a destination enhances destination image and
encourages visitation (Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2020 and Zhang. et al., 2021, as cited in Lin et
al., 2022). Second, live streaming provides information about the destination, attractions,
accommodations, and tourism activities, which can aid in trip planning (pre-trip). Live
streaming can also facilitate direct communication between tourism providers and potential
visitors. Viewers can ask questions and receive instant responses from the liver steaming
host, providing a personalized touch to their pre-trip planning and saving them research time
(Parise et al., 2016 and Buhalis & Sinarta, 2019, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). Third, live
streaming can also offer special discounts to incentivize purchases (Zhou et al., 2021 and Xie

28

et al., 2022, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). Such interactions and time-limited exclusive benefits
can foster a sense of urgency. This can prompt potential visitors to make reservations before
the live streaming ends (Zhou et al., 2021, as cited in Lin et al., 2022).
During trips, live streaming can help viewers experience places and activities that
they might not be able to access, afford, or otherwise experience in reality. Live streaming,
therefore, represents an alternative to travel for those facing physical accessibility, financial,
or temporal challenges to taking trips or visiting sites they are interested in (Lin et al., 2022).
Dolnicar & Talebi (2020) suggest that live streaming can offer deeper insights into culture
than firsthand travel (as cited in Lin et al., 2022)
Research on the post-trip impacts of live streaming is still limited (Lin et al., 2022).
There is some scholarship that suggests that live-streamed videos can also be recorded,
replayed, and shared to recall memories and emotions related to travel experiences
(Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009 and Fan et al., 2020, as cited in Lin et al., 2022).
In addition to pre, during, and post-trip use, live streaming can be a standalone
experience. This strategy has the potential for protected geo-heritage sites and terrains and
vistas that are less accessible (Tormey, 2019, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). It can also act as a
tool for alleviating overcrowding by offering a digital alternative, as well as providing a more
pristine or solitary experience than a crowded real-life experience might offer for the same
site (Alshawaaf & Lee, 2021, as cited in Lin et al., 2022). Such options might be very useful
for sites under pressure to decrease visitation and crowding. In overcrowded destinations,
implementing live streaming can help reduce the stress on local and nearby traffic, resources,
and infrastructure. Additionally, using live streaming as a substitute for travel reduces
tourism-associated carbon emissions created by transportation (Lin et al., 2022). This fits
29

with ongoing efforts to reduce the negative impacts of tourism and to increase the industry
sustainability, particularly given the ongoing climate crisis. Live streaming offers a
sustainable way to display natural beauty and historical assets in protected areas and geoheritage type sites without further contributing to undesirable impacts or endangering a site.
Redirecting some people to online experiences can alleviate pressure while still maintaining
connections with visitors (prospective, current, and past). With this approach, the beauty and
cultural value of places can be preserved for present and future generations.
2.3.2.6 Webcam-Travel. While many of us might associate webcams with virtual
work meetings, or with online socializing, webcams can also be used in tourism. They are
currently employed at Niagara Falls in Canada, at the Statue of Liberty and at the Grand
Canyon in the US, at the Abbey Road Crossing in the UK, and at Pattaya Beach in Thailand.
Many tourist attractions have webcams on www.earthcam.com that offer virtual connections
and help to promote visitation. Despite this use, I could not find much information on such
uses in the scholarly literature. As with the live streaming-related search, I could only find
one article specifically about webcam use in tourism. The article was written by Jarratt in
2021 and examines the webcam travel experiences during COVID-19 lockdown. Jarratt
(2021) suggests the term “webcam-travel” as the activity of observing places or destinations
via a place-based webcam. Place-based webcams are usually fixed in one place. Sometimes,
they allow users to move within a horizontal or vertical plane, extending their control and
viewscape to the surroundings around the webcam (Koskela, 2011, as cited in Jarratt, 2021).
The footage or feed from such cameras is usually live and unedited. However, the experience
differs from live streaming since there is less potential for interaction because there is no
interactive live streamer or host on the other end—simply a piece of equipment. Webcams

30

may also have a minor delay. For instance, Yellowstone National Park has one live-streaming
webcam of the Old Faithful Geyser and nine static webcams of other scenes on the Park’s
official website (Yellowstone National Park, n.d.). The webcam footage of Old Faithful
Geyser is live (Yellowstone Forever, n.d.), while the other 9 are static, only refreshing every
30 seconds or so.
When compared with VR, webcam travel has some unique features, as identified by
Jarratt (2021): 1) webcams are typically used to show unedited 2D footage of the real world,
whereas VR provides a curated 3D virtual immersive environment; 2) webcams are live,
while VR is usually not real-time; and 3) a webcam is easy to use and has minimal costs,
whereas VR technology is more complicated and costs much more.
Despite the reduced potential for interaction and user-directed control, webcam travel
has many benefits. Furthermore, some webcams are quite popular. For example, EarthCam is
one of the most popular webcam-centered websites, and it is visited by 7 million users every
month (Crunchbase, 2020, as cited in Jarratt, 2021). According to Jarratt’s study, webcam
travellers reported feeling positive and relaxed, as well as experiencing a sense of freedom.
Participants who had been there before experienced nostalgia while watching. Further,
participants reported a sense of connection to places they travelled to via webcams, with 69%
sharing a willingness to visit the physical spaces in person (Jarratt, 2021, p. 161). Jarrat’s
study also suggested that 66% of participants were interested in using webcam footage to
travel to places that they had already visited, and 83% of that 66% reported that viewing
through the webcams evoked happy memories (Jarratt, 2021, p. 165). This suggests that
webcam-travel can be used post-trip to augment place attachment, which may bring return
visits and/or visitation to new places.

31

This documented webcam-associated sense of connection has implications for areas
such as Tumbler Ridge. Webcam travel could be used as a travel substitute, virtually drawing
people into the area, and/or as a destination marketing tool where people might interact
virtually first and follow up by visiting in person. For places like Tumbler Ridge, with a
limited local population size and tourism infrastructure in place, catering to virtual visitors
might also be easier and/or put less strain on the actual place.
2.3.3 VTE Use In Museums
My literature review yielded 10 articles about VTE adoption in museums. These
articles discuss various combinations of VR, AR, and MR, and two of them focus on the use
of 360° photo view (Resta et al., 2021; Angeloni, 2023). For museums and galleries, VTEs
can help to enhance online visitor experiences, on-site museum visits, or a combination of
both (Angeloni, 2023; Bekele et al., 2018; Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010; Errichiello et al.,
2019; Lee et al., 2020; Resta et al., 2021; Trunfio & Campana, 2020).
First, VTEs provide added value to museum visits. For example, a relatively recent
study examined visitor perceptions after their use of on-site VR at the cultural attraction of
the San Teodoro Palace in Naples, Italy (Errichiello et al. 2019). Results indicate that the VR
application enhanced the visitor experience and had a positive effect on related behaviour
intentions after visiting the Palace (ibid). A study conducted in the Museum of Pure Form
(Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010) highlighted that visitors invited to “touch” statues via a
VR haptic interaction, reported an enhanced experience. VR touching in this case allowed
visitors to engage in an activity typically prohibited for curatorial reasons. The VR haptic
interaction also helps to overcome the barrier that prevents blind and visually challenged
individuals from enjoying artwork in visual form. The haptic device requires trained

32

operators, representing a significant expense and a barrier for some organizations and
facilities (Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010).
Museum exhibitions with AR features can also allow people to put themselves into
exhibitions. For example, the recent KAWS: FAMILY exhibition at the Art Gallery of
Ontario, Canada, invited people to use their phones to make iconic statues Augmented
Reality by artist Kaws appear on empty platforms. Visitors could then move their arms
through them and take photos with them (Cox, 2023-2024). A study on MR at the Ara Pacis
Museum in Rome emphasized the novelty and innovation that an MR component can add
increasing visitor satisfaction (Trunfio & Campana, 2020). This museum's MR visitor
experience model measures museum information, customization, format, usability,
information saving, interaction, and experiences that MR brings to visitors.
Another way that VTEs can be used to augment visitor experiences and add to visitor
satisfaction is by expanding visitor access to museum collections. VTEs can be used to grant
visitors access to items in museum storage (Resta et al., 2021). This is useful since it is
common for museums to host travelling exhibitions, keeping some of their collections in
storage at all times. In the study by Resta et al. (2021) at the Troya Müzesi (Troy Museum) in
Çanakkale, Turkey, a participant noted that VTEs allow museums to digitally display items
that would otherwise be restricted to archives or storage spaces. Visitors can experience
unique “behind the scenes” materials and explanations as well, on or offsite, via VIP access
and information provision. In another study, visitors to the Civic Art Gallery of Ancona in
Italy reported enjoying the enhanced authenticity provided by a museum 360° photo view
tour of museum contents (Angeloni, 2023). The use of a 360° photo view can provide visitors
with gigapixel image experiences that allow them to explore greater details about existing

33

exhibits. For example, gigapixel images can show visitors pieces or exhibition features that
are invisible to the naked eye by zooming in and out on items of interest. Virtual elements
can also be added to complement physical features or service amenities, extending a
museum’s capacity beyond its actual physical limits. For example, related YouTube videos or
audio components can be added as additional information to the physical museum contents
(Angeloni, 2023). The virtual options can go beyond current timelines, taking visitors back to
historical eras.
Moreover, in museums, as is the case more generally, VTEs can offer complementary
experiences pre-trip or post-trip (Resta et al., 2021). Used as part of pre-trip preparation,
VTEs have the potential to encourage and inform visitation. For example, Lee et al. (2020)
suggest that the use of an immersive VR environment can improve virtual museum tour
experiences, positively shaping intentions to visit museums in person. Angeloni (2023) also
found users who have tested the 360° photo view are interested in visiting exhibitions in
person and engaging in additional VTE experiences. VTEs can also be used to facilitate
memory sharing and word-of-mouth marketing post-trip. In Errichiello et al.'s (2019)
research, respondents who experienced wearable VR applications at the San Teodoro Palace
reported being likely to use VR applications in the future. They also wanted to share their VR
visit experiences via social media. This was especially true for participants who rated the VR
experience highly (Errichiello et al., 2019).
Those in charge of visitation to galleries, museums, and other tourist destinations
might be concerned that investing in VTE available off site could detract from actual on-site
visitation. In the literature reviewed, this concern does not seem to play out as a negative
impact of VTE use. Following participant use of off-site VTEs, they are generally reported as

34

interested in actual exhibits and other on-site features. Users are also enthusiastic about
trying other VTEs (Angeloni, 2023). For example, in one study in Çanakkale, Turkey, most
participants (62%) virtually visiting the Troya Müzesi (Troy Museum), did not report a
reduction in their willingness to visit in person (Resta et al., 2021). Participants affirmed that
museums function as places for cultural enjoyment and social interaction—sites that they
wanted to continue visiting in person. They suggested that virtual experiences could not act
as substitutes for actual visits. For example, one participant emphasized the “materiality of an
object, its nuances, and details” (Resta et al., 2021, p. 157). The spatial presence, the smells,
the sound, and the light in the physical environment were reported as qualities not yet easily
reproduced virtually. Study participants suggested on-site virtual experiences in physical
museums as preferable to fully online experiences (Resta et al., 2021).
2.3.4 VTE Use In A Nature-Based Context
As indicated, I was particularly interested in VTE applications that fit well with
nature-based tourism features and areas because my research partners are linked to geological
features, natural landscapes, hikes, fossils, tracks, trails, etc. My literature review yielded 6
articles about research on VTEs in parks or nature-based destinations. The articles I found
address VR, 360° photo view, and webcam-travel. I found examples of using VR with naturebased content, such as trying out trails’ pre-visit VR videos of Dinghu Mountain, China using
a VR headset in shopping malls (Wu & Lai, 2022). I also found an article on the use of a
bird’s-eye view of the Lake District area in the UK (tom Dieck et al., 2018). The use of such
a perspective is an example of how VTE can be used to add an additional vantage point or
viewscape for wildlife encounters or nature-based tourism move broadly.
2.3.4.1 Advantages Of VTEs In Nature-Based Tourism

35

The reported advantages of VTE use in nature-based settings are similar to those
regarding on VTEs and museums. VTEs are seen as a way to enhance the tourist experience
in nature-based settings (Jarratt, 2021; tom Dieck et al., 2018; Wu & Lai, 2022). For
example, in some studies, VTE users reported that their experiences elicited emotional
responses and immersed them in the natural setting (tom Dieck et al., 2018, Wu & Lai,
2022). Further, participants described their experiences in nature-based VTEs as interesting,
creative, positive, and freeing. Nature-based VTEs also have the potential to make some
participants feel nostalgic and connected to the place that they viewed (Jarratt, 2021).
VTEs can be used to encourage new visitation and return visits to nature-based sites
(Jarratt, 2021; Skard et al., 2021; tom Dieck et al., 2018; Wu & Lai, 2022). Wu & Lai (2022)
explored the role of VR mountain walking tours in motivating users to take a walk in the
Dinghu mountains, China. They found that the VR experience's vividness created a “sense of
presence” (Wu & Lai, 2022, p. 89) which influenced emotional engagement, flow state, and
enjoyment. This in turn fed user intentions to walk mountains in real life. In Jarratt’s (2021)
research on webcams, the types of webcams that participants viewed were categorized into
different types, including nature webcams (showcasing wildlife, beaches, zoos, the
countryside, etc.), built environment webcams (displaying city centres, buildings, etc.), and
others (representing various other types of webcams). The study's findings show that
participants paid more attention to the cameras that showed natural landscapes. Particularly,
68% of the participants expressed more interest in nature-themed webcams (especially
wildlife cams) than other webcam categories (Jarratt, 2021, p. 161). This study suggests that
nature-based destinations, especially areas full of wildlife, can use webcams to showcase
various highlights for offsite users. In fact, many already do.

