SOCIAL SCIENCES

STUDIES JOURNAL
SSSjournal (ISSN:2587-1587)
Economics and Administration, Tourism and Tourism Management, History, Culture, Religion, Psychology, Sociology, Fine Arts,
Engineering, Architecture, Language, Literature, Educational Sciences, Pedagogy & Other Disciplines in Social Sciences
Vol:4, Issue:27 pp.6125-6135 2018
sssjournal.com ISSN:2587-1587 [email protected]
Article Arrival Date (Makale Geliş Tarihi) 13/11/2018 The Published Rel. Date (Makale Yayın Kabul Tarihi) 24/12/2018
Published Date (Makale Yayın Tarihi) 24.12.2018
THE EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE APPLICATIONS ON VISITORS’ EXPERIENCE: A
CASE OF GOBEKLITEPE, TURKEY1
Assistant Professor Mustafa DOGAN
School of Tourism & Hotel Management, Batman University Batman, Turkey

Assistant Professor S. Emre DILEK

School of Tourism & Hotel Management, Batman University Batman, Turkey

Professor Gulriz KOZBE

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Art History, Batman University Batman, Turkey

Article Type : Research Article/ Araştırma Makalesi

Doi Number : http://dx.doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1084
Reference : Dogan, M.; Dilek, S.E. & Kobze, G. (2018). “The Effects Of Interactive Applications On Visitors’
Experience: A Case Of Gobeklitepe, Turkey”, International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(27): 6125-6135

ABSTRACT
The need for preservation and flexible exploration of historical artifacts generated increasing interest in using digital technologies in
the cultural heritage context. This paper presents user interaction applications of a recent digital cultural heritage conservation and
exploration project concerning one of the most famous heritage site “Göbeklitepe” in Turkey that is the oldest known human-made
religious structure and added to the UNESCO’s World Heritage List by the year 2018 is 15 km away of northeast of the town
Şanlıurfa. The project aims at enriching the visitor experience through modern digital technologies. Main modules include 3D
scanning of the artifacts, information screen and mobile interaction with Augmented Reality (AR). AR has been developed to provide
information about destinations and attractions. Because of the development of AR, tourists using AR can gain valuable experience
without a tourist guide.
There two aims of this study: 1) is to describe acceptance of a new technology such as AR and visiting intention for visitors who use
AR at a heritage destination, 2) to measure tourists’ experiences of visiting historic sites. For this purpose, two scales were used for
data collection. In accordance with the first aim of the study, the scale adapted by Chung, Han & Joun (2015) which is to explain
visitors’ acceptance of AR based on the TAM. Secondly, Lee & Smith’s (2015) multiple-item scale was used to measure tourists’
experiences of visiting historic sites and museums. There are three dimensions in the first scale as perceived usefulness (5 items),
perceived ease of use (3 items) and visit intention (2 items) visit intention (2 items) in accordance with the purpose of the study. On
the other hand, the second scale involves natively 16 items under six dimensions. The findings offer important practical implications
for historic sites and museums in relation to AR and experiential marketing. The findings show that the Augmented Reality
applications have an important practical usefulness for the Göbeklitepe archeological site and particularly enriching of the visitor
experience. The study shows that the AR applications impact on the visit intention of the visitors. The study is revealed that
applications can be applied to enhance the attractiveness of the archeological sites, as Göbeklitepe, in many destinations.
Keywords; Heritage sites, interactive applications, visitor experience, Göbeklitepe, Turkey

1. INTRODUCTION
Building an incredible visitor experience is essential to a destination’s success. Augmented reality (AR) has
an important part of interactive applications to play in this success as it begins to enhance real world
experiences through mainstream technologies. Recently, significant attention has been directed to the
potential of AR to change users' view of their environment (Wasko, 2013). Traditionally, orientation at a
destination or tourist attractions was given by tour guides, directional signs, or online maps. However, the
popularity of smartphones with built-in cameras, global positioning system (GPS), and Internet connections

