Serendipity and Independent Travel

Abstract

The independent travel market is not homogeneous. As smartphones and mobile navigation devices became ubiquitous, independent travellers are now allowed to explore the destination without making detailed plans. The purpose of this study is to explore tourists' preferences for the level of structure vs serendipity in their travel experience, and investigate how different styles of independent travel relate to other tourist behaviour. Findings showed that independent travellers, overall, had a higher preference for serendipity than following a structured itinerary. Respondents who were more' serendipitous' participated in more activities, particularly sightseeing and outdoor sports, while those who preferred 'structured' travel took part in fewer activities, in spite of their planning. As predicted, the 'structured' respondents spent more time on travel planning and were more likely to look for specific information, such as price and location. The' serendipitous' respondents, however, did not wander without knowledge. Searching for more general information about the area, they in fact used more information sources than those who preferred 'structured' travel.

Tourist information channels as consumer choice: the value of tourist guidebooks in the digital age

“…This behaviour is particularly enabled by the pervasive use of smartphones (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2013), allowing for ad hoc decisions on-the-go (Dickinson et al, 2014). Huang et al (2014) link the availability of smartphones and other information technologies to the potential for more spontaneity, in a juxtaposition of structure vs. serendipity as two contrasting dimensions of independent travel. The concept of serendipity, which was coined in 1754 by Horace Walpole, indicates an event in which someone "is making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of", where these discoveries are considered lucky or somehow advantageous (Lewis Walpole Library, 2011, p. 407).…”

“…This means that the outcome of tourists' choices is at times unexpected and that the planning process can leave space for elements of surprise or novelty (cf. Huang et al, 2014). Thanks to the abundance and availability of information in the digital age, tourists do not need to reflect upon which resources they need in order to make travel-related decisions.…”

“…We argue that the dichotomy of structure vs. serendipity (cf. Huang et al, 2014) is not sufficient to explain the role of serendipity in travel planning, because modern information technologies allow a degree of spontaneity even in structured plans. Moreover, the results strengthen the claim made by Beritelli et al (2007) that off-line channels have not been entirely replaced by online ones.…”

“…Moreover, the intersection with online technologies has shown to bring about changes in the use of travel guidebooks (Fujii, Nanba, Takezawa, & Ishino, 2016;Peel & Sørensen, 2016a). An important consequence of such intersection is the possibility for tourists to be more serendipitous and less organised (Huang et al, 2014). Previous literature has mainly focused on guidebooks either as cultural texts (Bhattacharyya, 1997;Dann, 1999;Lew, 1992) or as tools to satisfy information needs (Nishimura, Waryszak, & King, 2007;Tsang, Chan, & Ho, 2011;Wong & Liu, 2011).…”

Does intra-disciplinary historic preservation scholarship address the exigent issues of practice? Exploring the character and impact of preservation knowledge production in relation to critical heritage studies, equity, and social justice

“…Literature on site interpretation focuses on museums in general (Bryk et al, 2015;Livi Smith, 2011;Page, 1999a;Van West, 1989b), house museums (Bryk, 2002), religious sites (Stiefel, 2014d), archaeological sites (Matero, 2010), botanical gardens (Matero, 2005), and large, culturally-defined areas in the American southeast (Cook, 2016;Kapp, 2015); other publications explore more general concepts related to interpretation and tourism (Clements, 2005;Huang et al, 2014;Van West, 1996). Within most of these publications, there is an exploration of when pedagogical (fact-based) or experiential (feeling-based) approaches to interpretation are warranted and the appropriate use of technology.…”