36

It is important to remember that while VTE options can be very high tech, they can
also be flexible in terms of the technologies, equipment, and networks required. For instance,
in places with connectivity challenges such as Tumbler Ridge, asynchronous cams are an
option—a combination of static, live, and delayed footage can be used so that access can be
extended despite such challenges. Additionally, studies such as tom Dieck et al. (2018)
illustrate that in addition to VTEs prompting on-site visits, a positive VTE experience can
also leave users wanting to engage with VTE again, in terms of re-experiencing the same
VTE or looking forward to new uses and different sites. Research participants also stressed
the multi-faceted opportunities that VTEs can represent, even when it comes to one site.
They revealed that VTEs can inspire them to explore various locations in new and different
ways. Experiencing a VR bird’s eye view (seeing a destination from up above), for example,
can prompt people to consider new ways of visiting a site or moving through it, such as
taking a helicopter ride (tom Dieck et al., 2018), which could prompt or add to experiences
on the ground.
In addition to encouraging visitation and improving visitor experiences, VTEs can
also facilitate word-of-mouth and be used to increase intentions to purchase trips and related
goods and services (tom Dieck et al., 2018; Skard et al., 2021). A study found that VTE
experiences of Norwegian fjord scenery elicited a more positive response in terms of novel
mental imagery and planned purchases among those without prior visitation to such
destinations (Skard et al., 2021).
2.3.4.2 Target Audiences For VTEs In Nature-Based Tourism. VTEs might not be
of interest to or appropriate for all potential tourists or on-site visitors. Nature-based VTEs
can be perceived and received differently between different groups. First, for those seeking to

37

largely disconnect from technology and devices while travelling, VTEs might not be a good
fit as they would cause people to interact with technologies they were trying to temporarily
escape. For example, a prior study revealed that some nature-based tourism providers
assumed that Millennial tourists wanted to use technology in nature-based tourism
environments (Clark & Nyaupane, 2022). However, Millennials sought to reduce virtual
interruptions seen as disrupting their in-person enjoyment of nature. For example, some
Millennial participants expressed that they did not enjoy seeing people use selfie sticks, VR,
or AR while out in nature, as they found it took away from the experience. Also, VTEs may
not meet the demands of adventure seekers. Orru et al. (2019) investigated visitor travel
preferences and VTE satisfaction. Those seeking adventurous experiences and social
engagement reported dissatisfaction with VTEs in great numbers (ibid).
When it comes to demographics and preferences, there is no clear pattern in the
literature about VTEs in nature-based tourism. For example, Orru et al. (2019) suggest that
men and well-educated people showed less interest in VTEs, challenging previous studies.
Unfortunately, Orru et al. (2019) did not explain the reasons behind this result, so little is
known about how or why the purported differences exist. Additionally, Skard et al. (2021)
found that participants who had never been to a destination seemed to enjoy the naturerelated VTE more than those who had previously visited the actual site. However, Jarratt’s
(2021) results challenge this finding by suggesting that participants who used VTEs to
explore places they had visited before felt nostalgic appeal and place attachment. Because of
such inconsistencies, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions about demographics best
suited for VTE use.

38

2.4 Discussion
Key goals in conducting this review included looking for clear definitions and uses,
as well as information on main VTE types to provide critical background information to
project partners. The focus of this chapter is to provide a synthesis of existing information on
VTEs, and to inform related recommendations in Chapter 4.
2.4.1 No Agreement On Terminology And Taxonomy
I noticed a lack of consistency and clarity in the use of VTE-related terms. This
impedes comprehension and review, rendering the literature’s results, findings, and patterns
less accessible, to the detriment of those interested in VTEs. For example, Cho et al. (2002)
defined “virtual tour” as “a particular type of virtual experience that includes a computermediated experience while visiting a travel destination” (Cho et al., 2002, p. 4). In reading
for the review, however, I noted that virtual tours as a term are used to refer to AR tours
(Chou and ChanLin, 2012, cited by Wei, 2019), 360° photo view (Resta et al., 2021), live
streaming tours (Lin et al., 2022), and more virtual experiences. This ambiguous use of
terminology blurs distinctions between different types of VTE and presents a barrier to reader
comprehension.
To address this issue, I am proposing a new umbrella term: virtual tourism
experiences (VTEs). I propose this term as a way of including all of the various types of
technology-based tourism activities that use multimedia elements to create or enhance
interactive or immersive experiences for visitors that can be included. This term will assist
practitioners and academics in overcoming the lack of consistency and clarity in how VTErelated terms are discussed in the literature. It will offer a unifying term for those seeking to
understand, explore, or refer to the entire range of options. Consistent terminology allows for

39

more accurate distinctions between various types, and can facilitate cross-type comparison
studies. The use of consistent terminology would facilitate related literature reviews as well.
In addition to this absence of consistent terminology, there is no defined taxonomy for
VTEs. It is challenging to identify and analyze the wide variety of VTEs without an
established category system. For instance, based on Beck et al.’s (2019) category of VR in
tourism, 360° photo view should also be counted as VR (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016, as
cited in Beck et al., 2019). However, I argue that the term VR does not sufficiently describe
this experience because computer screens cannot provide the same degree of seamlessness
immersion and engagement as VR headsets, particularly when realistic 360° images are used.
Instead of defining it as VR, I find the 360° photo view better fits as another type of VTE. If
there were a well-defined taxonomy based on clear criteria, such as the type of technology
used or the level of immersion, there would not be such confusion like this.
The demand for a consistent taxonomy is beyond an academic issue; it also has
implications for the applied tourism sector. A clear taxonomy will allow practitioners to
easily access and comprehend discussions of features, advantages and disadvantages of each
type of VTEs. This will benefit tourism destination practitioners interested in comparing
various of VTEs and selecting the best option for their needs. For example, staff from
museums and galleries might appreciate a specific category for VTEs suitable for displaying
details about static items. On the other hand, another type of VTE might be more effective
for capturing real-time images useful for marketing purposes. Creating a unified framework
with logical categories, clearly defined terms, and specified criteria for each type of VTE
would facilitate comparisons and could eventually increase the effectiveness of VTEs in
enhancing visitor experiences.

40

2.4.2 Limitations Of VTE Research And Implementation In Tourism
While the initial literature review yielded hundreds of articles on VTEs, I ended up
reducing the sample size several times, looking for only the most applicable articles. As
noted, there is also very uneven coverage of different VTEs within the literature. For
instance, VR appeared the most in the articles I encountered. Other VTE types seem to
receive far less attention in the literature. Almost 3/5 (15 of 24) of the publications I looked at
mentioned VR. By comparison, only 5 articles (5 out of 24, or close to 1/5) discussed using
360° photo view, live streaming, and webcams. The concentration of academic research in
the VTE literature appears disproportionately focused on VR.
Similarly, while I found some research comparing two forms of VTEs (e.g. Skard et
al., 2021) and more holistic VTE-related papers (e.g., see Griffin et al., 2022), the literature
could benefit from more review papers on the subject. The lack of comprehensive
comparative studies across VTE formats, covering topics such as different use scenarios,
evidence of the advantages and disadvantages of different VTE adoptions for both visitors
and providers, and costs of various of VTEs limits the literature's utility for partners like
mine interested in incorporating expert research into decision-making about VTEs. Lastly,
VTEs in nature-based tourism are relatively underexplored by academia, implying a gap in
our knowledge that should be addressed.
Despite VR receiving the most attention in the literature I reviewed, I am curious
about whether VR is the mainstream format in real-world tourist scenarios. It is possible that
there is a research bias towards VR, offering it more coverage in the literature. Alternatively,
it might be because VR is used more often than other types of VTE. My literature review did
not offer an answer to this question. Also, I found little information on the economic aspects

41

of VTE adoption (e.g. costs of implementation; return on investment), use, or purported
benefits/returns. Case studies and detailed information about implementing and maintaining
VTEs are topics that receive little academic attention. But these too could play essential roles
in decision-making processes about the use of VTEs in tourism. This is especially the case
for small tourism businesses or non-profit organizations such as museum and park
foundations. We need more research addressing the applied “nuts and bolts” of VTEs,
particularly the kind that compares across VTE types (e.g., VR versus others), discussing
associated costs and benefits, and considering impacts on visitor experiences (on and offsite).
2.4.3 Key Considerations For Tumbler Ridge, And Other Destinations With Museums And
Nature-Based Attractions
This research indicates that VTEs can enhance visitor engagement at museums, which
is inspirational for the Tumbler Ridge Museum. Pre-trip, guests can use VR and 360° photo
views to “see” the museum, plan their visit, and develop enthusiasm for the trip. During the
trip, VR, AR, and MR can be used to enhance on-site experiences by offering interactive,
immersive exhibit information. On-site VR experiences can also enable guests to better recall
their time there. This might in turn allow them to share with friends and family post-trip,
creating long-term memories. Since visitor satisfaction is crucial when adapting VTEs, the
Tumbler Ridge Museum and other museums should consider factors like ease of use,
audiovisual quality, and interactive potential in terms of how they impact user experiences.
Knowledge of associated visitor willingness to pay is also critical for cost recovery and
estimating revenues from adding VTEs.

42

My findings show that VTEs in nature-based environments can enhance visitor
experiences. VTEs could also be used to promote initial and repeat visits to Tumbler Ridge
and other nature-based settings. This can be done via the use of immersive VR experiences
and webcam footage of landscapes and wildlife. This can improve accessibility, promote
visitor engagement, and encourage positive word-of-mouth via VTE sharing and discussion.
VTE incorporation can influence travel decisions and thereby support local businesses, which
is particularly beneficial to remote areas like Tumbler Ridge with limited economic
diversification potential. However, VTEs may not appeal to all potential visitors in a naturebased area. For instance, some may be looking to unplug from their daily lives; others may
view VTE type additions as incompatible with authentic nature-based experiences (see
4.3.4.1). Hence, locations like Tumbler Ridge should carefully consider how they would
promote uses and aspects of VTEs when working to incorporate them. Tailored work must be
done to sell them as compatible with other visitor-desired elements, and to reduce fears about
authenticity or substitution—VTEs must be positioned as desirable counterparts or
augmentations, not as threats to the destination or experiences within it.
2.5 Conclusion
This work contributes to the study of virtual experiences in tourism, with special
considerations for museums and nature-based attractions. This chapter proposes a new
umbrella term called virtual tourism experiences (VTEs). This encapsulates a diverse array
virtual elements across all travel stages (pre-trip; during trip; post-trip) and between them. To
offer a practical list of media and platforms commonly used in VTEs, this chapter also
includes a comprehensive list of options, including VR, AR, MR, 360° photo views, live

43

streaming, and webcam travel. I also included existing and potential future applications in
museums and natural settings, while considering their potential for Tumbler Ridge.
One of the main reasons for conducting this review was to get a sense of what has
been written and what work remains to be done. Several weaknesses in the existing literature
on VTEs should be addressed by future research. The use of agreed upon consistent
terminology and an overall taxonomy for VTEs would increase the accessibility of related
work and the ease of future research. Future research should also look beyond the
overwhelming focus on VR, and examine alternative VTE forms, including 360° photo
views, live streaming, webcam travel, and other possible types, which have received far less
academic attention. Comparative studies examining various VTE formats and their effects on
visitor experiences would be helpful for tourism destination organizations and decisionmakers. In addition, more in-depth and practical case studies are needed, including those that
discuss the costs, advantages, and adoption strategies of VTEs in real-world tourism settings.
This would provide valuable information on investments and returns associated with VTEs
for tourism providers and related organizations.

44

Chapter 3 Visitor Perceptions of Tumbler Ridge and Virtual Tourism Experiences
3.1 Introduction
In 2022, I launched a visitor survey through an MITACS-funded internship in partnership
with The Tumbler Ridge Museum Foundation and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark.
The survey was designed to generate Tumbler Ridge-specific data for the second research
question guiding this project: What are Tumbler Ridge visitors’ experiences, and what are their
perceptions of potential VTE use in Tumbler Ridge? This chapter contains survey results about:
1) Visitor demographics, motivations, activities, and preferences; and
2) Visitor perspectives on virtual tourism experiences (VTEs) and their potential
future use in Tumbler Ridge.
In this chapter, I discuss survey design and implementation. I also present the results and
discuss patterns within them by grounding them in the literature and by comparing them with
existing visitation data. I collected the survey data to inform my VTE recommendations. My
tailored recommendations based on the literature and survey data are detailed later when I bring
both data chapters together in Chapter 4.
3.2 Background
Northern British Columbia (northern BC), west of the Alberta border and north of 100
Mile House in Canada, embodies a rural and small-town ambiance (Markey et al., 2012). This
region features “nature beauty, rich history, fascinating indigenous culture, and genuine people”
(Northern BC Tourism Association, 2019, p. 4) and attracts diverse tourists. Northern BC Tourism
Association marketing highlights travellers who enjoy adventure sports, cycling, culture &
history, culinary aspects, and hiking & backpacking as target groups for local businesses,
communities and travel organizations (Northern BC Tourism Association, n.d.). In the literature,
45

there is a lack of comprehensive and up-to-date information on visitor demographics, motivations,
experiences, and preferences specific to Tumbler Ridge, a small town in northern BC. Research is
needed to augment our understanding of visitors to Tumbler Ridge and to get beyond marketing
data about visitors. Understanding why visitors choose the area and what they experience and
enjoy is critical for informed tourism sector decisions and strategies. This chapter will offer
insights into Tumbler Ridge visitor patterns and preferences, contributing to the literature and
ultimately—providing information that can be used to improve the visitor experience in Tumbler
Ridge.
3.3 Methods: Visitor Surveys And Observation
3.3.1 Data Collection
I investigated visitor experiences and VTE-related perceptions in Tumbler Ridge, BC, in
2022. I carried out my fieldwork in July and August, peak season for visitors to Tumbler Ridge.
My partner-informed survey questionnaire (Appendix D) is 22 questions long, includes both open
and closed questions, and took about 20 minutes to complete. It consisted of three sections:
demographics; preferences and activities; and perspectives on virtual tourism and potential future
virtual inclusions for Tumbler Ridge.
Participant recruitment was strategic as I wanted to collect data at different sites, and to
recruit different types of tourists. To increase my chances of capturing this diversity, I used
purposive and convenience sampling across various types of locations in the area, including the
Tumbler Ridge Visitor Information Centre (survey code VC), the Tumbler Ridge Museum (survey
code M), popular trailheads (survey code TH), local small businesses (for example, survey code
LD for Lush Dessert), and other most-visited spots in town (for example, survey codes RV for the
Monkman RV Park and TMH for Trend Mountain Hotel). I wanted to survey in Tumbler Ridge
while people were visiting it in order to capture their thoughts and perspectives during their trips,
46

with experiences fresh in their minds. With assistance from my supervisor Dr. Zoe Meletis and
summer students working at the Tumbler Ridge Visitor Information Centre, I collected 384
completed questionnaires, resulting from a participation rate of approximately 76%. My on-site
observations also allowed me to gain a more proximal understanding of Tumbler Ridge, which
enriched the depth of my analysis and understanding.
3.3.2 Data Analysis
For data entry purposes, each completed anonymous survey was given an alphanumeric
code. These codes are used as survey identifiers when presenting quotes in this document (e.g.
TH011). Although demographic data was collected with each survey, it is used to describe the
overall sample of respondents rather than for any intra-survey comparison between age groups,
genders, etc. The visitor data was collected to offer a new set of visitor data to inform the VTE
recommendations. Partners did not request any additional analysis on a question-by-question
basis but this could be done in future analyses. The main purpose in this case was to offer a
demographic profile to accompany survey question data so that the sample of participants could
be described and compared with prior visitor profiles.
To analyze the resulting data, I used two rounds of coding for open-ended questions in
Excel. For each open-ended question, the first round coding approach included initial and
descriptive codes (Cope, 2021); I was grouping responses with similar content or patterns into
groups. The second-round codes included analytic codes developed from the initial codes. I
created analytic based on themes from the literature that informed the project, and/or from partner
input (e.g. accessibility, education/information, enhanced experiences, entertainment/leisure as
reasons for willingness to try VTE inclusion). I also identified other patterns emerged in the data
while I was coding. One such code is nature/culture conflict, rising from explanations for a lack
of willingness to try VTE inclusion. I grouped codes into themes as appropriate, flagging
47

representative and outlying quotes as ones that could be used in the text to explain patterns in the
survey data. My supervisor assisted with code checking and refining, and we sometimes collapsed
related codes and themes to reduce the number of codes and to consolidate codes under a
representative label (e.g. responses about roads ended up under the code infrastructure). The
resulting patterns were later compared with prior visitation studies and claims in the literature.
3.3.3 Limitations
It is critical to recognize limitations in project design and implementation. I conducted this
survey during a limited time frame (July-August 2022), at a variety of sites, with a 1–2-person
team. I purposefully conducted the surveys at several key sites. As such, there may be groups of
tourists who are not represented or who are under/overrepresented. Additionally, this field season
occurred during the COVID-19 era, which may have impacted visitation, participation, and
results. Further, I did not include potential visitors or past visitors; I focused on surveying visitors
on site. Another important consideration is that participation was largely limited to active, ablebodied visitors, given the locations I chose to approach visitors. Also, the Geopark emphasizes
outdoor trails and sites, the majority of which offer no real adaptations or site hardening for those
with mobility challenges. I do not know how the demographics or answers of those who were not
reached by my survey or chose not to participate would compare with those who did participate.
Lastly, I observed an interesting pattern in terms of on-site survey completion: when a family or
group of visitors agreed to fill out the survey, reporting tasks were often delegated to a woman.
So, whereas multiple genders and ages are represented in the sample, and in some responding
groups within the sample, women seemed to have played more of a role in physically filling in the
survey.