1 This paper was presented in “The 11th Tourism Outlook Conference Heritage Tourism beyond Borders and Civilizations”
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

has increased the availability of AR applications that enable destinations/ attractions to construct a personal
and context-aware tourism experience (Yovcheva, Buhalis, & Gatzidis, 2013). AR is particularly valuable
to the tourism industry because it can create an interactive online environment in which tourists who have
little knowledge of the area (Von der Pütten et al., 2012). On the other hand, introducing AR applications at
tourism destinations or attractions does not automatically bring positive experiences (Yovcheva et al.,
2013; Jung, Chung, & Leue, 2015).
In 2009, smartphone apps began to use AR technology to add a layer of guidance, content and
entertainment to physical locations seen through the phone’s camera view. For instance, Tuscany+ was the
first of these apps built specifically for tourism as an “interactive, real-time guide” intended to enhance the
visitor experience (Tuscany, 2018). AR has been developed to provide information about destinations and
attractions. Because of the development of AR, tourists using AR can gain valuable experience without a
tour guide. Because of this, a variety of AR utilization examples can be found in the field of tourism (Fritz,
Susperregui, & Linaza, 2005; Yovcheva et al., 2013; Hunter, Chung, Gretzel, & Koo, 2015; Jung et al.,
2015). For example, Yovcheva et al. (2013) stated that AR will maximize tourist satisfaction based on the
assumption that tourists will actively accept and use AR. However, contrary to expectations, AR is not
being actively used, and, as a new phenomenon, it is appearing more slowly than expected (Chung, Han &
Joun, 2015). In addition, studies related to AR in a tourism context have dealt only with the importance of
AR utilization, AR characteristics, technological understanding, and AR development strategies (Han, Jung
& Gibson, 2013; Chung et al., 2015).
In tourism studies, empirical studies have not yet sufficiently researched why people use AR or how its use
will affect visits to tourist destinations or attractions (Chung et al., 2015). In this study, it is tried to
determine that the effect of interactive applications (AR) on visitors’ experience in Gobeklitepe, Turkey. In
other words, the study was built on AR users may develop a positive attitude toward AR at a heritage
destination or attractions or try to visit the destination or attractions again. In this context, this study
conceptualizes crucial dimensions which are “perceived usefulness”, “perceived ease of use)”,
“destination/attraction visit intention” and “attractiveness & contribution to tourism” and how these
dimensions’ influence visitors’ AR usage intention and destination visit intention through AR technology
perception (perceived usefulness and ease of use). In addition to that, it is tried to reveal whether AR
applications contribute to tourism as a attractiveness.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1.Augmented Reality (AR) and Cultural Tourism Experiences
Augmented Reality is a variation of virtual reality. Compared with virtual reality, AR enhances the real
world instead of replacing it (Azuma, 1997). Augmented reality (AR) is one of the technologies gaining
increasing interest (Zlatanova, 2002). AR as a real-time direct or indirect view of a physical real-world
environment (Silva, Oliveira, & Giraldi, 2003; Kounavis, Kasimati, Zamani, & Giaglis, 2012). AR is both
interactive and registered in3D as well as combines real and virtual objects (Carmigniani and Furth, 2011).
Most AR systems strengthen contiguity of space and time by superimposing virtual information pertinent to
physical objects and spaces (Azuma, Billinghurst, & Klinker, 2011).
AR aims to duplicate the world's environment in a computer. The system creates a composite view, which
is the combination of the real scene viewed by the user and a virtual scene generated by the computer that
augments the scene with additional information. (Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi & Kishino, 1995). The
advance in mobile technologies such as smartphones provides new opportunities to AR systems and
applications (Marimon et al., 2010: 1). In the tourism context, for instance, tourists can experience both
reality and virtual realms through the innovative technologies of smartphone applications (Lee, Ryong-Lee
& Ham, 2014: 60).
AR as systems that have the following characteristics: 1) combines real and virtual; 2) interactive in real
time; and 3) registered in 3-D (Azuma, Baillot, Behringer, Feiner, Julier, & MacIntyre, 2001; Noh, Sunar &
Pan, 2009; Mekni & Lemieux, 2014). In this context, AR has the potential to support tourism experiences
through new modes of visitor servicing, storytelling and gamification based on combining real and virtual.
For example, DMOs could use AR to support visitors in their native languages, offer maps and guides for
specific niche audiences, offer additional historical or cultural context to an experience, show how their
destinations would appear in a different season, or create educational games to learn about an area’s history
and wildlife or to entertain children on long drives.

