The Technological Environment

Of the many changes confronting attractions at a site-specific level, arguably the most pervasive and pronounced are those of a technological nature. Technological advances on almost every front have revolutionised the way attractions devise and present their product; disseminate information; optimise distribution channels; and enhance the visitor experience. Elements of both early and contemporary literature (Oliver 1989; Martin and Mason 1993; Stipanuk 1993; Milman 2001) all allude to technology as a significant influence in the success of visitor attractions.

Although it might be argued that certain types of attractions have little if any dependence on technology, its increasing use as an interpretive tool, particularly in museums, crosses the boundary between narrow perspectives of technology as a means of creating an attraction [as might be the case with a theme park] and technology as a means of enhancing the visitor experience. Given earlier discussion with respect to the importance of catering to a more discerning generation of tourists enriching interpretation seems a logical priority.

As an increasingly important component of the attractions inventory museums and art galleries provide possibly the best examples of the current and potential use of this feature. Evans and Sterry (1999 p. 113-114) see current developments in the area of interactive multimedia as extensions of the guidebook “which was the original portable interpretive medium”.

Rather than being a replacement, however, they view these developments not as “a replacement for traditional interpretive methods but as a complimentary application [which] can assist in placing exhibits and artefacts in their historical and cultural context” (p.114) In fact, they declare that it is “evident that much more can be accomplished in terms of applied new technology especially in the interpretation of heritage exhibits” (p.114).

For some considerable time recorded narrative along designated ‘trails’ have arguably elevated the enjoyment of historical exhibits, paintings, or other works of art to a completely new plain. Again a potentially superficial experience based on a quest for social capital (Mowforth and Munt 1998) may be transformed into a meaningful, educational, and perhaps even transformational experience. The difference between these two outcomes in terms of visitor enjoyment is not difficult to conceptualise. That

this could translate into positive word of mouth and, perhaps more importantly repeat visitation is a significant consideration in terms of attractions management.

In a contemporary sense, however, the seemingly simple act of providing information about an essentially static exhibit has taken on completely new connotations. Fuelled by advances in technology the ability to add sensory stimulation other than simple sight and sound can add completely different dimensions to an attraction visit. The ability to involve the visitor in simple scientific experiments in a science museum is a case in point. Earlier discussion with respect to the changing preferences of attraction visitors alluded to an increasing search for the experiential rather than the merely detached mental absorption of sights and sounds. It would seem logical to suggest that employment of this type of technology regardless of how simple it might be should be an intuitive direction for attractions management.

The interpretive process assumes even greater sophistication when the use of technology in replicating visual or experiential elements of history which have been rendered inaccessible by the passing of time, comes into focus. This observation questions traditional perspectives of attractions which, notionally at least, view them as existing in time and place.

If it is possible to dispel; the notion of certain types of attractions being confined to areas with certain geographical or cultural attributes, then the corresponding notion of attractions being fixed in time is equally questionable. One has only to consider events of various kinds that are arguably not necessarily fixed in either dimension, but which are indisputably attractions, to at least partially validate such a contention. In the context of the current discussion the re-enactment of events that no longer exist but enjoy historical significance is yet another example of the creation of visitor experiences by means of technology.

Although there are countless international examples, the re-enactment of the Eureka uprising in the Victorian rural city of Ballarat, makes extensive use of laser technology, pyrotechnics, and multi-media in the presentation of ‘Blood on the Southern Cross’. That such an attraction relies almost entirely on a combination of technologies to recreate events that occurred almost 150 years ago, suggests that virtually no event in history is beyond re-enactment.

“Such a process permits the user to visualize the real environment but complements the reality with additional information that is displayed in parallel” (Gurau 2007, p.188). As distinct from virtual reality which replicates the event or experience in a total sense what is termed ‘augmented reality’ is now a widely used technique in attractions of all types. The preponderance of ‘sound and light’ performances on heritage sites similar to the above is evidence of the appeal of such technology. Although costly to implement, the resultant enhancement of the visitor experience can be a key point of differentiation and a factor in repeat visitation. Similarly, the employment of sophisticated building technologies facilitates the reconstruction of buildings and streetscapes that are virtually indiscernible from the original.