48

3.4 Results
3.4.1 Tumbler Ridge Visitor Profile (Summer 2022)
3.4.1.1 Visitor Demographics. When collecting data on perspectives, it is useful to collect
data on participant demographics so that you can describe the sample of participants, and so you
can better understand how it compares with other relevant demographics. For this reason, I
collected demographic information. I present the main results on the following page, in table form
(Table 5).

49

Age ranges (n=384)

Number

Percentage

18-29 years old

90

23.4%

30-39 years old

76

19.8%

40-49 years old

66

17.2%

50-59 years old

58

15.1%

60-69 years old

51

13.3%

> 70 years old

35

9.1%

Chose not to answer

8

2.1%

Gender (n=384)

Number

Percentage

Male

168

43.8%

Female

203

52.9%

Non-binary

1

0.3%

Transgender

0

0%

Two-spirit

0

0%

Other

2

0.5%

Chose not to answer

10

2.6%

Education levels (n=384)

Number

Percentage

Some high school

6

1.6%

High school

60

15.6%

Some university/college/trade school

105

27.3%

Bachelor’s degree, college or trades

145

37.8%

Master’s degree or PhD

56

14.6%

Chose not to answer

12

3.1%

Household income ranges (n=384)

Number

Percentage

< $35,000

37

9.6%

$35,001-$70,000

73

19.0%

$70,000-$100,000

73

19.0%

> $100,000

157

40.9%

Chose not to answer

44

11.5%

Main residence (n=384)

Number

Percentage

British Columbia

201

52.3%

Alberta

104

27.1%

Other provinces

38

9.9%

Other Countries

33

8.6%

Chose not to answer

8
50

2.1%

Table 5 Participant
demographics

The majority of survey participants (79.4%) were visiting from BC and Alberta. Other
provinces and countries contributed 18.5% of participants, and the top three sources of
international visitors were the United States, the United Kingdom, and continental Europe.
Among participants, 79.7% reported post-secondary education. The age distribution was rather
diverse, ranging from 18 to 70+ years old.
3.4.1.2 Visitor Trips And Activities. To learn more about types of trips and trip
components, I asked participants about their number of visits, frequency of visits, and type of
group they were visiting with. Out of 384 participants, 54.7% stated that it was their first visit to
Tumbler Ridge, and 44.5% indicated a return trip (0.8% chose not to answer). Out of the total
respondents who answered this question, 120 individuals, or 31.3%, reported having visited
Tumbler Ridge three or more times. Among return visitors (n=153), 53.6% visited Tumbler Ridge
at least once a year. And, 91.7% of responses (396 responses were collected) show that
respondents were travelling in groups (e.g. with family), and some were travelling with multiple
families and/or in a caravan (e.g. of multiple trailers/RVs.)
I also wanted to know how Tumbler Ridge fits with travel plans and established regional
circuits, so I asked if Tumbler Ridge was the only destination participants were visiting or if they
were on multiple-destination trips. Here, I was looking for greater insights into travel routes, and
pairings of destinations and attractions that bring people to Tumbler Ridge. One reason such
information is useful is because it might suggest where promotional material should be placed.
Among participants, 58.1% or 223 identified Tumbler Ridge as their sole trip destination (see
Table 6), with 194 out of 223 (87.0%) of these participants travelling from BC and Alberta. For
41.7% of participants (n=160), Tumbler Ridge was part of a multi-stop journey (see Table 6), and
68.8% or 110 of these 160 participants travelled from BC and Alberta. Other destinations on
travel routes included places along the way to the Alaska Highway and on the Great Northern
51

Circle Route. Participant responses reveal five common ways to travel to and around Tumbler
Ridge (Table 7) Most participants seemed to be on relatively short, regional trips. A small number
of participants were on multi-stop global trips travelling across Canada or the world.
Singal Destination vs. Multi-Stop Trip
Preferences
(n=384)
One-stop trip
Multiple-stop trip
Chose not to answer
Table 6 Single destination vs. multi-stop trips
Common routes of a
multiple-stop trip above
(n=160)
Regional travel

Number

Percentage

223
160
1

58.1%
41.7%
0.3%

Number Percentage

68

42.5%

Travel further north

26

16.3%

A BC Interior route

22

13.8%

An Alberta route
20
12.5%
Did not indicate any specific
13
8.1%
route
BC Coastal route (Coastal
5
3.1%
route + other stops)
Across Canada
3
1.9%
Multi-stop global trip
3
1.9%
Table 7 Ways participants traveled to Tumbler Ridge

Details

Peace River and Northeast Region BC,
Grande Prairie, etc.
Alaska/Yukon/ Northwest Territories Fort Nelson - Dawson - TR
Vancouver/Kamloops - PG - TR
(Highway 97)
Banff/Valemount - Jasper - TR

Vancouver Island - Haida Gwaii Smithers - PG -TR

I wanted to know about accommodation type and length of stay as well (Table 8 and Table
9). I found that while some day trippers were included, most of my sample was staying one or
more nights in the Tumbler Ridge Area. Of those staying overnight (311 responses), more than
89% of paid for accommodation in the area stayed in hotels, campgrounds, or RV parks.
52

Accommodation type
Responses
Percentage
(387 responses were collected)
Not staying overnight
76
19.6%
Overnight Paid
Campground
172
72.7% of
89.7% of
stay (311 accommodation Hotel
all types
overnight
94
responses) (279 responses) Guesthouse/B&B/Airbnb
stay
13
Unpaid
Family/Friends
22
8.3% of
10.3% of
accommodation Other
all types
overnight
10
(32 responses)
stay
Table 8 Participant accommodation types (Respondents could select overnight accommodation
types and therefore totals do not add up to 100%.)
Length of stay
N
Percentage
(n=384)
Day visitors
76 19.8%
1-2 days
65 16.9%
2-3 days
127 33.1%
4-7 days
71 18.5%
>7 days
44 11.5%
Chose not to answer
1
0.3%
Table 9 Participant length of stay
My data suggests the potential to extend some visitor stays. Whereas most participants
were staying overnight or longer, I found that roughly 70% of participants intended to stay at
Tumbler Ridge for three days or less. On-site conversations and participant survey answers
revealed that some short-stay visitors would have stayed longer or if they would have had better
knowledge of the range of experiences possible in the Tumbler Ridge area. For example,
respondents commented:
“We only stopped for one day because we didn't know this was here, but we would like to
see more of the geopark” (M069)
“I wasn't expecting such a beautiful location and will make an effort to stay here again
and explore more of the area” (TMH001)
“It's very beautiful and unique. I'd like to visit again to do more outdoor activities or stay
overnight” (M022)
These quotes illustrate the potential for using expanded offerings to result in longer stays.
53

3.4.1.3 Information Sources, Visitor Draws, And Intended Return Visits. I wanted to
learn about how and where visitors learn about Tumbler Ridge, its attractions, and its activities.
For this reason, I asked participants which sources of information they had encountered and
which they preferred. I also tested brand recognition for the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global
Geopark as per a partner request. I received 692 responses about how participants had learned of
the area and aspects of it: via word-of-mouth (25.4%), general internet searches (11.1%), and
Visitor Centres including the Tumbler Ridge Visitor Centre (10.6%) played key roles. Participants
also accessed printed promotional materials including pamphlets (6.9%). They reported choosing
those sources over social media (5.5%). In terms of social media preferences (n=55), 78.2%
indicated Facebook as their preferred social media platform. Interestingly, 15.2% of responses (n=
692) had never heard of the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark before visiting.
With my project partners, I made a list of factors that might have attracted people to
Tumbler Ridge. I invited participants to select all of those that applied in their case. I did this to
learn about main draws and relative rankings (Table 10).

54

Factors (1267 responses)
Responses
Percentage
Nature/the outdoors
311
81.0%
Dinosaur footprints and fossils
203
52.9%
Kinuseo Falls
166
43.2%
Tumbler Ridge as a unique location/spot off the beaten track
142
37.0%
The Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark
104
27.1%
The Tumbler Ridge Museum
91
23.7%
Visiting family/friends
47
12.2%
Work
45
11.7%
Other
41
10.7%
It is a stop on the way to my next destination
38
9.9%
Small-town lifestyle
33
8.6%
Indigenous culture
24
6.3%
Researching places to live or play
22
5.7%
Table 10 Factors that attracted participants to Tumbler Ridge (Respondents could select multiple
items so totals do not add up to 100%).
I also asked participants to choose which activities they were planning to include in their
visit. They could choose as many as they liked. Results are presented in Table 11 below.
Activities (1475 responses)

Responses
Percentage
Hiking
299
77.9%
Driving to enjoy scenery
194
50.5%
Visiting the Tumbler Ridge Museum
190
49.5%
Camping
187
48.7%
Looking for tracks/fossils
168
43.8%
Wildlife viewing
140
36.5%
Taking tours
46
12.0%
Golfing
44
11.5%
Taking part in watersports
41
10.7%
Cycling
39
10.2%
Hunting/Fishing
37
9.6%
Motorbiking/ATVing
34
8.9%
Other
25
6.5%
Emperor's Challenge 2022
17
4.4%
Geocatching
14
3.6%
Table 11 Participants’ planned activities (Respondents could select multiple items so totals do not
add up to 100%.)
55

I asked an open-ended question about travel motivations. Standout motivations for visiting
in terms of participant responses (561 responses collected) include outdoor activities (38.5%),
nature/views (28.1%), and the Tumbler Ridge Museum/dinosaur attractions (22.9%). Also,
participants noted Tumbler Ridge's unique location and offered responses about the “community
vibe,” with 7.6% mentioning its location as a draw and 1.8% mentioning the community itself as
appealing. Other reported travel motivations included visiting friends or family, being attracted by
the small-town lifestyle, travelling to the area for work, visiting for general
curiosity/exploration/general interest, attending events and festivals, and enjoying the unique
location of Tumbler Ridge.
I was also interested in learning about potential return visits to Tumbler Ridge. In my
survey, 75% of participants expressed a desire to return (3.1% chose not to answer this question).
Outdoor activities, nature/views, and exploration were cited among key motivating factors for
return visits. Shared reasons for not returning to Tumbler Ridge included: living far away, having
seen everything in the area or wanting to explore new places and or, the remoteness/location off
the beaten track, and comments about aging and travel. Age-related issues and travel distance are
represented in comments such as:
“I would like to. Too far away” (TH063)
“We are seniors, and although we would love to visit again, our future travel agenda and
age may not allow us for a return visit” (TH070)
3.4.1.4 Suggested Improvements And Recommendations For Tumbler Ridge. My
research partners and I also wanted to invite visitor suggestions about how tourism experiences in
Tumbler Ridge might be improved. To do this, I used the open-ended question “Is there anything
about tourism in Tumbler Ridge that you would improve? Please provide details”. I categorized
resulting answers into themes. The top themes that emerged were suggested improvements (292
56

responses were collected) about: 1) existing sites/activities (30.5%, including the Geopark, the
Museum, the Golf course, etc.); 2) the service base/services (20.6%); and 3) infrastructure
(13.5%).
Positive Comments About Tumbler Ridge. In addition to suggested improvements and
changes, participants forwarded positive comments about Tumbler Ridge (118 responses). These
included comments about a generally favorable impression, and remarks about particular sites and
activities (e.g. the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum).
The survey also captured positive reviews of services such as accommodation, food, and
restaurants. Participants shared appreciation for Tumbler Ridge's community and natural beauty
as well:
“…good access. Accommodation is OK. Food, attractions... No suggestions” (TMH008)
“Had a great time - very friendly people, great experience” (M084)
“Very pretty town AND love the beauty in this area” (RV002)
“I LOVE it here.” (LD003)
Suggestions For The Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark (91 Responses). The
most common type of suggestion was about improvements for existing sites and/or activities.
Among them, suggestions for the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark emerged as a focal
point, with a sizable number of participants (91 responses or 77.8%) offering specific suggested
improvements. These included the following categories of suggestions:
1) calls for trail enhancements including physical and informational elements (48 responses)

