Creating a decision-focused framework for prioritizing, designing, and assessing metaverse-related apps for tourist businesses. We define terms, contextual elements, and evaluation metrics related to concepts and provide a starting point for compiling information on technological choices versus business needs.
We conduct a transparent computational assessment: embedding sentences into vectors, combined with topic modeling (LDA) via R/Orange on both academic and practicing datasets; conceptual coding relating constructs, contexts, and KPIs; and a matrix assessing value and feasibility. Reproducible code and a data dictionary promote traceability.
Five value themes have been identified (experience co-creation, immersion experiences, smart operations, personalization through data-driven approaches, accessibility and inclusion). The portfolio matrix reveals readiness and value in projects related to business outcomes, ethics/governance, and interoperability. We propose a simple set of metrics related to visitor experience, operations, and economics.
This paper extends beyond narrative reviews by delivering a replicable pipeline and a decision tool that managers can immediately apply. It integrates constructs, contexts, and measures, offers an empirically grounded agenda, and reframes the metaverse as a portfolio of testable interventions rather than a monolith, thus accelerating evidence-based, responsible adoption in tourism.
Introduction
Nowadays, talking about the metaverse is normal. However, we will contextualise the origin of this concept, a trend of study in recent years in different fields (Giang Barrera and Shah, 2023; Yu et al., 2024). The conceptualisation of the term Metaverse was addressed by Neal Stephenson in his science-fiction novel Snow Crash, published in 1992, which describes it as a virtual space parallel to the physical world in which users can interact through their digital avatars (Özdemir Uçgun and Şahin, 2024). Second Life, a precursor to the metaverse, is a shared interface where users create avatars and socialise virtually (Dwivedi et al., 2022). Other platforms that have modelled what is now called the metaverse were Roblox, developed in the period 2004–2006 (David Baszucki and Erik Cassel, 2004), and Fortnite has been running since 1991; it was not until 2017 when this immersive game was launched (Sweeney and Rein, 1991). In 2014, Sony, Samsung, and Google launched virtual reality headsets. In 2016, the HoloLens AR and VR headset was introduced. Pokemon Go went viral that year. In 2017, IKEA offered immersive experiences. In 2021, Facebook changed its name to Meta to focus on the Metaverse (Al-Ghaili et al., 2022).
The metaverse is experiencing steady growth with the participation of academics, entrepreneurs, and users, albeit with significant risks such as privacy concerns (Liyanaarachchi et al., 2023). Digital spaces, as well as immersive video games such as Second Life, Fortnite, Roblox, and VRChat, have been seen as precursors to the metaverse, providing insight into the potential socioeconomic impact that a multi-platform, enduring and fully operational metaverse could have (Buhalis et al., 2023; Jo, 2023; Gil-Cordero et al., 2025).
The potential of the metaverse increases with increased consumer engagement and business investment in associated technologies. However, its impact on tourism and value creation to provide spaces that enable user loyalty in these environments is unknown (Wu and Wang, 2024; Ledesma Chaves et al., 2025). Therefore, the following research objectives and questions are posed to help clarify the landscape of the metaverse in the tourism sector.
Which authors and journals lead the scientific production on tourism in the metaverse and which articles are the most cited?
What are the main research areas and concepts that are being further developed on the topic of metaverse and tourism?
What are the main thematic clusters emerging in research on value creation in the metaverse applied to tourism, and how do they relate to each other?
What are the primary research works related to the metaverse and the tourism sector with regard to applicability and/or usage factors?
The article contributes theoretically by expanding theories on consumer behaviour and technology adoption in virtual environments, proposing new conceptual frameworks on value creation in the tourism metaverse (Gil-Cordero et al., 2025). It identifies barriers, guides the design of experiences in the metaverse, and offers practical guidelines in marketing, sustainable tourism, inclusion, economics, and public policy (Akyürek et al., 2024). The following sections present the theoretical background that underpins this research, as well as the methodology used for the development of this work. Then, the main results are discussed, and a conclusion that responds to the objectives that have guided this research is presented.
Theoretical background
Value creation in the metaverse
The trend of immersive technologies and the metaverse concept have opened new frontiers for the tourism industry, transforming how users interact with destinations and services (Cheung et al., 2024; Kılıçarslan et al., 2025). The metaverse is a persistent virtual space that enhances real-life social, economic and leisure experiences. (Cheung et al., 2024). Value creation emerges as a central concept, driven by the dynamic interaction between tourists, service providers, and the metaverse technologies themselves (John and Supramaniam, 2024).