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6126
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

AR is used within the tourism sector, aiming to improve the tourist experience. On the one hand, several
examples have shown that AR can aid tourist organizations and professionals towards reaching a wider
audience by serving as the delivery technology of appealing multimedia content and mobile applications,
fine‐tuned to various knowledge levels (Kounavis, Kasimati & Zamani, 2012). On the other hand, AR
information systems can help tourists in accessing valuable information and improving their knowledge
regarding a touristic attraction or a destination, while enhancing the tourist experience and offering
increased levels of entertainment throughout the process (Fritz et al., 2005).
2.2. AR Applications in Tourism Sector and Historical Sites
Consumer-based mobile AR application development has grown very quickly over the past few years
(Linaza, Marimon, Carrasco, Alvarez, Montesa, Aguilar, & Diez, 2012). Augmented Reality enhances a
user’s perception of and interaction with the real world and at least 12 distinct classes of AR application
domains have been identified which are medical, military, manufacturing, visualization, entertainment and
games, robotics, education, marketing, navigation and path planning, geospatial, urban planning and civil
engineering and also tourism (Mekni & Lemieux, 2014). AR is useful to travellers in many ways in tourism
industry. Information, inspiration, navigation, education, translation –it’s all there in one application.
Travellers use AR technology to choose their destinations/attractions and activities before and during their
trip.
Recently, AR technology has become a well-accepted technology among scientific community and public,
which used for combining of real and virtual objects and mixed it into the real environment. In virtual
heritage, this technology is used for improving the visitor experience of a cultural heritage site (Noh et al.,
2009; Kurkovsky, Koshy, Novak & Szul, 2012). For example, Vlahakis et al. (2002) developed
“Archeoguide”, short for augmented reality-based cultural heritage on-site guide, to bridge the gap between
recreation, education, and scientific research. Archeoguide offers personalized augmented reality tours of
archaeological sites. It uses outdoor tracking, mobile computing, 3D visualization, and augmented reality
techniques to enhance information presentation, reconstruct ruined sites, and simulate ancient life (Vlahakis
et al., 2002). In addition to that, other examples based on augmented reality in tourism sector can be given
(Fritz et al., 2005);
✓ Augmented walks. In these walks, visitors are placed in the real environment and are able to view
the real world and 3D reconstructions of monuments. This can be achieved by screens that receive
the real scene via a camera and add the 3D models, or by HMDs so that visitors that walk through
the real environment can see the virtual monuments.
✓ Ename 974. This project uses the Timeframe technology to generate the 3D models of the
monuments of the archaeological sites and allows the presentation of these environments to
different profiles of users. A kiosk protects the system and the visitors. The system superimposes
the real scene with 3D reconstructions of monuments and displays the result on a visualization
device.
✓ Several national parks in the US have also added AR stations to view archaeological sites on far
distant cliffs and other inaccessible locations. The telescope-like device superimposes animations,
virtual recreations and other information over real fossil remain
One of the ways for destinations to obtain competitive advantage is the investment and implementation of
new technology (Jung & Han, 2014). While Kalawsky et al. (2000) have suggested mobile virtual
experiences in the tourism industry to enhance the tourist experience, AR has evolved as the buzzword of
modern technology increasing with the development of wearable computing such as the Google Glass
project to be launched in 2014 (Pathkar & Joshi, 2014).
2.3. AR Acceptance of Visitors
AR can augment one’s view and transform it with the help of a computer or a mobile device, and thus
enhance the user’s perception of reality and of the surrounding environment (Osterlund & Lawrence,
2012). Although research into the field dates back as early as the 1960s, technological limitations of all
sorts have hindered the application of AR to anything beyond experimental research (Kounavis et al.,
2012). AR has only emerged since the debut of modern smartphones around 2007 (Haugstvedt & Krogstie,
2012). The increased availability of AR applications provides destinations and tourism organizations with a
possibility to utilize these applications in order to enhance visitor experience (Yovcheva et al., 2013; Jung
et al., 2015).
sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]
6127
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