57

Suggestions included improved trail maintenance; better signage and communication
about and along trails; and requests for improved kilometer/trail markers and dinosaur track
enhancements. The following quotes are reflective of this category:
“…maintenance of Kinuseo Falls trail past Upper Viewpoint (walked to Leake Viewpoint
and was very overgrown)” (TH011)
“…Really think better interpretive information would be great at the dinosaur tracks,
riverside trail, most especially a diagram of the immediate area and what you are seeing.
We found some tracks but really not many. As in ‘you are here and here’s what you're
looking at’…” (R005)
2) calls for improved information provision and communication (28 responses)
Participants requested increased integration of digital resources like applications;
improved maps of the area and trails; and the addition of new/specific information (for example,
dinosaur information, geo knowledge, and outhouse information, etc.). Participant comments in
this category include:
“Things to consider - app to provide info or other” (TMH007)
“Better maps” (RV010)
“Brochures and online info should be more clear regarding: 1) whether there are pit toilets
at trailheads or not (this was especially challenging to discover some trails without toilets
with younger children) 2) that people must bring their own toilet paper when there are pit
toilets…” (TH011).
3) calls for improvements to the Tumbler Ridge Visitor Information Centre (9 responses),
such as requests for expanded business hours, and suggestions about enhancing staff
training and knowledge. For instance, participants wrote:
“…As much as I hate to say this, tourism centre could be open an hour or so later, until 78 for people who get off work and go straight to Tumbler Ridge...” (TH022)
“…I have been to the visitor center. It would be great if there was staff super enthusiastic
who were outgoing and would promote the area…” (TH025)

58

Suggestions For The Tumbler Ridge Museum (21 Responses). Additionally, 21
respondents (18% of the Existing sites/activities theme answers) were about the Tumbler Ridge
Museum, focusing on two aspects: 1) a desire for enhanced exhibitions, and 2) calls for expanded
or modified business hours. For example, 2 participants offered these ideas:
“…Would love to see the museum continue to enhance its exhibits. Perhaps some more
info on how fossils are made, video interviews with paleontologists, and info on any
current explorations/digs?” (M017)
“Museum was closed for 2 of the 3 days we were in TR (Tues, Wed) and so we weren't
able to visit…” (R005)
Suggestions For The Local Service Base (79 Responses). Participants also pointed out
desired general or broad improvements to the local service base. These included suggestions
about accommodation, restaurants, and retail, focusing on improvements to quantity and
quality. Representative comments include:
“We could not find accommodation and had to stay in Dawson Creek” (M003)
“…Was not informed restaurant would be closed for whole weekend. Super bummer!”
(M021)
“We have found it hard to support the community - grocery shopping…is lacking. No
interesting restaurants/cafes/coffee shops.” (LC014)
Suggestions For The Infrastructure And Future Sites (52 Responses). In addition,
participants identified infrastructure shortcomings and related improvements that they would like
to see, specifically regarding road maintenance, road signage (non-trail), and facilities. These
stood out as critical areas for improvement, according to participants. Particularly, many
suggested that the road to Kinuseo Falls, one of the most popular attractions in the area, should be
paved. It is about 50km away from Tumbler Ridge, and once off the highway, the road is a
compressed gravel road. Participants included comments such as:
“The beef I have is with the road conditions of the Kinuseo Falls. It should be paved if you
want tourists to come to spend time and money. At the very least the road should be
59

graded much more. And with the Motor Home we drove 20-30 km and it was still terrible.
We have traveled gravel roads in AK, NWT, YT, AB and northern BC and this was the
worst gravel road we have traveled.” (TH099)
Comments on other infrastructure included:
“…the street signs are very confusing (especially the Nesbitt's Knee Falls, it is too far for
the correct road, which made us get into the wrong entrance) …” (R003)
“Public restroom in town…” (is needed) (M098)
Participants also indicated an interest in future/potential sites and services that Tumbler
Ridge does not currently provide, such as a ski hill, bike/canoe/cottage rental, mountain guides
services, and an annual hiking festival. And, they discussed the need to improve marketing efforts
to promote Tumbler Ridge. They suggested expanding social media use and increasing targeted
advertising in other cities and provinces.
3.4.2 Participant Perspectives On Virtual Tourism Experiences
A key goal in conducting the survey was to ask visitors to Tumbler Ridge about the
potential for integrating VTEs into Tumbler Ridge tourism. The questionnaire included a section
with several questions about participant familiarity, prior experiences, and interest in virtual
inclusions (existing and hypothetical). These questions were included to complement the literature
review on VTE options with “real life data” from visitors to the area (2022).
3.4.2.1 Prior VTE Experiences. I wanted to know how many participants had prior
experiences with virtual tourism, which types they had experienced, where, and what their
impressions were. Among those surveyed, just over a third or 35.7% (137) of participants had
prior experience with VTEs (1.6% chose not to answer this question). They gave examples of
their prior VTE experiences as well (see Table 12). 61 out of 130 responses mentioned the travel
stages that they had used VTEs (see Table 13). This question about prior VTE use yielded 87
responses about why they had use VTEs. Reasons included education/information, entertainment,
60

accessibility and marketing, etc. (see Table 14). Negative comments (16 responses) included were
mostly about preferences for in-person/real-life experiences and lack of interest, as the examples
below illustrate:
“Not the same as in person. Concentrates on thing that curator finds interesting. Not
necessarily what I find interesting.” (VC025)
“It's a nice way to see cool spots to go see. But I'm not a big virtual guy” (VC055)

Prior VTE experiences
Google Earth/Google Maps/Google Street View
Did not give examples
"Virtual tours"
Videos/Livestreaming
VR
Others
Table 12 Participant prior VTE experiences

Responses
(130)
62
26
16
13
8
5

Stage of Prior VTE experiences

Responses
(61)
Pre-trip
33
Standalone
19
During-trip
6
Post-trip
3
Table 13 Stage of prior participant VTE experiences
Reasons For Prior VTE Use

Responses
(87)
49
19
10
7
1

Education/information
Not mentioned
Entertainment
Accessibility
Marketing
Table 14 Purposes behind prior VTE use

61

3.4.2.2 Opportunities And Barriers To VTE Inclusion. To explore how VTE offerings
in Tumbler Ridge might be used to increase access to its sites and activities for people on and off
site, I included this question: “If the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO
Global Geopark could provide a virtual way to ‘travel’ beyond your capabilities and skills, such
as a live online virtual tour of an extreme expert-level, would you be interested in trying it?”
The response pattern to this question, as well as additional qualitative information
collected by the survey and in conversation with participants, revealed that almost 2/3 or 57.8% of
participants reported interest in virtual travel (3.9% did not answer this question). Response
patterns indicate that participants did view VTEs as a tool for expanding access to Tumbler Ridge
and other locations, particularly for individuals who are physically or geographically challenged.
For example, one participant recognized that:
“I think that it may be beneficial for people who have physical limitations based on age or
disability to enjoy/experience the area and see things that would otherwise be inaccessible
to them” (LC018).
Another wrote:
“I would try it because I can't leave home often so it be way easier” (BL005).
To further investigate participant attitudes towards VTE use in Tumbler Ridge, I included
the following question in my survey: “Imagine an application/app that you could download to
your phone and take with you on the trails of Tumbler Ridge. You could access additional
experiences linking local landscapes to prehistoric times (e.g. dinosaurs popping up; information
about prehistoric plants and animals). Does that sound like something you would like to include
in a visit?” Over three quarters or 74.2% of participants answered “Yes” to this question (6.8%
skipped this question). Participants were also asked why they were interested in potential virtual
additions. I coded the responses (473 responses were collected) and found the top three reasons
62

for their interest in using the VTE example I offered were: 1) education/information (35%), 2)
enhanced experiences (14.4%), and 3) specific use scenarios (for example, for outdoor use, for
offline use, etc. 10.16%). They offered additional comments about potential additions such as the
following:
“I think this would be awesome and super educational/helpful especially being offline – so
you can understand what you’re seeing.” (M035).
Another wrote:
“That sounds like a very unique immersive experience that would add depth and interest
to the experience for young and old alike.” (LC018).
A third participant offered this:
“Both of my friend and I have said multiple times, ‘man, I wish I had service so I could
Google Image this.’ I think the app would be a fantastic idea.” (TH022).
I also recorded voices of opposition. 176 response components indicate a lack of
willingness to try VTE inclusions. For example, 108 response components suggest that
participants viewed the proposed VTE inclusion as a threat/in contrast to/incompatible with
authentic, in-person experiences in nature. Participant elaborations stressed a perceived
technology/nature clash or conflict by stating things such as:
“I prefer/would rather see it in person” (GC015, etc.)
“I'd rather experience it in real life. And see the nature” (LD007)
“Because that's dumb. Go outside nerd” (RV012)
“I am the outdoors type. Not so much into technology” (BL008)

63

3.4.2.3 Preferences For VTE Types. To gain finer grain information on types of VTE
inclusions participants might be willing to try, I included specific examples of existing and
prospective inclusions that could be integrated to outdoor and indoor activities and sites in
Tumbler Ridge. I asked participants to rank their preferences for each type, using a 5-point Likert
scale. The result patterns for that question follow in Table 15 and Figure 3.

Preferences for
various VTE
types (n=384)

Least
Not very
interested interested

Neutral

Most
Interested
interested

Chose
not to
answer

AR in the
museum

11.5%

7.8%

20.1%

22.4%

31.3%

7.0%

A 360° photo
view of trails

16.4%

7.8%

20.6%

23.7%

24.7%

6.8%

Influencers'
YouTube/ TikTok
short videos

15.4%

7.8%

21.6%

26.0%

22.9%

6.3%

VR about the
museum
collection, in the
museum

16.2%

12.0%

20.9%

22.4%

21.9%

6.8%

VR about
nature/trails,
in the museum

22.4%

12.2%

21.9%

16.7%

19.8%

7.0%

VR that can be
used at home

18.5%

1.0.7%

23.4%

22.4%

18.0%

7.0%

An audio guide
for moving
through the
museum

20.3%

14.8%

26.6%

18.8%

12.2%

7.3%

Table 15 Participant preferences for VTE Types

64

Preferences for various VTE types (n=384)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%

30%
20%
10%
0%
AR in the
museum

Least interested

A 360° photo
view of trails

Influencers'
YouTube/
TikTok short
videos

Not very interested

VR about the
VR about
VR that can be An audio guide
museum nature/trails, in used at home for moving
collection, in the museum
through the
the museum
museum

Neutral

Interested

Most interested

Chose not to answer

Figure 3 Participant preferences for VTE Types
In addition, I specifically asked particularly about participant interest in VTEs in a
museum environment, with the Tumbler Ridge Museum in mind. Survey participants
indicated preferences for AR over options such as “VR about the museum collection in the
museum” (44.3%), “VR about nature/trails in the museum” (36.5%), and “An audio guide for
moving through the museum” (31.0%). Over fifty percent of respondents (53.7%) either
chose the option “interested” and “most interested” for suggested AR use in the museum.
3.4.3 Additional Observations, And Unexpected Benefits Of An In-Person Paper Survey
3.4.3.1 Visitor Accessibility Issues: Observational Data And Survey Data. While
on site, I was able to observe and hear about accessibility challenges. For example, I
routinely noticed and noted incidents where visitor experiences were visibly impacted by
such issues. In particular, I saw people being forced to avoid certain trails or to end their trail
65

experiences earlier than planned, including without being able to reach key attractions. For
example, I witnessed folks turning back on trail without having reached the bottom or seen
the tracks. Barriers to access included health conditions and mobility challenges faced by
individual visitors, unexpected shifts in elevation at some sites/on some trails, and a lack of
trail hardening (e.g. steps and/or railings). I also witnessed families who had to turn back or
cut visits to certain sites and trails short because some members of their parties (e.g. elders;
children) could not navigate the site completely. Such observations confirmed that
accessibility is an ongoing challenge in the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark. Many
sites are not very accessible at all, including some of the relatively easy/moderate sites and
some of its most popular trails. By contrast, the Museum and the Visitor Information Centre
both have accessible bathrooms. The Museum also have a loaner wheelchair and offers
generous space to move through the exhibitions.
3.4.3.2 Participant Reactions To Suggestions About Technology. While observing
tourists and visiting sites, I witnessed a range different type of technologies being employed,
as well as a range of reactions to their actual or suggested use. For example, I routinely
observed and was told about visitors using cars, bicycles, motorbikes, motorhomes, ATVs,
boats, navigation systems, phones, cameras, and other types of technologies during their
visits. I know from observational data that visitors to Tumbler Ridge use applications such as
All Trails and social media sites (Facebook; Instagram) to ask questions and share
information about Tumbler Ridge (e.g. re: wildlife presences; trail accessibility and quality;
road types and condition; etc.)
At the same time, I collected survey responses and additional annotations on the
surveys, and in-person comments indicating some strong visitor reactions to suggested

66

additional VTEs and technology integration into the Tumbler Ridge experience. For example,
my paper surveys included a participant slashing through all of the VTE questions, crossing
out the entire section (e.g. TH013, TH047), and writing comments such as “Not interested”
(TH047). Some nature/culture conflict comments collected suggested that VTE technology
and nature are like “oil and water” in that participants wrote about VTEs as incompatible to
authentic outdoor experiences. It is important to note that these came as additional comments
or comments in open-ended questions; I did not ask directly about this. These comments are
indicative of this pattern:
“I don't see VTE as a true tourism experience” (LC004)
“Fake!” (TMH020)
I also noticed similar comments in the VTEs & accessibility answers. Although the
survey did not ask about VTEs as substitutes for being in nature, answers revealed related
fears and dislikes. Some participants made it clear that they were not interested in scenarios
where VTEs might replace travel:
“Just not a replacement for the real thing...” (LC008)
“I would much rather travel in real life...” (LD003)
3.5 Conclusion
Despite its semi-remote location, Tumbler Ridge is attractive to driving travellers
within and nearby the region. Further, participants suggest that for some, driving is seen as
part of an enjoyable experience rather than as an obstacle. Visitors are attracted because
of the natural beauty, outdoor activities, and dinosaur-related elements. Participants
emphasized the strengths of the destination and also acknowledged its limitations. They
67

called for service base and infrastructural upgrades, improvements to signage and other
forms of communication, and trail enhancements (physical and informational). They also
identified some potential avenues for targeted marketing in terms of their points of origin, the
routes they took to/from Tumbler Ridge, and their activity and communication preferences.
Such findings provide direction for enhancing the destination experience and tourist
satisfaction.
One of my main goals in conducting this research was to explore the potential of
integrating VTEs into Tumbler Ridge tourism. Although the majority of respondents
indicated interest in virtual travel, the survey data suggests a divide in visitor openness or
interest with respect to potential VTEs in Tumbler Ridge. While some were open to their
possible inclusion, others reported viewing virtual experiences as incompatible with their
concept of authentic outdoor connection. Understanding these different viewpoints is critical
for destination management and for balancing destination and visitor needs. To consider
applying VTEs to a nature-based destination like Tumbler Ridge, it is critical to address
concerns about the authenticity and compatibility of VTEs with outdoor activities. Educating
visitors about the complementary nature of virtual and real-world experiences and
challenging the new of them as contradictory might help to bridge this gap and to create
wider acceptance of VTEs among targeted audiences.
It is also important to provide an array of options to meet diverse visitor needs. VTEs
offer visitors additional ways to interact with sites and destinations. Destinations can
successfully widen their audience and accommodate varied visitor preferences via careful
integration of VTEs as supplement to in-person encounters, adding new elements and
enriching interactions. Also, using VTEs to increase accessibility is crucial for communities

68

and attractions interested in equity, diversity, and inclusion. For example, seniors and other
people facing physical or logistical challenges could experience enhanced connections to
sites and activities. VTEs can lessen the need for physical capabilities, and can also direct or
encourage contact with particular attractions. They can also offer new options to people on
site, enjoying the area but finding themselves unable to access certain trails and vantage
points. They could be invited to experience them virtually. This is particularly important in
communities like Tumbler Ridge, where local residents looking to continue enjoying
landscapes and features could also benefit from such visitor-directed enhancements while
aging in place. In such cases, VTEs could represent a shared set of assets or resources for
both residents and visitors, representing a tourism investment with wider community
benefits.