From a technological perspective, the metaverse relies on virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) to generate immersive experiences (Cheung et al., 2024; Kılıçarslan et al., 2025). These technologies allow users, through personalised avatars, to take virtual tours of destinations, explore hotels and attractions, and even participate in simulated events prior to a physical journey (Behera et al., 2023; Cheung et al., 2024). This “pre-experience” capability mitigates the perceived risks associated with travel and can increase the intention to visit real destinations (Cheung et al., 2024). Blockchain technology and seamless transactions also contribute to the creation of economic value within the tourism metaverse (Choubey et al., 2025). Accessibility and improved user experience through these technologies are fundamental to creating technological value in the tourism metaverse (Grzegorczyk et al., 2019; Behera et al., 2023).
Socially, the metaverse enables real-time interaction and value co-creation, fostering community and information exchange among tourists, professionals, and peers (Cheung et al., 2024).
From an economic perspective, the metaverse offers value creation through travel inspiration, pre-booking evaluation, and access to unique, often more affordable experiences (Beheshti et al., 2024). Tourist satisfaction, influenced by immersion and escapism, drives loyalty, revisit, and economic value in the metaverse (Jafar and Ahmad, 2023). It is crucial to consider factors that may influence the adoption of the metaverse in tourism, such as the lack of a sound theoretical basis, resistance from certain user groups (such as senior tourists) and concerns about privacy and security (Cham et al., 2023; Chi et al., 2024).
The growing interest in the application of the metaverse in tourism and its potential to create value in multiple dimensions are of great relevance to the scientific community (Chen, 2023; Choubey et al., 2025), however, empirical research is still in its early stages (Chen et al., 2023; Kılıçarslan et al., 2025). Investigating barriers and designing strategies ensures that the tourism metaverse is accessible and relevant to all (Chi et al., 2024). Further research should examine value co-creation as antecedent, mediator, and outcome in the tourism metaverse, guided by frameworks like TCCM (John and Supramaniam, 2024).
Importance of tourism in the economy
Tourism is considered one of the main economic activities driving the development of countries and prior to the pandemic (2019) was considered the third largest export sector globally, with 54% female participation in employability, generating $1.7 trillion (USD) in export earnings and growing faster than the global economy (World Tourism Organization, 2020; Chon and Hao, 2024).
Several economies have already committed resources to the metaverse. South Korea has invested $167 million to advance its metaverse industry, with the fifth-largest market by 2026, with a focus on arts, culture, education, Kpop and tourism (Wong et al., 2023).
Metaverse and tourism: immersive experiences
The Metaverse enhances tourism experiences with personalization and tourist participation in value creation as a major opportunity for the industry (Hadi et al., 2023). Immersive experiences form part of the overall visitor experience and are subjectively perceived within the individual's mental realm (Blumenthal, 2020; Choubey et al., 2025).
The essential elements for the connection between the metaverse and tourism are: convergence, ambient intelligence, and joint value creation (Wong et al., 2023). The increased engagement in virtual worlds allows hotels to differentiate through unique experiences, virtual events, and targeted digital marketing (Bilgihan and Ricci, 2023; Palos-Sanchez et al., 2022).
Factors driving the desire for an immersive experience
As a blended physical-digital space, the metaverse fosters innovation by enabling collaboration and experiences that transcend traditional boundaries (Bilgihan and Ricci, 2023; Zhao et al., 2024).
Previous research has examined the individual reactions that users experience when immersed in an immersive experience. These reactions focus on emotional aspects, emotional engagement, stress reactions, absorption, participation, and response to adverse situations (Blumenthal, 2020).
Methodology
This study employs a methodological approach based on a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and a bibliometric analysis, both of which are quantitative (Abarca et al., 2020; Mora-Cruz et al., 2023; Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2023; Marino-Romero et al., 2024). The bibliometric analysis is carried out with the R programme (R Core Team, 2023) and the Bibliometrix library (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017), considering that the database has already been cleaned and contains 132 articles under analysis.
This study applies data mining to model topics, identify key sources, and evaluate scientific production, differentiating it from other research. (Álvarez-García et al., 2019; Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2023).
For the selection of the databases, the criteria proposed by Rueda et al. (2007) focus on the availability, relevance and reliability of the information. The four stages of a systematic literature review were applied (Marino-Romero et al., 2024). The processing of the database is detailed below.