The development of AR is still in its infancy and although the technological requirements for compelling
use cases of AR are now starting to be met, challenges do remain in terms of usability, accuracy and end-
user services (Olsson, Kärkäinen, Lagerstam, & Ventä-Olkkonen, 2012). Therefore, it is important to
examine users’ acceptance in order to ensure that AR applications include functionalities that are accepted
by its users (Tom Dieck & Jung, 2018). In this context, Parasuraman (2000) developed optimism,
innovativeness, discomfort, and insecurity as dimensions in measuring people’s general beliefs about
technology. These dimensions affect usage of a new technology such as AR.
Table 1. The dimensions in measuring people’s general beliefs about technology
Dimensions Definition
Optimism A positive attitude toward technology and a belief in increased control, flexibility, and efficiency
in one’s life
Innovativeness A tendency of a person to be a technology pioneer
Discomfort A lack of control perceived by person when using a technology, and a sense of being
overwhelmed by it
Insecurity A distrust and skepticism toward a technology
Source: Parasaruman, 2000; Chung et al., 2015.
As is seen, optimism and innovativeness are enablers of new technology use, whereas discomfort and
insecurity are inhibitors (Parasuraman, 2000). That is, people have both positive and negative perceptions
about technology; the general belief continuum for a technology ranged from a strongly positive to a
strongly negative attitude toward the technology (Lin, Shih, & Sher, 2007).
There has been significant interest in the field of AR from numerous academic scholars. While some
approached the subject from a technological perspective focusing on the challenges and chances of
hardware and software design (Livingston, Gabbard, Swan, Sibley, & Barrow, 2013), others focused on the
acceptance of the technology and the factors influencing people to use AR (Wojciechowski & Cellary,
2013; Yussof, Ibrahim, Zaman, Ahmad, & Suhaifi, 2011). While previous research found clear indications
that factors such as enjoyment (Haugstvedt & Krogstie, 2012; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013),
innovativeness (Yussof et al., 2011), perceived benefits and information quality (Olsson et al., 2012),
among others, influence the acceptance of AR, the challenges of user interface and hardware design are by
no means solved or agreed on as to how they should be approached (tom Dieck & Jung, 2018). Haugstvedt
and Krogstie (2012) and Leue et al. (2014) supported the importance of enjoyment as an external variable
within the AR acceptance context. Within the mobile service acceptance context, personal innovativeness
(Zarmpou, Saprikis, Markos, & Vlachopolou, 2012) and perceived benefits (Lopez-Nicolas, Molina-
Castillo, & Bouwman, 2008) were confirmed to influence the behavioral intention to use. The above
reviewed studies identified a number of external variables that are applicable to the AR acceptance context,
including enjoyment (Haugstvedt & Krogstie, 2012), personal innovativeness (Zarmpou et al., 2012),
perceived benefits (Olsson et al., 2012), as well as information quality (Jung et al., 2015; Olsson et al.,
2012).
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1.Research Design and Hypotheses
This study proposes a research model in Figure 1. The model suggests that perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use are predictors of perception toward AR. In addition, AR perceived ease of use will
affect perceived usefulness (H1). When it comes to H2 and H3, the model suggests that both perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use are the predictors of destination visit intention. Finally, it suggests
that perception toward AR is a predictor of tourism attractiveness.

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6128
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

Figure 1. Research Design

Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are basic constructs in the technology acceptance model
that constitute a significant effect on perception toward technology use (AR application perception), which
in turn affects the behavioral intention (destination/attraction visit intention) to use technology (Davis,
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Chung et al., 2015). On the other hand, AR application perception is an
important key for contributing to tourism sector (Cranmer, tom Dieck & Jung, 2018). In this context, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on AR perceived usefulness.
H2. AR perceived usefulness has a positive effect on destination/attraction visit intention.
H3. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on destination/attraction visit intention.
H4. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on tourism attractiveness.
H5. AR perceived usefulness has a positive effect on tourism attractiveness.
4.2. Instrument Development
Most measurement items were adapted from prior studies. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and
destination visit intention were adapted from Van der Heijden (2004) and Chung et al. (2015). Our study
also adopted two items based on Jun et al. (2015)’ study for tourism attractiveness. A survey questionnaire
was first developed in English and then translated into Turkish. Then, researchers who are fluent in English
and Turkish with academic specializations in the area under study compared the translated version with the
original version and did not identify any discrepancies.
4.3. Data Collection
An on-site survey was conducted of Gobeklitepe (Sanlıurfa/Turkey) domestic visitors who used the
interactive AR applications. Gobeklitepe is to be appropriate to evaluate the utilization of AR and visitor’s
perception toward AR for cultural heritages. Therefore, in this study, we focused on the AR applications of
Gobeklitepe and was chosen as the survey site. Five pollsters who majored in tourism served as field
researchers to collect data during July, 2018. Totally 344 visitor questionnaires were found appropriate for
the data analysis in the research.
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Totally 344 valid questionnaires were analyzed to access the findings. First of all, the confirmatory factor
analysis was applied via SPSS 21 on the scale and KMO value was found as, 754 that is accepted as a
reliable value. The analysis has confirmed the four dimensions that are in harmony with the original scale
and explain the %63,829 of the whole scale. The communalities value of all items was found higher than,
400. The Cronbach’s Alpha value that stated to the reliability of the whole scale that is included 12 items,
is 800. Table 1 includes the demographic characteristics of the visitors who responded to the survey. The
sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]
6129
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