69

Chapter 4 Discussion and Implications
In this chapter, I discuss some of the overarching themes in the data, and I bring these
together with my literature review to consider implications for Tumbler Ridge, and to make
tailored recommendations—my ultimate project goal.
4.1 Regional Appeal And Drive Tourism
My demographic findings are consistent with prior data and patterns identified in
previous northern BC tourism data (Northern BC Tourism Association, n.d.). For example,
the Northern BC 2023 Year In Review of Northern BC Region notes the main markets for
northern BC tourism as being from BC and Alberta (British Columbia Reginal Tourism
Secretariat et al., 2023), matching my data. The northeastern BC destination development
strategy (Destination BC, 2019) identifies the main modes of transportation for tourists in
northeastern BC as cars, motorcycles, and recreational vehicles (RVs). With driving as the
only way to access Tumbler Ridge, attracting inter-province tourists beyond Alberta as well
as international tourists is a challenge for the area (Prideaux, 2000), with no international
airport nearby.
Tumbler Ridge is renowned both as a stand-alone attraction and a sought-after stop
along driving routes such as the Alaska Highway and the Great Northern Circle Route. My
sample of participants also emphasizes drive tourism along known driving routes. Visitation
to the area, according to my survey participants is both pre-planned and spontaneous. Like
visitation to Morden, Manitoba, visitors coming to Tumbler Ridge include purposeful tourists
seeking nature and/or dinosaurs and incidental tourists — those passing through without prior
planning (Ramsey & Malcolm, 2018).

70

Some survey participants reported driving as a key tourism activity as well as a means
of transportation. Participants reported driving as a pleasant and welcomed aspect rather than
casting it as a hassle or shortcoming. Participants reminded me that driving can be about
enjoying the scenery, not just about getting around. They noted distance as an added appeal
rather than a barrier, adding to prior research on driving as a desirable vacation experience
for drive tourists (Hardy, 2003). Participants also signaled the remote location as a distinct
part of the appeal, again emphasizing that driving for long distances is valued by some. This
aligns with previous research that notes visitor imaginations of distant places as being
coupled with unique peoples, cultures, and places (Duffield & Long, 1981, as cited in Hall &
Boyd, 2005; Brown & Hall, 2000).
These findings stress the importance of car-based tourism to Tumbler Ridge and
underscore the potential for tailored marketing initiatives for regional residents, as well as the
need to find ways to connect with and attract visitors from further afield. Tumbler Ridge
could choose to further target marketing campaigns and infrastructure improvements for
drive tourism. Strategies might include promoting scenic driving routes, enhancing signage
along major circuits, disseminating tourism information in towns along routes further south
(to draw people to northern routes, and link drive tourism destinations), playing upon a
“hidden gem” destination image, and leveraging digital resources to inspire and inform
travellers who embrace the drive/distance as part of travelling. Offering alternatives for those
without access to their own vehicles (e.g. shuttles; connections with nearby towns and bus
routes) is another possibility but a more costly one. It would, however, allow for growing
drive tourism while also keeping sustainability in mind.

71

4.2 VTEs As A Way To Address Concerns About Distance And Age
When asked about the likelihood of return visits, survey respondents identified two
barriers: distance (from where they live) and their age (limiting their likelihood of returning).
Both of these factors are beyond the control of destination management. Tumbler Ridge's
semi-remote geographical position is not something that can be changed. Also, it brings a
certain appeal to some visitors like drive tourists and those seeking destinations “off the
beaten path”. Its location away from big cities and major routes does however result in long
travel times and logistical challenges associated with visiting the area, and such factors can
constrain visitation (Prideaux, 2000). While infrastructure improvements like more transit
alternatives may reduce some of these difficulties, they cannot fully eliminate the challenge
of distance/location. Aging is also an unavoidable fact of life. Physical restrictions associated
with aging (McGuire et al.,1986) and decreased mobility (Nordbakke, 2013) can make travel
more difficult and less desirable for seniors. Seniors’ reduced incomes can also limit travel.
Such barriers to travel emphasize opportunities that VTEs can bring in terms of
improving accessibility and inclusion. Guttentag (2010) named accessibility as a dimension
of tourism that VR can support. Gharibi et al. (2023) investigated disabled people's intentions
and attitudes about AR, VR, and MR technologies in museums. They recommended the
integration of VR, AR, and 360-degree videos to enhance accessible tourism (Gharibi et al.,
2023). Yu et al. (2020) studied changes in middle-aged and older individuals' physiological,
psychological, and attention performance by showing them natural surroundings through VR.
Their findings suggest that VTEs can be used as both an alternative to going outside and as a
method for encouraging or enhancing outdoor exploration. Although most survey participants
did not report having experienced physical or mobility challenges, they did acknowledge that

72

others face accessibility challenges. Further, a few participants suggested that they might also
face mobility issues in the future. The dual recognition of current and future needs speaks to
the potential of VTE use in Tumbler Ridge as a way to improve accessibility.
4.3 VTES As Perceived Threats To Nature-Based Authenticity
Project results and observations indicate a polarization in participant perspectives on
VTEs in Tumbler Ridge. Some participants expressed interest in VTEs as a way to overcome
physical limits and to improve access. At the same time, some participants demonstrated
strong objections to the integration of VTEs into nature-based tourism. I and others note that
strong negative reactions about VTE integrations seem to stand in contrast to the overall use
of other technologies, tools and equipment in outdoor environments, such as GPS, satellite
phones, cameras, carbon fiber trekking poles, waterproof clothing and hiking boots (e.g., see
Elmahdy et al., 2017). The recorded strong objections to the proposed combination of VTEs
and nature can be explained in the following ways:
1) Perceptions of VTEs as incompatible with nature-based destinations
Destination image significantly impacts visitor behaviour and perceptions before,
during, and after travel (Agapito et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016). Launching VTEs can shape
destination images by adding dynamic or interactive experiences on top of visualized
landscapes and attractions (Chang, 2022; Cho & Fesenmaier, 2000; Griffin et al., 2022;
McFee et al., 2019; Tsai, 2022; Wu & Lai, 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). However, if the
destination image is nature-based, tourists may expect a “wild” outdoor landscape with
“unmodified” natural habitats, even in a branded Geopark. This is because the history and
underlying philosophy of North American parks emphasized wilderness and “nature,” as
being in contrast with urban centres (and technology) (Reis & Shelton, 2011). For some

73

visitors, the use of virtual technology interrupts a dream of pure unspoiled wilderness. It
interferes with authenticity and disrupts the tourist gaze (Urry & Larsen, 2011). This
disruption may result in resistance to VTEs, the destination itself, or sites within it, if they are
perceived as contradicting the destination image, related visitor imaginations, or expected
experiences.
2) VTEs and technologies as part of everyday life rather than vacation time
Escape from a routine environment is one of the primary motivations for travel
(Crompton, 1979; Iso-Ahola, 1982). “Enjoying the natural environment and escaping from
daily life” is also listed as one of the four motivations for hiking travellers (Kim et al., 2014,
p.90), a key demographic in nature-based destinations. As mobile technology has become
part of modern daily life, tourists may feel that the use of some forms of technology used
during a vacation prevents truly escaping everyday life. Everyday technology use such as
phone-based apps might represent the banal everyday, bringing back constraints and
responsibilities of home and work life (Neuhofer, 2016). While some people like to continue
technology use while on vacation (Nautiyal et al., 2023), others do not. Research suggests
that up to 50% of camping tourists have some willingness to disconnect (Dickinson et al.,
2016). Collected participant comments from my project align with this work — participants
mentioned choosing a nature-based vacation destination to escape from electronic devices
and screens. Some participants also mentioned leaving their phones in the car to ensure that
trail experiences were not interrupted by (unacceptable) technology. This might explain some
reluctance to engage with the idea of virtual tourism in Tumbler Ridge.
3) VTEs as threat to authenticity

74

Previous research suggests that visitor perceptions of authenticity can influence
their acceptance of virtual tourism (Guttentag, 2010). Creators and proponents see virtual
tourism experiences as partially authentic (Mura et al., 2017). My participants, however,
shared imaginations of authentic outdoor experiences that require freedom from
technological interference to be considered genuine. VTEs may disrupt nature-based
expectations by challenging visitor expectations and their conceptualizations of genuine or
authentic nature-based experiences. However, humans are drawn to natural environments for
diverse reasons, and perceptions of authenticity are impacted by cultural and individual
personality traits (Guttentag, 2010). While some visitors prefer “unspoiled natural habitats”
to satisfy their appetite for adventure and exploration, others may be open to integrating
virtual and realistic tourism (Mura et al., 2017). My results reflect these two visitor
dispositions. To satisfy these two visitor preferences, nature-based destinations must plan in
careful and informed ways, balancing visitor expectations while also aiming to embrace
innovation. The goal of adopting VTEs should be to enhance rather than reduce visitor
experiences of nature — such goals must be communicated carefully to prospective and onsite visitors so as not to detract from visitor experiences or word-of-mouth.

75

4.4 VTE Recommendations For The Tumbler Ridge Museum

Figure 4 Recommended VTEs for the Tumbler Ridge Museum
For the pre-trip stage, while the literature review identified five types of VTEs—VR,
AR, 360° photo views, live streaming, and webcam-travel— not all of them are the best fit
for Tumbler Ridge Museum. My literature review suggests that live streaming and webcamtravel are more associated with nature-based settings than museums. Also, pre-trip VTEs
should aim to encourage visitors to visit rather than to detract from visitation. Considering
the Tumbler Ridge Museum's small size and its interest in increasing visitation, I would
rather not risk decreasing in-person visitation by providing too much content online. For this
reason, I recommend VTEs designed to enhance interaction without pre-disclosing too much
of the in-person museum experience. In this case, short videos could offer a great pre-trip
option. Despite not being highlighted in the literature review, short videos were highly rated

76

by survey participants. They ranked them among their top three preferred VTEs. The
museum could use its existing social media platforms (TikTok, Instagram, Facebook) to share
creative, low-cost, and entertaining videos, especially after the success of its pilot TikTok
project with dinosaur videos (in summer 2022). Short videos could capture the interest of
younger people and serve as an effective (re)branding tool. Again—rather than duplicating
the museum experience, short videos would encourage visitors to visit the museum in person
by only offering windows into or elements of the museum rather than all of it.
My recommendations for the during trip stage are consistent with the literature. I
recommend the use of VR, AR, or MR, as “VR or AR in the museum” was the top choice
among survey responses. Visitors could interact with immersive VR videos in the Tumbler
Ridge Museum theatre by wearing VR headsets provided by the museum. These could
provide dynamic reconstructions of prehistoric environments or in-depth information about
the museum’s collections, complementing exhibits present. AR technology could also
enhance visitor experiences by allowing people to scan skeletons or fossils with their
smartphones, resulting in digital reconstructions or relevant educational content popping up
on their phone screens. This could include videos or detailed information about fossils. MR,
which combines VR and AR, offers a more immersive experience. Visitors could wear a
headset that adds digital reconstructions to the actual physical environment, making
interactions with museum displays more entertaining and informative.
For the post-trip stage, I recommend 360° photo views of key exhibits or the whole
Museum, using AR scan technology. These would allow prior visitors to virtually revisit their
favourite exhibitions and to share their experiences with others. Both current and past visitors
could, for example, scan a picture or logo printed on their museum ticket using phones or

77

tablets, to access 360° views of featured exhibitions or the entire museum. This is a form of
“virtual souvenir,” which allows visitors to further capture or recapture the moment. When
shared with future visitors, these experiences would enhance word-of-mouth, assist with pretrip preparation, and influence potential visitors to the Tumbler Ridge Museum.
4.5 VTE Recommendations For The Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark

Figure 5 Recommended VTEs for the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark
Based on the survey and my literature review, I suggest a variety of VTEs for the
Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark for the various points in the user journey (Figure
5).
Pre-trip: Not every one of the five pre-trip VTE types found in my literature review
(VR, 360° photo views, live streaming, and webcam-travel) are suited to the Tumbler Ridge
UNESCO Global Geopark. Given the Geopark's nature and emphasis on trails and wildlife

78

experiences, the most fitting VTEs for the pre-trip stage are 360° photo views and webcamtravel, with VR as a supplementary option. These pre-trip VTEs could be used to better
inform potential visitors and those already planning trips to the area. According to my survey
results, many visitors have never heard of the Geopark before arriving. Others also said that
they would have planned to stay longer in the area if they had known about all of Tumbler
Ridge’s offerings beforehand. Pre-trip VTEs might encourage longer stays, thereby
increasing local tourism revenue. Better informing visitors pre-trip can also lessen the
“information-experience” gap between what visitors expect of a destination and what they
experience on site. A narrower gap is often associated with greater satisfaction (Wang et.al,
2024), ultimately increasing positive word-of-mouth.
360° photo views of trails, which came in second place among survey respondents,
are handy for future visitors who want to preview trail conditions. Trail difficulty
varies depending on individual perspectives. Providing complete 360° views of trails,
including the steepest and most challenging sections, will assist visitors in determining
whether the trails meet their expectations and capabilities. Furthermore, 360° photo views of
trails during different seasons might help visitors better prepare for conditions and for
essential equipment by previewing seasonal trail conditions of future adventures. Some trails
already have partially 360° photo views available on the Geopark’s website (e.g. Google
Trekker View of Cabin Pool Trackway Site on www.tumblerridgegeopark.ca), making this a
low-cost option for the Geopark. VR is also accessible off site in that it can be compatible
with equipment some potential visitors already have. For example, people with access to VR
headsets at home. VR can be used to provide an immersive preview of the trails, allowing
potential visitors to evaluate their interests, to earmark particular attractions, and to otherwise