Time-window rationale (2018–2025)
The period between 2018 and 2025 was deliberately selected to ensure conceptual consistency, empirical relevance, and methodological soundness in bibliometric analysis. In this sense, when searching Web of Science and Scopus, scientific output prior to 2018 was neither consistent nor representative.
Conceptual Consistency
The period 2018 to 2025 appears to have the most scholarship on tourism and management with a metaverse focus. We have to take into account that we refer to Metaverse in the field of Tourism. In tourism, we can say that the term arise as a different scholarly topic after 2018, accelerating its pace in 2021. Looking at what we could tell a birth timetable, we can summarise it as follows:
1992 (origin of the term): the term Metaverse was originally coined in Neal Stephenson's sci-fi novel, “Snow Crash”, published in 1992 (Stephenson, 1992).
2017 (Digitalisation of tourism). From this year ahead, we start to hear about a tendency to digitise the Tourism Sector. Initially in the context of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), but still without a reference to metaverse in tourism. A probe by this is the paper of Yung and Khoo-Lattimore (2019) where we explicitly state that: “Despite the growing interest and discussions on Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) in tourism, we do not yet know systematically the knowledge that has been built from academic papers on VR and AR in tourism, which means” that there is not yet virtualisation.
2021 and forward. We can say that this period implies an inflection and consolidation of the term in the sector. First, after the rebranding of Facebook to Meta (Meta, 2021), which expands its use in the tourism sector, and second, with the declaration as a disruptive technology in tourism in 2023 (Buhalis et al., 2023).
Empirical Relevance
First, Meta rebranding Facebook has changed the focus of scholarship and practice to the Metaverse and how it can be applied to destination marketing, virtual visits, and operationalizing the Metaverse (Buhalis et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2022). Second, the period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) has accelerated the digital transformation of the tourism industry, including remote showcasing, immersive pre- and on-site enhancement, and online co-creation (Organization, 2020; Sigala, 2020).
Taking into account all this, the period between 2018–2025 encompasses the greatest extent of applicable evidence for policy and managerial practice.
Methodological soundness
The application of bibliometric techniques (co-word networks, topic modelling, performance mapping) relies on uniformity in vocabulary and consistency in the design of studies. Restricting the analysis to a recent and consistent time frame enhances the interpretability of the clusters, minimises the ambiguity concerning the terminology pertaining to the metaverse and the prior literature on VR/AR, and facilitates the clear replication of the search filters and indicators.
Identification of items
Initially, a Boolean search was performed in the main databases of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus with the terms: “Metaverse” OR “Immersive Experience” AND “Influencing Factors” AND “Tourism” resulting in a total of 5,675 articles, with 5,110 coming from WoS and 565 originating in Scopus (Table 1).
Search string in the database
| Keywords | WoS | Scopus | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search | Total | Search | Total | |
| Immersive metaverse experience influencing factors of tourism | Metaverse (All Fields) OR Immersive experience (All Fields) AND influencing factors (All Fields) AND Tourism (All Fields) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Expanded Science Citation Index (SCI-EXPANDED) (Web of Science Index) and Business or Management or Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Leisure or Hospitality or Tourism or Sport Economics (Web of Science Categories) and 2025–2018 (Years of publication) and Article (Types of document) | 434 | (ALL(metaverse) OR ALL (immersive AND experience) AND ALL (influencing AND factors) AND ALL (tourism)) AND PUBYEAR >2017 AND PUBYEAR <2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “SOCI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, “English”))) | 312 |
| Keywords | WoS | Scopus | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search | Total | Search | Total | |
| Immersive metaverse experience influencing factors of tourism | Metaverse (All Fields) OR Immersive experience (All Fields) AND influencing factors (All Fields) AND Tourism (All Fields) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Expanded Science Citation Index (SCI-EXPANDED) (Web of Science Index) and Business or Management or Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Leisure or Hospitality or Tourism or Sport Economics (Web of Science Categories) and 2025–2018 (Years of publication) and Article (Types of document) | 434 | (ALL(metaverse) OR ALL (immersive AND experience) AND ALL (influencing AND factors) AND ALL (tourism)) AND PUBYEAR >2017 AND PUBYEAR <2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUB AREA, “SOCI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, “English”))) | 312 |
Review of articles
In Web of Science, the initial search of 5,110 articles was refined by index (SCI-E and SSCI), subject categories, period 2018–2025, document type (articles), and language (English), reducing it to 434 articles. In Scopus, the same filters were applied, reducing the number of articles from 565 to 312. These criteria seek to maintain scientific rigour and focus on current and relevant production.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Following key aspects of the PRISMA methodology (Page et al., 2021), 748 articles were reviewed considering their impact factor, titles, abstracts, keywords, and citation level, to ensure their relevance to the topic. After this filtering process, 142 articles were selected: 50 from Web of Science and 92 from Scopus.