results indicated that the age ranges of visitors are generally in the middle ages and 31-40 range is much
more than the others and the most of the visitor's have a university degree or a high school degree. The
majority of the occupational status of the visitors occur employee and they prefer to travel with families or
partner. Finally, it is understood that the most of the visitors had an information about Gobeklitepe through
internet/social media and friends before traveling.
Table1: Demographic Results
VALID frequency percent
Gender Male 218 126 63,4 36,6
Female
Age 18-30 107 144 63 31,1 41,9 18,3 6,1
31-40 21 9 2,6
41-50
51-60
61 and over
Education High School or below Bachelor’s 156 163 25 45,3 47,4 7,3
degree Master's/Doctorate
Employment Employed Self- 212 52 28 61,6 15,1 8,1 4,4 10,8
Status Employed Unemployed Retired 15 37
Student
Travelling Alone With a partner 10 101 112 2,9 29,4 32,6 20,1
With Family/Relatives Friends 69 49 3 14,2 0,9
Colleagues Others
Information Internet/Social Media 193 15 121 56,1 4,4 35,2 3,5
about Newspaper/Magazine 12 3 0,9
Gobeklitepe Friends/Relatives TV/Radio
Travel Agency
The other output that was realized the face to face interviewing is about the profile of the visitor, indicated
that the visitors of the Göbeklitepe are usually choosing to travel independently without travel agency.
The values are sorted in Table 2, showed that the visitors of Gobeklitepe have a very strong perception
about usefulness of the interactive applications. The item, ¨The interactive applications are generally
useful¨ has the highest value in the first dimension.
Table 2: Perceived Usefulness (Cronbach’s Alpha,773)
Items Std.
Mean Deviation
1 The interactive applications provide effectiveness for my visit in the archeological 4,7267 ,61638
site.
2 The interactive applications are efficient tools for visit in the archeological site. 4,5291 ,60056
3 The interactive applications contributed to access easily to information for me. 4,6831 ,58270
4 The interactive applications are generally useful. 4,7587 ,47984
5 The interactive applications provided utility to perceive information that is presented 4,7471 ,46760
on the site.
The Table 3 express that the ease of using the interactive applications mentioned that the visitors perceived
positively. The item, ¨I accessed easily to the information thanks to the interactive applications¨ has the
highest value in the second scale dimension.
Table 3: Percieved Easy of Use (Cronbach’s Alpha ,695)
Items Std.
Mean Deviation
1 The using of the interactive applications are clear and understandable. 4,6715 ,54500
2 The interaction with interactive applications was not complicated. 4,6657 ,53603
3 I accessed easily to the information thanks to the interactive applications. 4,7674 ,45623
The findings are regarding to dimension three in Table 4. These values have pointed out that the revisit
intention of the visitors is very strong. The highest item is “After my interactive experience, I think to visit
Gobeklitepe” also the highest phrase of the visitors.