79

prepare for their visit. For example, VR can mimic the trail experience, emphasizing features
and challenges, as well as sharing compelling views that people might want to later see in
person.
Webcam-travel can also be helpful. For example, a colleague's experiment in
Mackenzie, BC, employed a solar-powered webcam with a satellite connection to upload
footage of caribou. Uploading such streams to social media platforms can draw interest and
provide real-time information on the Geopark's natural environment (Jarratt, 2021). Placing
webcams can also monitor trail conditions, as well as use patterns and traffic levels. Wildlife
footage is also a great way to engage potential visitors (Jarratt, 2021).
During trip: For those who have made it to Tumbler Ridge, I recommend on-site use
of 360° photo views of the routes. The Tumbler Ridge Visitor Information Centre can employ
its existing screens to display 360° photo views of trails, allowing visitors to check trail
conditions before starting on hikes. This strategy enables visitors to make informed
decisions, especially when they are unsure about the grade of trail or the level of skill needed.
Similarly, providing seasonal views of trail conditions on site in the Visitor Information
Centre could also be used to prime visitors regarding necessary equipment and preparation.
VR can be an optional upgrade for individuals who are interested. While the primary focus
should be on using 360° photo views, VR may provide an additional immersive experience
for those who want to explore more detailed or more challenging trail portions.
Furthermore, these VTE offerings could be used to alleviate the workload at the
Visitor Information Centre. Instead of always seeking guidance from staff members, some
questions might be answered be online footage. Visitors could be empowered to form their
own opinions about trail conditions and difficulty levels, via online resources. The desire for
80

better, more immediate, and dynamic information on trails and conditions was mentioned by
survey participants. To enhance knowledge of and use of existing 360° photo views already
in existence at the park, the Geopark should increase their visibility on the website, on social
media platforms, and in the Visitor Information Centre. Many visitors are likely unaware of
existing options. Advertising them well could improve the overall visitor experience.
However, it is necessary that the Geopark adjusts its promotional strategies for on-site VTE
options carefully. Both the literature review and survey results suggest that certain visitors
may not be interested in VTEs. For example, some Millennials seek to reduce virtual
interruptions in nature (Clark & Nyaupane, 2022), some adventure seekers prefer physical
challenges and social engagement (Orru et al., 2019), and some view VTEs as threatening
nature and authenticity (survey results). Strategies for these groups should balance promoting
VTEs with respecting nature and authenticity, ensuring that visitors can engage with VTEs
without feeling that the core experience has been or will be weakened via their use.
Post-trip: Based on the literature, webcam travel is advised for the post-trip stage.
Webcam-travel can help visitors recreate their experiences and connect with the Geopark.
Promoting webcam travel allows past visitors to remotely view the Geopark, fostering
nostalgia and strengthening their connection to the place (Jarratt, 2021). Although the
Geopark does not sell tickets, it has a physical item that could incorporate a VTE-related QR
code—the Geo Explorer Passport (Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark, 2024). The
Geo Explorer Passport is designed for hiking enthusiasts to collect stickers when they
complete trails listed in the passport and get the opportunity to win prizes. By placing a QR
code in the passport, previous visitors could watch live or recorded videos of wildlife or trail
conditions where they hiked through a webcam. This AR technology encourages post-trip

81

interactions. This not only helps visitors recall their memories but also motivates them to
share about their visit, encouraging positive word of mouth and future visits, and contributing
to a sense of place attachment (Jarratt, 2021) —three key desirable aspects for tourism
destinations.

82

Chapter 5 Conclusion
My thesis project explored the potential integration of virtual tourism experiences
(VTEs) into the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum.
It was undertaken with these two research partners in the hopes of enhancing visitor
engagement and accessibility. It was conducted to inform key planning exercises over the
next few years. A contribution of my research is the introduction of the term “virtual tourism
experiences” (VTEs). This new term addresses the inconsistencies and multiple meanings
found in existing literature by offering an umbrella term that acts as a clearer framework for
understanding technologies such as VR, AR, MR, 360° photo views, live streaming,
webcam-travel as related and as a suite of potential combinations. In addition to proposing
this term, I suggested a modified conceptualization building on Neuhofer et al.'s (2012)
conceptual model that details how these technologies can fit within and be used during
different stages of the visitor/user journey (pre-trip, during-trip, and post-trip). Clearer
terminology and taxonomy will increase access to and understanding of the VTE literature.
A key goal in writing up this project was to produce useful chapters for my research
partners—chapters that would simplify patterns in the literature, and allow for combining
these with Tumbler Ridge-specific data. By integrating a review of existing literature with
results from a visitor survey, I propose a tailored set of VTE recommendations that
respectively address various stages of the visitor/user journey (pre-trip, during-trip, and posttrip) for the Tumbler Ridge Museum and Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark. The
survey results indicate a polarized reaction to VTEs, with some embracing the technology
and others questioning its fit with “authentic” nature experiences. This emphasizes the
importance of recommending a balanced strategy that would include VTEs as a supplement

83

to physical visits rather than a substitute for them. Educating visitors on how virtual and reallife activities can and do coexist might reduce concerns, and encourage acceptance.
My study also highlights the potential role of VTEs in improving accessibility,
picking up on an initial theme of interest for my partners and the communities they serve.
Using VTEs to improve accessibility allows more people to connect with and enjoy a
destination's natural beauty, regardless of their background, location, or capacity (Guttentag,
2010)). For example, people with disabilities or mobility challenges can virtually visit trails
and geological sites that might otherwise be inaccessible to them (Gharibi et al., 2023).
Future research could investigate how VTEs can further address accessibility. This could
include asking both local and distant potential users about barriers keeping them from
enjoying Tumbler Ridge as well as key activities and sites within it. Furthermore, research on
motion sickness in VR use is needed as motion sickness can be a barrier to user acceptance
and satisfaction (Beck et al., 2019). Better understanding and addressing motion sickness and
its impacts on the user experience is needed to improve accessibility and enjoyment of VR.
Additionally, future research should involve designing and testing specific tailored
VTE inclusions for Tumbler Ridge. This could include performing field experiments or pilot
testing of inclusions at the Geopark and the Museum. Making on-site VTE equipment
available for testing different VTE options, such as VR, AR, and 360° views, and collecting
data on experiences and satisfaction could inform technological investments and refinements.
Such experiments would provide useful details about user experience and the practical
challenges of introducing VTEs to semi-remote places such as Tumbler Ridge. With on-site
equipment, future research could also investigate the technological and infrastructural
limitations, such as how connectivity issues affect VTEs in rural areas like Tumbler Ridge.

84

This could provide important information about the practicality of new technologies like
satellite-driven live streaming or solar-powered webcams in places with limited connectivity.
Learning how to manage these logistical challenges is crucial for successfully integrating
VTEs into rural and nature-based tourism locations.
Another area for further exploration is demographic analysis. Taking a more in-depth
look into visitor demographics and VTE preferences might yield useful information.
Understanding how different groups perceive VTEs across demographic factors such as age,
gender, education level, household income, and geographic point of origin (e.g. urban versus
rural backgrounds) could help identify target groups who are more or less accepting of VTEs.
Research could also explore the opposition to VTEs among those who see it as a threat to
nature-based authenticity, as well as investigate the preferences of more tech-savvy groups.
Analysis of such differences could inform strategies to tailor VTE inclusions for particular
demographics for increased satisfaction.
Future research could also investigate VTEs’ longitudinal outcomes, and the
particular relationships between VTE use and different trip stages. For example, it would be
useful to examine whether and how pre-trip VTEs increase on site visits. It would also be
good to if and how post-trip VTEs such as webcam-travel serve to grow place attachment and
to encourage return visits. This kind of research could help places like Tumbler Ridge find
VTE-related ways to foster strong connections with their visitors. Measuring trends in visitor
engagement, word-of-mouth marketing, and loyalty over time, as they are connected to VTEs
across travel stages would offer insights into the long-term influence of VTEs on place
attachment, satisfaction, word-of-mouth, and return visits—all key considerations.

85

Lastly, considering the dominance of VR in existing literature, more research is
needed on other types of VTEs, such as 360° photo views, live streaming, and webcamtravel. This is needed so that readers can have a better idea of the true range of options,
combinations, and outcomes. More assessments of VTE impacts on visitor engagement,
satisfaction, implementation costs, and the overall economic impact are needed as well.
Comparative case studies of VTE adoption could also prove useful, particularly for readers
considering which VTEs to adopt and integrate. It is essential for decision-makers in the
tourism sector to consider the costs of implementing and maintaining any type of VTEs,
along with their potential to encourage visits or enhance visitor experience. Research that
includes such elements could facilitate decision-making with respect to VTE types. This
would be particularly useful for small, resource-limited places like Tumbler Ridge.
Addressing these main issues could offer a more comprehensive understanding of
VTEs and their potential fit within regional aspirations to increase accessibility and
engagement in Tumbler Ridge. Despite project limitations and gaps in the VTE literature, I
hope that this document provides the type of starter document that partners wanted as general
resource about VTEs and specific suggestions about how they might work in Tumbler Ridge.
Both the literature review and the survey data suggest that VTE incorporation could enrich
visitor experiences with and connections to sites like the Museum and the Geopark. Survey
respondents also provided key insights into factors that would have to be incorporated into
VTE integration into Tumbler Ridge. This includes working within the confines of
technological and communications limitations in the greater area, and marketing VTEs as
complementary and desirable way to augment a nature-based experience, not a threat to
them. Existing literature and the survey data also suggest that VTEs might benefit both

86

visitors and local people looking to experience Tumbler Ridge and its main attractions in new
and different ways. Including VTEs as new shared resource bridging local and visitor use
could help to improve the long-term success of tourism to the area by expanding its benefits
for both “hosts” and “guests”.

87

Bibliography
Agapito, D., Oom do Valle, P., & da Costa Mendes, J. (2013). The Cognitive-AffectiveConative Model of Destination Image: A Confirmatory Analysis. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.803393
Angeloni, R. (2023). Digitization and Virtual Experience of Museum Collections. The
Virtual Tour of the Civic Art Gallery of Ancona. SCIRES-IT - SCIentific RESearch
and Information Technology, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.2423/i22394303v12n2p29
Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research (Fourteenth ed). Cengage Learning.
Bailey, C. (2018). observations. In A Guide to Qualitative Field Research ( Third Edition ed.,
Vol. 0, pp. -). SAGE Publications, Inc, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071909614
Beck, J., Rainoldi, M., & Egger, R. (2019). Virtual reality in tourism: A state-of-the-art
review. Tourism Review, 74(3), 586–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0049
British Columbia Reginal Tourism Secretariat, Symphony Tourism Services & Northern BC
Tourism Association. (2023). Northern BC 2023 Year In Review of Northern BC
Region. https://www.travelnbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Northern-BC-2023Year-In-Review-Canada-USA-International.pdf
Brown, F., & Hall, D. R. (2000). Tourism in peripheral areas: case studies. Channel View
Publications.
Çakar, K., & Aykol, Ş. (2021). Case Study as a Research Method in Hospitality and Tourism
Research: A Systematic Literature Review (1974–2020). Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 62(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520971281

88

Carrozzino, M., & Bergamasco, M. (2010). Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing
immersive virtual reality in real museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(4), 452–
458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.04.001
Chang, H. H. (2022). Virtual reality, YouTube, or social media? Assessing promotional
effects on tourism destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 28(2), 211–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667211038960
Cho, Y.-H., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Effects of
a Virtual Tour. In D. R. Fesenmaier, S. Klein, & D. Buhalis (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2000 (pp. 314–323). Springer Vienna.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6291-0_28
Cho, Y.-H., Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Searching for Experiences: The WebBased Virtual Tour in Tourism Marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
12(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v12n04_01
Clark, C., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2022). Understanding Millennials’ nature-based tourism
experience through their perceptions of technology use and travel constraints. Journal
of Ecotourism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2021.2023555
Cope, M. (2021). Organizing, Coding, and Analyzing Qualitative Data. In I. Hay,, & M.
Cope,. (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (Fifth ed, pp. 355–
375). Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (Sixth ed). SAGE Publications, Inc.

89

Crompton, J L. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4),
408-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
Dai, F., Wang, D., & Kirillova, K. (2022). Travel inspiration in tourist decision making.
Tourism Management, 90, 104484. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104484
Deng, Z., Benckendorff, P., & Wang, J. (2019). Blended Tourism Experiencescape: A
Conceptualisation of Live-Streaming Tourism. In J. Pesonen & J. Neidhardt (Eds.),
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019 (pp. 212–222).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05940-8_17
Destination BC. (2019). Northeastern BC Destination Development Strategy. Destination BC
Corp. https://www.travelnbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Northeastern-BCDestination-Development-Strategy_Final.pdf
Dickinson, J. E., Hibbert, J. F., & Filimonau, V. (2016). Mobile technology and the tourist
experience: (Dis)connection at the campsite. Tourism Management, 57, 193–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.005
Elmahdy, Y., Haukeland, J., & Fredman, P. (2017). Tourism megatrends, a literature review
focused on nature-based tourism. MINA fagrapport, 42.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32481.66402.
Errichiello, L., Micera, R., Atzeni, M., & Del Chiappa, G. (2019). Exploring the implications
of wearable virtual reality technology for museum visitors’ experience: A cluster
analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(5), 590–605.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2283

90

Gharibi, N., Mirtaghian Rudsari, S. M., Ali, F., & Ryu, K. (2023). Understanding XR
technology acceptance by physically disabled tourists in museums. Tourism and
Hospitality Management, 28(3), 661–682. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.28.3.10
Griffin, T., Guttentag, D., Lee, S. H. (Mark), Giberson, J., & Dimanche, F. (2022). Is VR
always better for destination marketing? Comparing different media and styles.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 135676672210782.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667221078252
Grigsby, R. (2001). Participant observation. In The Handbook of Social Work Research
Methods (pp. 333-343). SAGE Publications, Inc.,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986182
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, M. (2013). Sampling in qualitative research. In Collecting
Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research (Vol. 0, pp. 41-74). SAGE
Publications, Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506374680
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism
Management, 31(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Hall, C. M., & Boyd, S. W. (2005). Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas: development
or disaster?. Channel View Publications.
Halseth, G., & Sullivan, L. (2002). Building community in an instant town: a social
geography of Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. UNBC Press.