Such a process of replication also has value beyond the attraction visitor interface (Gurau, 2007). The use of technology for replication also has significant implications in sustainable practice, providing the opportunity to restrict access to elements of the attractions as a means of site hardening. The avoidance or amelioration of damage by either preparing the visitor for the experience in the case of a cultural attraction, or keeping the visitor ‘at arms length’ from natural or heritage attractions under duress, presents significant opportunities. The employment of increasingly sophisticated multi media presentations in visitor centres, either in situ or in the immediate surroundings, as a means of partial or even complete substitution for attractions use are evidence of such techniques.

It may even be possible to envisage the complete exclusion of visitors from attractions that have been subjected to unacceptable levels of damage by offering replication with degrees of reality that present an acceptable alternative to a reasonable percentage of visitors. Although it has earlier been suggested that a new generation of tourists are seeking more meaningful experiences (Mowforth and Munt 1998), MacCannell (1999) asserts that some tourists are knowingly prepared to accept the inauthentic and obviously contrived raises some interesting questions in terms of application.

There are also distinct possibilities in the use of such technology as a preparative process by educating visitors as to the significance of particular attractions or attraction features. Whether this is simply a matter of providing useful pre trip information as might be the case with a theme park, or is a process of educating and empowering the visitor as a means of preparation for a visit to a site of religious or historical significance, current applications in information technology present significant opportunities. The suggestion that such preparation, regardless of substance will

impact on the ultimate outcome in terms of visitor satisfaction suggests that it should be a priority for attractions management.

Garrod Fyall and Leask (2002, p.278) also hold the view that this preparatory process has implications in terms of managing visitor impacts by “educating visitors to think long term and respect the site”. This is particularly so in heritage settings or “attractions which are vulnerable” (ibid). Although by inference this would primarily apply to such things as built or natural environments which, [by virtue of their unique characteristics] are considered irreplaceable; as opposed to heritage sites which are consciously developed for tourism, even significant collections of artefacts are themselves at risk of damage.

It is, however, not purely at the attraction/visitor interface that technology has potential. In considering technological change and its impact on attractions perhaps no other area presents greater challenges and opportunities as that related to information and communication technology [ICT]. As Werthner and Klein (1999, p.256) observe; “ICT is probably the strongest driving force for changes within the tourism Industry”. This may in part explain why research and literature discourse in dominated by this focus.

It is argued that what Frew (2000, p.136) describes as “synergistic interaction” between tourism and these technologies may be due to the spatial nature of tourism with “decision making and consumption separated in time and space” (Werthner and Klein, 1999, p.256). In short, the means by which individual attractions, regardless of their location, have opportunities for connectivity that have previously eluded them. The internet has “empowered the distribution of multi-media applications, such as textual data, graphics, pictures videos and sounds. Search engines such as Google and Yahoo have provided unprecedented capability [on the part of the consumer] to find anything including destination and product information. An electronic marketplace has emerged and suppliers have developed Internet interfaces to sell directly to the consumer” (Buhalis and O’Connor, 2005, p.8). Given the highly competitive nature of the attraction market, embracing these technologies seems an inescapable reality.

In summary, attraction operators are confronted with a range of threats and opportunities arising from an increasingly sophisticated range of technologies. Although the scope and scale of technological reliance differs across the spectrum of

challenge is the rapidity of technological change and the attendant pressure to keep pace.

Considerations of a technological nature also re-emphasise the complex nature of the operating environment across the full spectrum of environmental forces discussed previously. Given that, as earlier stated, organisational survival is predicated on ability to adapt to these forces the focus of the work will ultimately shift to theories of organisational adaption [ch.3] yet it remains important to emphasise the importance of attractions to tourism and to articulate some fundamental management imperatives. Within such a framework it becomes possible to compare and contrast the imperatives of attraction management with broader theoretical propositions as to ‘best practice’ approaches to adaption.