Inclusion of articles in the study
These databases were analysed in R Studio software (R Core Team, 2023), where the protocol was run to concatenate WoS and Scopus databases, 10 duplicate articles were identified and a final database of 132 articles was generated to be analysed using Bibliometrix - Biblioshiny (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017) and Orange Data Mining (Demsar et al., 2013). Data processing can be seen in Figure 1.
The diagram is arranged vertically in four stages labeled along the left side as “IDENTIFY”, “REVIEW”, “SELECTION”, and “INCLUSION”, each aligned with corresponding content on the right. In the “IDENTIFY” stage, the search query reads “'Metaverse' OR 'Immersive experience' AND 'Influencing Factors' AND 'Tourism'”. A label “DATA BASE:” and a corresponding icon are followed by “W O S n equals 5110”, “SCOPUS n equals 565”, and “Total n equals 5675”. In the “REVIEW” stage, two columns are presented. Under “W O S”, the sequence with downward-pointed arrows reads “Index n equals 3121”, “Categories n equals 465”, “Period n equals 460”, “Document types n equals 434”, and “Languages n equals 434”. Under “SCOPUS”, the sequence with downward-pointed arrows reads “Index n equals 565”, “Categories n equals 411”, “Period n equals 314”, “Document types n equals 314”, and “Languages n equals 312”. In the “SELECTION” stage, a section titled “SELECTION CRITERIA” lists “Impact factors”, “Title”, “Abstract”, “Keywords”, and “Citation”. A curly bracket covers the list and points to the right where a database icon is located, and a list of counts is shown as “W O S n equals 50”, “SCOPUS n equals 92”, and “Total n equals 142”. A rightward arrow points from this list to a curly bracket enclosure. The enclosure contains a file composition icon and the label “Remove duplicate articles R Studio”. In the “INCLUSION” stage, the text “10 duplicate articles” appears above a highlighted bar labeled “132 items included”.Schematic of data processing. Source(s): Authors’ own work
The diagram is arranged vertically in four stages labeled along the left side as “IDENTIFY”, “REVIEW”, “SELECTION”, and “INCLUSION”, each aligned with corresponding content on the right. In the “IDENTIFY” stage, the search query reads “'Metaverse' OR 'Immersive experience' AND 'Influencing Factors' AND 'Tourism'”. A label “DATA BASE:” and a corresponding icon are followed by “W O S n equals 5110”, “SCOPUS n equals 565”, and “Total n equals 5675”. In the “REVIEW” stage, two columns are presented. Under “W O S”, the sequence with downward-pointed arrows reads “Index n equals 3121”, “Categories n equals 465”, “Period n equals 460”, “Document types n equals 434”, and “Languages n equals 434”. Under “SCOPUS”, the sequence with downward-pointed arrows reads “Index n equals 565”, “Categories n equals 411”, “Period n equals 314”, “Document types n equals 314”, and “Languages n equals 312”. In the “SELECTION” stage, a section titled “SELECTION CRITERIA” lists “Impact factors”, “Title”, “Abstract”, “Keywords”, and “Citation”. A curly bracket covers the list and points to the right where a database icon is located, and a list of counts is shown as “W O S n equals 50”, “SCOPUS n equals 92”, and “Total n equals 142”. A rightward arrow points from this list to a curly bracket enclosure. The enclosure contains a file composition icon and the label “Remove duplicate articles R Studio”. In the “INCLUSION” stage, the text “10 duplicate articles” appears above a highlighted bar labeled “132 items included”.Schematic of data processing. Source(s): Authors’ own work
Methodology applied with data mining
The study used data mining with Orange Data Mining software and the LDAvis widget to apply Topic Modelling analysis, identifying topics through word clustering and semantic fields. Continuous variables such as the distribution of words across documents and topics were analysed (Sievert and Shirley, 2014). The corpus was preprocessed, eliminating nonsignificant words.
Modelling issues
Each article was conceptually analysed using Topic Modelling, a machine learning technique that detects semantic patterns in the use of words. Logarithmic perplexity and topical coherence were used to determine the number of topics to minimise the former and maximise the latter. Topical relevance was considered, recommending an optimal value of 0.6 to obtain meaningful and statistically sound topics (Sievert and Shirley, 2014).