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6130
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

Table 4: Destination visit intention (Cronbach’s Alpha ,640)

Items Std.
Mean Deviation
1 After my interactive experience, I think to revisit Gobeklitepe. 4,7413 ,48287
2 After my interactive experience, I think to recommend to others to visit 4,7151 ,48319
Gobeklitepe.
The last dimension is about the attractiveness of the interactive applications in which are located in
Gobeklitepe and contribution to the tourism. According to Table 5, the visitors believe that the interactive
applications make more attractive the archeological sites, its visitor center and museums. It is seen that the
visitor opinions confirmed that the applications provide an important contribution to the tourism. In
addition, considering all dimensions in the scale this dimension has also the highest values.
Table 5: Attractiveness and contribution to tourism (Cronbach’s Alpha ,718)
Items Std.
Mean Deviation
1 I believe that the interactive applications made more attractive to the Gobeklitepe 4,8488 ,36677
2 I believe that the interactive applications provide an important contribution for 4,8459 ,42114
archeological sites and museums.
The research design that was separated two models as Model 1 and Model 2, was checked via AMOS 22
Statistical program and have been used the path analysis.

Figure 2. Research Model

H1. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on AR perceived usefulness.
H2. AR perceived usefulness has a positive effect on destination/attraction visit intention.
H3. AR perceived ease of use has a positive effect on destination/attraction visit intention.
H4. AR application perception has a positive effect on tourism attractiveness.
According to the path analysis results via AMOS 22, all hypotheses that generate elements of the model
design, employed and confirmed as statistical. The “Augmented Reality” applications, perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness have positive effects on the visit intention of the visitors to the destination.
The “Augmented Reality” applications, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, cause to increase
of the tourism attractiveness. The fit values are below in Table 6:

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6131
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

Table. 6 Model Fit Index

Values Model 1 Model 2
X2 110,270 109,257
df 31 32
p 0.000 0.000
X2/ df 3,557 3,414
GFI .941 .940
IFI .918 .908
CFI .917 .907
RMSEA .085 .084
After the path analysis in AMOS 22 statistical program, it is seen that all hypotheses in research model
were confirmed. The fit values where is sorted in Table 6, are coherent with accepted standard value
(Hooper et al. 2008) in the literature.
6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The using of the AR within the tourism sector is a new application for Turkey. Göbeklitepe is the first
practice that is aiming to improve the tourist experience generally in an archeological site. The AR
information systems can help tourists in accessing information and improving their knowledge regarding an
attraction or a whole destination while enhancing the tourist experience but the study can be seen as a
feedback about to the user of the AR technologies and is a data to discuss the efficiency and usefulness of
the applications for the visitors.
The findings explain why and how the tourist use AR application and its influence on the experience of the
visitors in the archeological site Gobeklitepe and intention to visit destination. Some important results of
the findings can be summarized as;
✓ The findings show that the Augmented Reality has an important practical implication for the
historic sites and museums particularly enriching of the visitor experience and satisfaction.
✓ The “Augmented Reality” applications have also positive impact on the visit intention of the
visitors. Because of that, the applications can be applied and extended to increase of the,
attractiveness of the different sites, as Gökbeklitepe, museums and historical destinations.
✓ The “Augmented Reality” applications are perceived a tourism attraction by the visitors. That is
why, the using of the applications should extend and improve to rise of the destination’s
attractiveness.
The study indicated as Kalawsky et al. (2000) underlines that is important the using of the new
technologies such as mobile, virtual or augmented applications for the tourism industry to enhance the
tourist experience. The literature on AR acceptance context including enjoyment (Haugstvedt & Krogstie,
2012), perceived benefits (Olsson et al., 2012), as well as information quality (Jung et al., 2015; Olsson et
al., 2012), was supported. With the findings of the research, opinions on the perceived benefits (Lopez-
Nicolas, Molina-Castillo, & Bouwman, 2008) were confirmed to influence the behavioral intention to use.
The study has shown that the majority of the visitors tend to use AR and this can be also functional and
supportive to obtain a valuable experience without a tour guide in an archeological site. The utilization
examples of AR were explored and discussed in many researches (Fritz, Susperregui, & Linaza, 2005;
Yovcheva et al., 2013; Hunter, Chung, Gretzel, & Koo, 2015; Jung et al., 2015) regarding to tourism and
AR. Some of them (Yovcheva et al. 2013) have accessed similar results as this study and confirmed that
AR will help to maximize tourist satisfaction. Although the study did not include data on the quantitative
results of the using AR applications by visitors, the findings evident that the interactive applications have
been used actively and effectively them. For this reason, it can be thought that the findings have supported
that the adaptation of visitors to the new technologies can realize in a short time contrary to Chung, Han &
Joun (2015)’s results. However, it is clear that new field researches are needed in order to discuss the
adaptation process and timing.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This field research has examined the importance and effectiveness of the AR technologies through visitor
experiences in the tourism industry. It is tried to develop the literature which is related to AR in a tourism
context, why people use AR or how its use affected visits to tourist destinations or attractions through the