91

Hardy, A. (2003). An investigation into the key factors necessary for the development of
iconic touring routes. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(4), 314–330.
https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670300900402
He, Z., Wu, L., & Li, X. (Robert). (2018). When art meets tech: The role of augmented
reality in enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tourism
Management, 68, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003
Hewlett, D., & Brown, L. (2018). Planning for tranquil spaces in rural destinations through
mixed methods research. Tourism Management, 67, 237–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.011
Iacono, J., Brown, A., & Holtham, C. (2009). Research methods—A case example of
participant observation. Electronic journal of business research methods, 7(1), pp3946.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A
rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/01607383(82)90049-4
Jackson, T., & Illsley, B. (2006). Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia: The mining town that
refused to die. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 4(2), 163–186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14794010708656846
Jarratt, D. (2021). An exploration of webcam-travel: Connecting to place and nature through
webcams during the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 21(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358420963370

92

Jingen Liang, L., & Elliot, S. (2021). A systematic review of augmented reality tourism
research: What is now and what is next? Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1),
15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358420941913
Cox, J. (2023-2024). KAWS: FAMILY [Exhibition]. Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
https://ago.ca/exhibitions/kaws-family
Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K. (2015). Nature-Based Tourism: Motivation
and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(sup1), S76–
S96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.997958
Lee, H., Jung, T. H., tom Dieck, M. C., & Chung, N. (2020). Experiencing immersive virtual
reality in museums. Information & Management, 57(5), 103229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103229
Lin, K., Fong, L. H. N., & Law, R. (2022). Live streaming in tourism and hospitality: A
literature review. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 27(3), 290–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2022.2061365
Louvre Museum. (n.d.). Virtual Tours. Louvre Museum Official Website. Retrieved April 23,
2022, from https://www.louvre.fr/en/online-tours
Markey, S. P., Halseth, G., & Manson, D. (2012). Investing in place: economic renewal in
northern British Columbia. UBC Press.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2022). Social research: Issues, methods and process (Fifth ed). Open
University Press.

93

McFee, A., Mayrhofer, T., Baràtovà, A., Neuhofer, B., Rainoldi, M., & Egger, R. (2019).
The Effects of Virtual Reality on Destination Image Formation. In J. Pesonen & J.
Neidhardt (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019
(pp. 107–119). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03005940-8_9
McGuire, F. A., Dottavio, D., & O’Leary, J. T. (1986). Constraints to participation in outdoor
recreation across the life span: a nationwide study of limitors and prohibitors. The
Gerontologist, 26(5), 538–544.
McGuirk, P. M. & O'Neill, P. (2021). Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Human Geography.
In Hay, I. & Cope, M. (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in human geography
(Fifth ed, pp. 244–270). Oxford University Press.
McLafferty, S. L. (2016). Conducting questionnaire surveys. In Clifford, N. J., Cope, M.,
Gillespie, T. W., & French, S. (Eds.), Key methods in geography (Third ed, pp. 7788). SAGE.
Moro, S., Rita, P., Ramos, P., & Esmerado, J. (2019). Analysing recent augmented and
virtual reality developments in tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 10(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-07-2018-0059
Mura, P., Tavakoli, R., & Pahlevan Sharif, S. (2017). ‘Authentic but not too much’:
Exploring perceptions of authenticity of virtual tourism. Information Technology &
Tourism, 17(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-016-0059-y

94

Nautiyal, R., Polus, R., Tripathi, A., & Shaheer, I. (2023). “To use or not to use”—Mobile
technology in nature-based tourism experience. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 43, 100667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2023.100667
Neuhofer, B. (2016). Value Co-creation and Co-destruction in Connected Tourist
Experiences. In A. Inversini & R. Schegg (Eds.), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2016 (pp. 779–792). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28231-2_56
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced
destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2),
36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.08.001
Nordbakke, S. (2013). Capabilities for mobility among urban older women: Barriers,
strategies and options. Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.10.003
Northern BC Tourism Association. (2019, April 5). Northern British Columbia Travel Guide
2019. https://issuu.com/travelnbc/docs/2019_northern_bc_travel_guide
Northern BC Tourism Association. (n.d.). Research Programs. Northern BC Tourism
Association. Retrieved April 23, 2024, from
https://www.travelnbc.com/programs/research
Orru, K., Kask, S., & Nordlund, A. (2019). Satisfaction with virtual nature tour: The roles of
the need for emotional arousal and pro-ecological motivations. Journal of
Ecotourism, 18(3), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1526290

95

Pahlevan-Sharif, S., Mura, P., & Wijesinghe, S. N. R. (2019). A systematic review of
systematic reviews in tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39,
158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.04.001
Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Dempster, P. (2014). Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. SAGE
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957671
Petersen, H. (2024, September 09). Northern B.C. coal mine comes back to life after 24
years. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/quintette-mineconuma-resources-open-24-years-1.7317288
Pratisto, E. H., Thompson, N., & Potdar, V. (2022). Immersive technologies for tourism: A
systematic review. Information Technology & Tourism, 24(2), 181–219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-022-00228-7
Prideaux, B. (2000). The role of the transport system in destination development. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00079-5
Ramsey, D., & Malcolm, C. D. (2018). The importance of location and scale in rural and
small town tourism product development: The case of the Canadian Fossil Discovery
Centre, Manitoba, Canada. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes,
62(2), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12409
Reis, A., & Shelton, E. (2011). The Nature of Tourism Studies. Tourism Analysis, 16(3), 375384. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354211X13110944741361.
Resta, G., Dicuonzo, F., Karacan, E., & Pastore, D. (2021). The impact of virtual tours on
museum exhibitions after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions: Visitor engagement

96

and long-term perspectives. SCIRES-IT - SCIentific RESearch and Information
Technology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.2423/i22394303v11n1p151
Sarantakos, S. (2013). Social Research (Fourth ed). Red Global Press.
Serravalle, F., Ferraris, A., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Christofi, M. (2019). Augmented
reality in the tourism industry: A multi-stakeholder analysis of museums. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 32, 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.002
Skard, S., Knudsen, E. S., Sjåstad, H., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2021). How virtual reality
influences travel intentions: The role of mental imagery and happiness forecasting.
Tourism Management, 87, 104360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104360
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and
guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
tom Dieck, D., tom Dieck, M. C., Jung, T., & Moorhouse, N. (2018). Tourists’ virtual reality
adoption: An exploratory study from Lake District National Park. Leisure Studies,
37(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2018.1466905
Trunfio, M., & Campana, S. (2020). A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the
museum. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(9), 1053–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1586847
Trunfio, M., Jung, T., & Campana, S. (2022). Mixed reality experiences in museums:
Exploring the impact of functional elements of the devices on visitors’ immersive

97

experiences and post-experience behaviours. Information & Management, 59(8),
103698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103698
Truong, D., Xiaoming Liu, R., & Yu, J. (2020). Mixed methods research in tourism and
hospitality journals. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 32(4), 1563–1579. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2019-0286
Tsai, L.-L. (2022). Factors That Influence Virtual Tourism Holistic Image: The Moderating
Role of Sense of Presence. Sustainability, 14(1), 467.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010467
Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark. (2024, August 30). Just one month left in the
Tumbler Ridge Global Geopark Passport Contest! Get out on those trails, snap some
epic [Image attached] [Status update]. Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/JLJKt3RtLssnpsuu
Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark. (n.d.). Top 10 Geosites. Tumbler Ridge UNESCO
Global Geopark. Retrieved April 23, 2023,
from https://www.tumblerridgegeopark.ca/index.php/top-10-geosites
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0 (Third ed). SAGE.
http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=786870
Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide (Third ed).
Prentice Hall/Financial Times.

98

Wang, C., Qu, H., & Hsu, M. K. (2016). Toward an integrated model of tourist expectation
formation and gender difference. Tourism Management, 54, 58–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.009
Wang, R., Wu, C., Wang, X., Xu, F., & Yuan, Q. (2024). E-Tourism Information Literacy and
Its Role in Driving Tourist Satisfaction With Online Travel Information: A Qualitative
Comparative Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 63(4), 904–922.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231177229
Watson, A. (2021). “Placing” Participant Observation In I. Hay,, & M. Cope,. (Eds.),
Qualitative research methods in human geography (Fifth ed, pp. 125–147). Oxford
University Press.
Wei, W. (2019). Research progress on virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in
tourism and hospitality: A critical review of publications from 2000 to 2018. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 10(4), 539–570.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-04-2018-0030
Wu, X., & Lai, I. K. W. (2022). The use of 360-degree virtual tours to promote mountain
walking tourism: Stimulus–organism–response model. Information Technology &
Tourism, 24(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-021-00218-1
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2006). Case studies in tourism research: A state-of-the-art
analysis. Tourism Management, 27(5), 738–749.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.002

99

Yellowstone Forever. (n.d.). Old Faithful Streaming Webcam. Yellowstone Forever.
Retrieved April 23, 2022, from https://www.yellowstone.org/old-faithful-streamingwebcam
Yellowstone National Park. (n.d.). Webcams. Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park
Service). Retrieved April 23, 2022, from
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm
Yu, C.-P., Lee, H.-Y., Lu, W.-H., Huang, Y.-C., & Browning, M. H. E. M. (2020).
Restorative effects of virtual natural settings on middle-aged and elderly adults.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, 126863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126863
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: A systematic literature review on
virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism,
22(17), 2056–2081. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1417359
Yung, R., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Potter, L. E. (2021). Virtual reality and tourism marketing:
Conceptualizing a framework on presence, emotion, and intention. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(11), 1505–1525. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1820454
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., & Zhang, T. (2021). Can “Live Streaming” Really Drive Visitors to
the Destination? From the Aspect of “Social Presence.” SAGE Open, 11(1),
215824402110066. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211006691
Zollo, L., Rialti, R., Marrucci, A., & Ciappei, C. (2022). How do museums foster loyalty in
tech-savvy visitors? The role of social media and digital experience. Current Issues in
Tourism, 25(18), 2991–3008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1896487
100

Appendix A Research Ethics Board (REB) Approval

101

102

103

104

Appendix B TCPS 2: CORE 2022 Certificate

105

Appendix C Information Letter / Consent Form For Visitors

TUMBLER RIDGE VISITATION SURVEY 2022
SURVEY ID: ________________
DATE: _________________

Information Letter / Consent Form For Visitors
Project Title
Bringing dinosaurs into the 2020s: considering current visitation and future virtual tourism possibilities for the
Tumbler Ridge Museum and Geopark (BC)
Who is conducting the study?
Yihang Zhang
yihangz@unbc.ca
Masters Student, Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
Dr. Zoë A. Meletis
zoe.meletis@unbc.ca
Associate Professor, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this study is to collect new information on visitors, the activities they engage with in Tumbler
Ridge, and their preferences and motivations—including with respect to virtual tourism. This research is being
conducted in collaboration with The Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global
Geopark. It is part of Zhang’s Masters project, and part of Meletis’ research as well. It is also part of a
MITACS internship. The information you provide will be used as part of Zhang’s thesis and may also appear in
academic presentations and papers, and popular media. We will return data and information to participants and
other audiences including the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler Ridge Geopark and other interested
actors.
Who is funding this study?
The study includes funding from The Tumbler Ridge Museum Foundation, the MITACS Accelerate program,
and UNBC. Partial funding has also been provided by the BC Real Estate Foundation.
Why are we doing this voluntary low risk study?
This study will help us learn more about visitation to Tumbler Ridge during the summer of 2022. We will
collect data on visitor motivations, activities, perceptions, and demographics. We are inviting people like you
to help us better understand what tourists are interested in, including when it comes to virtual options.

106

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You are free to stop participating at any time during the survey
and to skip any questions you like. A completed survey will be considered consent, and all answers will be
kept anonymous and confidential. Contact information for follow-up and prizes will be removed and stored
separately from the survey.
This is a low risk study that has been reviewed by the UNBC Research Ethics Board. We will provide you with
a self-administered survey that should take you about 15 minutes to complete. We can assist you if you like.
Please hand it to us when done.
There is nothing in this study that is likely to harm you. You can stop at any time, and skip any questions you
like.
What are the benefits of participating?
This study will generate new data on visitation to Tumbler Ridge. This will be shared with the Tumbler Ridge
UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum, who will consider it when developing future
plans. We will also return data summaries to project participants and other interested actors (e.g. Chambre of
Commerce; Northern BC Tourism). We also plan to make contributions to academic literature and to teaching.
How will your privacy be maintained?
Your anonymity will be respected. Surveys will only be identified by a code number, will be entered into
digital format, and kept on a password-protected computer; they will also be stored separately from voluntarily
shared contact information. Subjects will not be identified by name in any reports, papers, or presentations
from the completed study.
Demographic information is only used to describe our sample and to compare it to known data about visitors to
Tumbler Ridge. All survey answers are anonymous and confidential. Your contact information will only be
used as you have indicated (e.g. for prize consideration and/or data return). It will be stored securely and will
not be shared. Once the project has ended, data has been returned and prizes awarded, contact information will
be destroyed.
Will you be paid for taking part in this research study?
We will offer you a gift/sticker in appreciation for participating. You will also have a chance to win a set of
binoculars ($400 value).
Study Results
The results of this study will be reported in a graduate thesis and may also be published in academic journal
articles, books and be presented in academic conferences, community meetings and reports in Tumbler Ridge
and BC, Canada. Data from the project will also be used in teaching and may be shared with related
government actors. No visitor contact information will be shared. Study participants (businesses and visitors)
can also provide us with an email address where we can send a resulting data summary (1-2 pages) and an
infographic.
Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project
If you have any questions, please ask us at any time during the survey or afterwards. You can contact us at
yihangz@unbc.ca and zoe.meletis@unbc.ca. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a
research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, please contact the UNBC Office
of Research at 250 960 6735 or e-mail reb@unbc.ca.

107

Participant Consent and Withdrawal
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you
decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study without reason or repercussions. In order to
withdraw from the study, you can do so until September 15, 2022. Please contact us and we would be happy to
remove your survey from the data. To do so, we will need you to provide us with the code on your information
letter. Otherwise, your anonymous data will remain part of the project.

108

CONSENT
I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the project:
YES

NO

I have been offered this information letter and had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.
YES

NO

I understand that a completed survey will indicate consent. No signature will be collected.
YES

NO

109

Appendix D Tumbler Ridge Visitation Survey 2022

TUMBLER RIDGE VISITATION SURVEY 2022
SURVEY ID: ________________
DATE: _________________

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this voluntary survey. While some
questions might seem repetitive, they have been strategically designed to answer
academic and practical questions, in collaboration with The Tumbler Ridge
Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum. Please answer as fully and completely
as you can, but also feel welcome to skip any question that you do not want to
answer. You can stop at any time. The survey begins with project information.

Section 1. Trips to and activities in Tumbler Ridge
1. Is this your first visiting time Tumbler Ridge?
a) Yes. (Please jump to Q2)

b) No. This is my ________ time visiting here.