Application of embedding for thematic modelling
First, an Embedding process was carried out with the title and abstract data. Document Embedding analyses the n-grams of each document in the corpus, obtains the embedding of each n-gram using a pre-trained model for the selected language, in this case English, and a vector is obtained for each document by aggregating the n-gram embeddings using one of the available aggregators (Asudani et al., 2023).
Second, with the obtained embeddings dimension results, we apply the cosine distance calculation technique, t-SNE, which creates a visualisation using t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding (t-SNE). t-SNE is a dimensionality reduction technique, similar to MDS, where points are mapped into a 2D space by their probability distribution (Silva and Melo-Pinto, 2023). Stochastic neighbour embedding with t-distribution (t-SNE) is a statistical method for visualising high-dimensional data by assigning each data point a location in a two- or three-dimensional map (Silva and Melo-Pinto, 2023). It is based on the stochastic neighbour embedding originally developed by Geoffrey Hinton and Sam Roweis, where Laurens van der Maaten and Hinton proposed the variant with t-distribution. It is a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique for embedding high-dimensional data for visualisation in a low-dimensional two- or three-dimensional space (Silva and Melo-Pinto, 2023).
Results
According to Figure 2 and Table 2, the analysis covers articles published between 2018 and 2025 from the core Web of Science and Scopus collections. We identified 132 articles published in 55 scientific journals that address topics related to the metaverse and the tourism sector. As shown in Figure 2, scientific production in this field has experienced a high level of interest, generating an increasing trend from 2022 onwards.
The horizontal axis shows years from 2018 to 2025 in increments of 1 year. The vertical axis is unlabeled but divided into 9 segments by horizontal lines parallel to the horizontal axis. The plotted line connects circular markers with labeled values at each year. The data points are as follows: “2018”: 3; “2019”: 2; “2020”: 2; “2021”: 2; “2022”: 13; “2023”: 20; “2024”: 80; “2025”: 10.Annual scientific production. Source(s): Authors’ own work
The horizontal axis shows years from 2018 to 2025 in increments of 1 year. The vertical axis is unlabeled but divided into 9 segments by horizontal lines parallel to the horizontal axis. The plotted line connects circular markers with labeled values at each year. The data points are as follows: “2018”: 3; “2019”: 2; “2020”: 2; “2021”: 2; “2022”: 13; “2023”: 20; “2024”: 80; “2025”: 10.Annual scientific production. Source(s): Authors’ own work
Information from the main database
| Description | Results |
|---|---|
| Period | 2018–2025 |
| Sources (magazines, books, etc.) | 55 |
| Documents | 132 |
| Average number of citations per document | 28.16 |
| Keywords Plus (ID) | 315 |
| Author keywords (DE) | 488 |
| Authors | 421 |
| Authors of single-authored documents | 6 |
| Co-authors per document | 3.52 |
| Description | Results |
|---|---|
| Period | 2018–2025 |
| Sources (magazines, books, etc.) | 55 |
| Documents | 132 |
| Average number of citations per document | 28.16 |
| Keywords Plus (ID) | 315 |
| Author keywords (DE) | 488 |
| Authors | 421 |
| Authors of single-authored documents | 6 |
| Co-authors per document | 3.52 |
The average citation per article corresponds to 28.16% (Table 2). Keywords in titles total 315 words, and those established by authors are 488 (average 3 per article). The average co-authorship is 3.52%, reflecting collaboration in the field.
Summary of the most cited journals, authors, and articles. Journals
The level of interest in publishing on tourism and metaverse topics has experienced an interesting growth from 2022 to the present, supported by an annual growth of 18.77%. The top six sources publishing scientific content on tourism in the metaverse are the following journals (Table 3).
Main sources on metaverse and tourism
| Sources | Articles |
|---|---|
| International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management | 13 |
| Current Issues in Tourism | 10 |
| Tourism Review | 10 |
| Sustainability (Switzerland) | 7 |
| Asia-pacific Journal of Tourism Research | 6 |
| Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 6 |
| Sources | Articles |
|---|---|
| International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management | 13 |
| Current Issues in Tourism | 10 |
| Tourism Review | 10 |
| Sustainability (Switzerland) | 7 |
| Asia-pacific Journal of Tourism Research | 6 |
| Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 6 |
Authors
Of the total of 132 articles, 421 authors have participated. Figure 3 shows the 10 authors with the most publications on the topic. The most important author is Fei Hao, from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who has published three high-impact papers on Metaverse and Tourism. The second author has made three contributions. Jungsun Kim is a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The third author has also made three scientific contributions to the topic under study: Thich Van Nguyen, Professor at the Institute of Scientific Research and Banking Technology, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking.