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6132
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

Göbeklitepe archeological site and visitor center. The research specifically focused on the impacts of
interactive applications (AR) on visitors’ experience case of Göbeklitepe and is surveyed only domestic
tourist’ perceptions.
The study was built on AR users emphasized that a positive attitude toward AR at a heritage destination
and attractions or try to visit the destination or attractions again. In this context, this study conceptualizes
crucial dimensions which are “perceived usefulness”, “perceived ease of use)”, “destination/attraction visit
intention” and “attractiveness & contribution to tourism” and how these dimensions’ influence visitors’ AR
usage intention and destination visit intention through AR technology perception (perceived usefulness and
ease of use). In summary, to that, it is revealed that the AR applications contribute to tourism as an
attractiveness and to enhance the visitor experiences. As a part and dimension of the new technologies AR
can increased the efficiency of the visits particularly in historical places such as archeological sites, visitor
centers and museums.
The field research is limited to Gobeklitepe case and the AR applications utilized in the visitor center of
Gobeklitepe. It is clear that the results of the study should be compared and discussed with the new studies
and implementations in the future. Yet, the findings of the study can assist the new researchers who intend
to discover different dimensions of the AR.
REFERENCES
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4),
355-385.
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S. & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in
augmented reality, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34-47.
Azuma, R., Billinghurst, M., & Klinker, G. (2011). Special section on mobile augmented reality.
Computers & Graphics, 35(4), vii–viii.
Carmigniani, J., & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented reality: an overview. In B. Furth (ed.), Handbook of
Augmented Reality (pp. 3-46). New York, NY: Springer.
Chung, N., Han, H., & Joun, Y. (2015). Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented
reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 588-599.
Cranmer, E. E., tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2018). How can Tourist Attractions Profit from Augmented
Reality. In T. Jung, M.C. tom Dieck (eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality (pp. 21-32). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Fritz, F., Susperregui, A., & Linaza, M. T. (2005). Enhancing cultural tourism experiences with augmented
reality technologies. In M. Mudge, N. Ryan & R. Scopigno (eds.) Proceedings of 6th International
Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (pp. 1-6). Pisa, Italy.
Han, D. I., Jung, T., & Gibson, A. (2013). Dublin AR: implementing augmented reality in tourism. In Z.
Xiang & L. Tussyadiah (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014 (pp. 511–
523). Springer International Publishing.
Haugstvedt, A. C., & Krogstie, J. (2012). Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology
acceptance study. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality
2012 Science and Technology Proceedings, Atlanta.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, R. M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for
Determining Model Fit, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume, 6 (1), 53-60.
Hunter, W. C., Chung, N., Gretzel, U., & Koo, C. (2015). Constructivist research in smart tourism. Asia
Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 105–120.
Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality
technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75-86.
Jung, T.H. & Han, D. (2014). Augmented Reality (AR) in Urban Heritage Tourism. E-Review of Tourism
Research, 5. 1-5.
sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]
6133
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