1a. If not, how often do you visit Tumbler Ridge?
a) Monthly or every few months

b) Yearly

110

c) Less than once/year

2. Where did you hear about the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark? Please check all that apply.
Before arriving, I had not heard of the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark
General Internet search
Tourism websites like TripAdvisor or Expedia
Tourism websites like Hello BC
The Geopark’s official website
Visitor centers (e.g. Dawson Creek): ____________
Printed promotional materials including pamphlets
Popular media (TV; radio; magazines; newspapers)
Billboards along highways
Friends, family, colleagues and/or other travelers
Social media:
Facebook

Instagram

Tiktok

YouTube

Twitter

Other: _________________________________________________________________
3. In Tumbler Ridge, are you travelling as:
a) A family/or families with children present
b) A group of friends or colleagues
c) An adult couple or set of couples
d) A solo/independent traveler
4. How long are you spending in Tumbler Ridge this trip?
a) less than 2 days

b) 2-3 days

c) 4-7 days

d) more than 7 days

5. Where are you staying in Tumbler Ridge? Please check all below that apply,
OR

I’m not staying overnight in Tumbler Ridge.
Hotel

Guesthouse/B&B/Airbnb

Family/Friends

Campground

Other: _______________________________________________

6. Does this trip include other stops/stays?
a) Yes. Other destinations on this trip are:
_________________________________________________________________________
b) No. Tumbler Ridge is the only stop this time.

111

7. What drew you to Tumbler Ridge? Why are you visiting?

8. Please circle all the reasons for your visit, and rank your TOP 3 REASONS, with 1 being the top
reason:
RANK
a) Nature/the outdoors (e.g. trails)

____________

b) Indigenous culture

____________

c) The unique location / spot off the beaten track

____________

d) Dinosaur footprints and fossils

____________

e) The UNESCO Geopark

____________

f) Kinuseo Falls

____________

g) The Tumbler Ridge Museum

____________

h) It is a stop on the way to my next destination

____________

i) Visiting family/friends

____________

j) Small-town lifestyle

____________

k) Work (e.g. mining; energy; research)

____________

l) Researching places to live or play

____________

m) Other: _________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
9. Which of the activities below will you take part in (or have you already taken part in) while in
Tumbler Ridge on this trip? Please check all that apply, and circle the activity that you most enjoy
while you are in Tumbler Ridge.
Hiking

Cycling

Motorbiking/ATVing

Camping

Wildlife viewing

Hunting/ Fishing

Taking part in watersports

Looking for tracks/fossils

Visiting the museum

Taking tours

Driving to enjoy scenery

Geocaching

Golfing

Emperor's Challenge 2022

Other: _________________________________________________________________

112

10. Is there anything about tourism in Tumbler Ridge that you would improve? Please provide details.

11. Do you think you will visit Tumbler Ridge again?
a) Yes. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
b) No. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
c) Not sure. Why not:

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

113

Section 2. Tumbler Ridge and virtual tourism
This section is about existing and potential virtual tourism experiences. Virtual tourism experience
(VTE) is a category of technology-based activities that can include pre-trip, during trip, and after-trip
entertainment such as independent and official videos; video tours; virtual reality activities; 360 degree
online “visits”; and more. These are not promotional videos or products but rather tourism activities
online and/or on site. Please answer as best you can, whether or not you have engaged with virtual
tourism.
12. Have you ever tried a virtual tourism experience? For example, Google Map’s 360 degree street view;
video museum tours; immersive experiences in a museum using VR equipment. Please circle your
answer, and share a story below, about an experience if you like.
a) Yes.

b) No.

Please share a story about a virtual tourism experience(s):

13. If the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Geopark could provide a virtual way to “travel” beyond your
capabilities and skills, such as a live online virtual tour of an extreme expert-level, would you be
interested in trying it? Please circle one and provide details:
a) Yes. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
b) No. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

114

14. Imagine the following virtual experiences as potential options in or for Tumbler Ridge. Please indicate
your interest in each activity type (1=least interested; 3= neutral; 5= most interested)

a) 2D/two dimensional 360 degree tours that invite you

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

to explore Tumbler Ridge’s trails using a webpage
and zooming/clicking on key details
b) Short videos of Tumbler Ridge’s scenery or activities
shot by a Youtuber/Tiktoker
c) Pre-trip/post-trip virtual reality (VR) outdoor
experiences of Tumbler Ridge that you could watch
at home
d) During-trip/on site virtual reality (VR) experiences
in the Tumbler Ridge Museum where you could
wear a VR headset and enjoy trails
e) During-trip/on site virtual reality (VR) experiences in
the Tumbler Ridge Museum where you could wear a
VR headset and or explore “behind the scenes” in
the
Museum collection
f) App-based artificial reality (AR) experiences in the
Tumbler Ridge Museum (e.g. point your phone at a
skeleton and experience a reconstruction of the
dinosaur’s appearance, and receive related
information)
g) Audio-only experiences in the Tumbler Ridge
Museum (e.g. you could access more information
about aspects of the museum by scanning a QR code
and listening along)

115

15. Imagine an application/app that you could download to your phone and take with you offline on
the trails of Tumbler Ridge. You could access additional experiences linking local landscapes to
prehistoric times (e.g. dinosaurs popping up; information about prehistoric plants and animals).
Does that sound like something you would like to include in a visit?
a) Yes. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
b) No. Why:

_____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
16. Which of virtual tourism experiences below do you think would most enhance a visit to Tumbler
Ridge? Please choose only ONE answer.
a) VR experiences of trails or outdoor activities that you could experience pre or post trip
b) VR experiences of trails or outdoor activities that you could try while in Tumbler Ridge.
c) AR experiences in the Tumbler Ridge Museum like the dinosaur reconstruction.
d) Phone-based app experiences that could be used offline outdoors in Tumbler Ridge.
17. Is there anything else you would like to add about Tumbler Ridge and/or virtual tourism
experiences?

116

Section 3. Demographics
Like the rest of this survey, answering these questions is voluntary (thank you!), and you can skip
any question. We collect information about age, gender, etc. so that we can describe the group that
answered our survey and how they compare with other groups (e.g. prior visitors).
1. Where do you live for most of the year?
a) British Columbia

b) Alberta

c) Other province: _______________

d) Other country: __________________

2. Please choose the age range that you belong to (only the person completing the survey):
a) 18-29 years

b) 30-39 years

c) 40-49 years

d) 50-59 years

e) 60-69 years

f) over 70 years

3. Please choose the gender that you most identify with.
a) Male

b) Female

c) Non-binary

d) Transgender

e) Two-Spirit

f) Other: ________________________________________________

4. Please choose the last level of formal education that you have completed.
a) Some High School
c) Some university/college/trade school

b) High School
d) Bachelor's degree, college or trades

e) Master's Degree or PhD
5. Please choose your annual household income (household = household for tax purposes).
a) under $35,000 b) $35,001-$70,000

c) $70,001-$100,000

117

d) More than $100,000

(WILL BE DETACHED TO STORE CONTACT INFORMATION SEPARATELY)

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS and indicate/check which options you are interested in.
Or, leave this section blank if none of the options interest you:

_________________________________________________________

1) To be contacted with the results of this survey
2) To be entered into a draw to win a pair of binoculars worth approximately 400$

3) To be contacted with the results of this survey AND to be entered into a draw to win a pair of
binoculars worth approximately 400$

Email addresses provided here will ONLY be used as indicated above. They will not be shared or used for
any additional purposes.

Thank you very much for contributing to this project!

118

Appendix E Information Letter / Consent Form For Businesses

Information Letter / Consent Form For Businesses
Project Title
Bringing dinosaurs into the 2020s: considering current visitation and future virtual tourism
possibilities for the Tumbler Ridge Museum and Geopark (BC)
Who is conducting the study?
Yihang Zhang
yihangz@unbc.ca
Masters Student, Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
Dr. Zoë A. Meletis
zoe.meletis@unbc.ca
Associate Professor, Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this study is to collect new information on visitors, the activities they engage
with in Tumbler Ridge, and their preferences and motivations—including with respect to
virtual tourism. This research is being conducted in collaboration with The Tumbler Ridge
Museum and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark. It is part of Zhang’s Masters
project, and part of Meletis’ research as well. It is also part of a MITACS internship. The
information you provide will be used as part of Zhang’s thesis and may also appear in
academic presentations and papers, and popular media. We will return data and information
to participants and other audiences including the Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler
Ridge Geopark and other interested actors.
Who is funding this study?
The study includes funding from The Tumbler Ridge Museum Foundation, and the MITACS
Accelerate program, and UNBC. Partial funding has also been provided by the BC Real
Estate Foundation.
Why are we doing this voluntary low risk study?
This study will help us learn more about visitation to Tumbler Ridge during the summer of
2022. We will collect data on visitor motivations, activities, perceptions, and demographics.
We are inviting people like your guests/customers to help us better understand what visitors
to Tumbler Ridge are interested in doing on site and virtually.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Survey respondents are free to stop
participating at any time during the survey and to skip any questions they like. A completed
119

survey will be considered proof of their consent, and all answers will be kept anonymous and
confidential. Contact information for follow-up and prizes will be removed and stored
separately from the survey.
This is a low risk study that has been reviewed by the UNBC Research Ethics Board. We will
provide the participants with a self-administered survey. It should take them about 15
minutes to complete it and we will be on site to assist them and answer questions.
There is nothing in this study that is likely to harm the participants. They can stop at any
time, and skip any questions they like.
What will you be expected to do during this study?
We are requesting your permission to conduct the visitation survey (attached) on and/or near
your business premises during the summer of 2022. We will inquire you about the survey
times and locations on and/or near your business premises for your convivence. You can also
direct questions about the project from potential participants to our research team.
Permission Consent and Withdrawal
Permission to this study on and/or near your business premises is entirely up to you. You
have the right to refuse to permit this study on and/or near your business premises. If you
decide to give the permission, you may choose to withdraw the permission at any time that
we are surveying in Tumbler Ridge without reason or repercussions.
What are the benefits of allowing the research team to conduct this study?
This study will generate new data on visitation to Tumbler Ridge. This will be shared with
the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Global Geopark and the Tumbler Ridge Museum, who will
consider it when developing future plans. We will also return data summaries to project
participants and other interested actors (e.g. Chambre of Commerce; Northern BC Tourism).
We also plan to make contributions to academic literature and to teaching.
How will the participants’ privacy be maintained?
The participants’ anonymity will be respected. Surveys will be identified only by a code
number, will be entered into digital format, and kept on a password-protected computer; they
will also be stored separately from voluntarily shared contact information. Subjects will not
be identified by name in any reports, papers, or presentations.
Demographic information is only used to describe our sample and to compare it to known
data about visitors to Tumbler Ridge. All survey answers are anonymous and confidential.
The participants’ contact information will only be used as they have indicated (e.g. for prize
consideration and/or data return). It will be stored securely and will not be shared. Once the
project has ended, data has been returned and prizes awarded, contact information will be
destroyed.

120

Will you be paid for allowing the research team to conduct this research study?
We will offer you our thanks and the same small gift/sticker we are offering participating
visitors. You can also ask to be entered into the draw for a pair of binoculars (approx. $400
value).
Study Results
The results of this study will be reported in a graduate thesis and may also be published in
academic journal articles, books and be presented in academic conferences, community
meetings and reports in Tumbler Ridge and BC, Canada. Data from the project will also be
used in teaching and may be shared with related government actors. No visitor contact
information will be shared. Study participants (businesses and visitors) can also provide us
with an email address where we can send a resulting data summary (1-2 pages) and an
infographic.
Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project
If you have any questions, please ask us at any time during the survey or afterwards. You can
contact us at yihangz@unbc.ca and zoe.meletis@unbc.ca.
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights and/or your experiences during this
study, please contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or e-mail reb@unbc.ca.

BUSINESS CONSENT/PERMISSION TO SURVEY
I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the
project:
YES

NO

I have been offered a copy of this form and had the opportunity to ask questions about the
project.
YES

NO

I allow this research team to conduct this study ON and/or NEAR my business premises
during the summer of 2022. Please circle the option(s) that apply.
YES

NO

I understand that the study will be conducted in different locations on rotation and that the
research team will maintain good communications with me about times/days that work for
both parties.
YES

NO

121

Business Name:
Address:
Additional Notes Regarding Surveying
Locations and Times:
Date:
Email address for data return:

122

Appendix F Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement
The study Bringing dinosaurs into the 2020s: considering current visitation and future
virtual tourism possibilities for the Tumbler Ridge Museum and Geopark (BC) is being
conducted by Dr. Zoe Meletis and Yihang Zhang, in collaboration with The Tumbler Ridge
Museum and The Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Geopark. The study aims to address the following
questions, and you will be involved in collecting data that will be used to answer questions 2
and 3. The first question will be answered by Zhang based on a literature review and
environmental scan:
1. What are current existing and potential virtual tourism experiences (VTEs)?
2. Who are visitors to Tumbler Ridge in terms of demographics, motivations,
preferences, and activities on site?
3. Which potential virtual tourism experiences (VTEs) might be appropriate for
Tumbler Ridge?
Data from this study will be used to:
•
•
•

I, (

inform Meletis’ BC-based research and future studies,
to compose a key component of Zhang’s Masters thesis project, and
to contribute to resulting analyses and to future discussions of tourism by project
partners The Tumbler Ridge Museum and the Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Geopark. It
will also be returned to project partners and participants and shared via public meetings,
academic presentations and papers, possible popular media articles, and via teaching.
) (the “Recipient”), agree as follows:

1. To keep all the research information shared with me confidential by not discussing or
sharing the research information in any form or format (e.g. disks, tapes, transcripts)
with anyone other than the Principal Investigator(s);
2. To keep all research information in any form or format secure while it is in my
possession;
3. I will not use the research information for any purpose other than assisting with this
study and discussing final outputs;
4. To return all research information in any form or format to the Principal Investigator(s)
when I have completed the research tasks;

123

5. After consulting with the Principal Investigator(s), erase or destroy all research
information in any form or format regarding this research project that is not returnable
to the Principal Investigator(s) (e.g. information stored on computer hard drive).
Recipient
(Print name)

(Signature)

(Date)

Signed in the presence of one of the Principal Investigators (Zoë Meletis or Yihang Zhang) or
partner organization representatives Zena Conlin (The Tumbler Ridge Museum) or Manda
Mags (Tumbler Ridge UNESCO Geopark)
(Print name)

(Signature)

(Date)

Please email your proof of TCPS2 CORE training to zoe.meletis@unbc.ca. And email Zoe
at that address if you have any questions about the project or your involvement in it. You can
also reach me at 250-640-1260. Link to the course: https://tcps2core.ca/welcome

If you would like copies of resulting project data summaries, etc., please provide your
contact information to Yihang Zhang and we will add you to the list.

THANK YOU FOR BEING A PART OF OUR
BRINGING DINOSAURS INTO THE 2020s PROJECT!

124

Appendix G Copyright Clearance Center License Agreement

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132