Kalawsky, R.S., Stedmon, A.W., Hill, K., and Cook, C.A. (2000). A Taxonomy of Technology: Defining
Augmented Reality. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44 (507).
Kounavis, C. D., Kasimati, A. E. & Zamani, E. D. (2012). Enhancing the tourism experience through
mobile augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Engineering Business
Management, 4(10), 1–6.
Kurkovsky, S., Koshy, R., Novak, V., & Szul, P. (2012). Current issues in handheld augmented reality.
In The 2nd International Conference on Communications and Information Technology (ICCIT) (pp. 68-72).
IEEE.
Lee, K., Ryong-Lee, H. & Ham, S. (2014). The effects of presence induced by smartphone applications on
tourism: application to cultural heritage attractions. In Z. Xiang and I. Tussyadiah (eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014. Proceedings of the International Conference in Dublin (pp.
895–907), Ireland, January 21 – 24, Switzerland: Springer.
Leue, M. C., tom Dieck, D., & Jung, T. (2014). A theoretical model of augmented reality acceptance. E-
Review of Tourism Research, 5, 1–5.
Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance:
The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 641-657.
Linaza, M.T., Marimon, D, Carrasco, P., Alvarez, R., Montesa, J., Aguilar, S.R. & Diez, G. (2012).
Evaluation of Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Tourism Destinations. In Fuchs, M., Ricci, F. &
Cantoni, L. (eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (pp. 260-271). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Livingston, M. A., Gabbard, J. L., Swan, J. E., Sibley, C. M., & Barrow, J. H. (2013). Basic perception in
head-worn augmented reality displays. In W. Huang, L. Weidong, M. Alem, & M. A. Livingston (eds.),
Human factors in augmented reality environments (pp. 35–56). New York: Springer.
Lopez-Nicolas, C., Molina-Castillo, F., & Bouwman, H. (2008). An assessment of advanced mobile
services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Information and Management,
45, 359–364
Marimon, D., Sarasua, C., Carrasco, P., Álvarez, R., Montesa, J., Adamek, T., Romero, I., Ortega, M. &
Gascó, P. (2010). MobiAR: Tourist Experiences through Mobile Augmented Reality. Telefonica Research
and Development, Barcelona, Spain.
Mekni, M., & Lemieux, A. (2014). Augmented reality: Applications, challenges and future trends.
In Applied Computational Science—Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applied
Computer and Applied Computational Science (pp. 23-25). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A. & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the
reality-virtuality continuum. In H. Das (ed.), Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies (Vol. 2351,
pp. 282-293). Boston, MA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Noh, Z., Sunar, M. S., & Pan, Z. (2009). A review on augmented reality for virtual heritage system.
In Proceedings 4th International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital
Entertainment (pp. 50-61). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Olsson, T., Kärkäinen, T., Lagerstam, E., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2012). User evaluation of mobile
augmented reality scenarios. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 4(1), 29–47.
Osterlund, J. & Lawrence, B. (2012) Virtual reality: Avatars in human spaceflight training. Acta
Astronautica, 71, 139‐50.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to
embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320.
Pathkar, N. S., & Joshi, N. S. (2014). Google Glass: project glass. International Journal of Application or
Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), 3(10), 31-35.
Silva, R., Oliveira, J. C., & Giraldi, G. A. (2003). Introduction to augmented reality. National laboratory
for scientific computation, Av. Getulio Vargas. Retrieved from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.63.4105&rep=rep1&type=pdf (07 August 2018).
sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]
6134
 Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2018 Vol:4 Issue:27 pp:6125-6135

tom Dieck, M.C. & Jung, T. (2018) A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in urban
heritage tourism, Current Issues in Tourism, 21(2), 154-174.
Tuscany (2018). Tuscany Official Tourism Website – Smartphone application. Retrieved from:
https://www.visittuscany.com/en/ (07 August 2018).
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695–
704.
Vlahakis, V., Ioannidis, M., Karigiannis, J., Tsotros, M., Gounaris, M., Stricker, D., Gleue, T., Daehne, P.
& Almeida, L. (2002). Archeoguide: an augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, 22(5), 52-60.
Von der Pütten, A. M., Klatt, J., Ten Broeke, S., McCall, R., Krämer, N. C., Wetzel, R., Blum, L.,
Oppermann, L. & Klatt, J. (2012). Subjective and behavioral presence measurement and interactivity in the
collaborative augmented reality game TimeWarp. Interacting with Computers, 24(4), 317-325.
Wasko, C. (2013). What teachers need to know about augmented reality enhanced learning environments.
Tech Trends, 57(4), 17–21.
Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES
augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570–585.
Yovcheva, Z., Buhalis, D., & Gatzidis, C. (2012). Smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism.
e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), 10(2), 63–66.
Yussof, A., Ibrahim, R., Zaman, H., Ahmad, A., & Suhaifi, S. (2011). Users acceptance of mixed reality
technology. Issues in Information Systems, 7(1), 194–205.
Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A. & Vlachopolou, M. (2012). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile
services. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 225–248.
Zlatanova, S. (2002). Augmented reality technology. GISt Report No. 17, Delft: Netherlands. Retrieved
from: http://www.gdmc.nl/publications/reports/GISt17.pdf (08 August 2018).

sssjournal.com Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) [email protected]

6135