The horizontal dot plot titled “Most Relevant Authors” displays the number of documents for each author. The horizontal axis is labeled “N. of Documents” and ranges from 0 to 3 in increments of 1 unit. The vertical axis is labeled “Authors” and lists author names from top to bottom. Each author is represented by a circular marker positioned along the horizontal axis with a value label inside the marker. The data points are as follows: “HAO F”: 3; “KIM J”: 3; “NGUYEN T”: 3; “SINGH R”: 3; “WANG J”: 3; “WANG Y”: 3; “YU J”: 3; “AHN S”: 2; “AL-EMRAN M”: 2; “ASSIOURAS I”: 2.The main authors with the highest number of publications. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The horizontal dot plot titled “Most Relevant Authors” displays the number of documents for each author. The horizontal axis is labeled “N. of Documents” and ranges from 0 to 3 in increments of 1 unit. The vertical axis is labeled “Authors” and lists author names from top to bottom. Each author is represented by a circular marker positioned along the horizontal axis with a value label inside the marker. The data points are as follows: “HAO F”: 3; “KIM J”: 3; “NGUYEN T”: 3; “SINGH R”: 3; “WANG J”: 3; “WANG Y”: 3; “YU J”: 3; “AHN S”: 2; “AL-EMRAN M”: 2; “ASSIOURAS I”: 2.The main authors with the highest number of publications. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
Figure 4 shows the behaviour of two critical variables, the number of articles, which shows the scientific output per author, and the number of citations per author. A necessary behaviour is that Ahmad W and Jafar R stand out as the principal authors with the highest number of citations.
The combined area and bar chart displays “Most Local Citations” and “Articles” for ten authors. The horizontal axis lists authors from left to right. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 12 in increments of 2 units. The legend shows that the filled area represents “Most Local Citations”, and vertical bars represent “Articles”. A table at the bottom of the chart represents the data values. The data values are as follows: “AHMAD W”: Most Local Citations 11; Articles 1. “JAFAR R”: Most Local Citations 11; Articles 2. “JO H”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “KANG J”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “SHIN H”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “ADACHI R”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “AL-EMRAN M”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 2. “ARPACI I”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “CRAMER E”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “KARATAS K”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1.Citation behaviour and number of articles by the lead authors. Source(s): Authors’ own work
The combined area and bar chart displays “Most Local Citations” and “Articles” for ten authors. The horizontal axis lists authors from left to right. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 12 in increments of 2 units. The legend shows that the filled area represents “Most Local Citations”, and vertical bars represent “Articles”. A table at the bottom of the chart represents the data values. The data values are as follows: “AHMAD W”: Most Local Citations 11; Articles 1. “JAFAR R”: Most Local Citations 11; Articles 2. “JO H”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “KANG J”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “SHIN H”: Most Local Citations 4; Articles 1. “ADACHI R”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “AL-EMRAN M”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 2. “ARPACI I”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “CRAMER E”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1. “KARATAS K”: Most Local Citations 3; Articles 1.Citation behaviour and number of articles by the lead authors. Source(s): Authors’ own work
Following Lotka's law (Lotka, 1926), which analyses the frequency of publications of an author in each field of research out of the total number of authors (Table 4) shows that 7.4% have made at least two scientific participations in this period, 91% corresponds to 383 authors who have participated in at least one publication on the topic under study.
Most cited articles
Research in the field of Metaverse and Tourism has adopted diverse perspectives. For example, the most cited articles globally, as can be seen in (Table 5), highlight the work of Tussyadiah et al. (2018), Wedel et al. (2020) and Marasco et al. (2018).
Top 10 most cited articles
| Document | Title | Target | Total appointments | TC per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tussyadiah et al. (2018), TOUR MANAGE | Virtual Reality, Presence and Attitude Change: Empirical Evidence on Tourism | To investigate the feeling of presence during a virtual visit to a tourist destination and how presence influences post-virtual reality attitude change towards the destination | 515 | 73.57 |
| Wedel et al. (2020), INT J RES MARK | Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing consumer marketing research | Assess the current and future impact of virtual reality on marketing | 171 | 34.2 |
| Marasco et al. (2018), J DESTIN MARK MANAGE | Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing | To investigate the impact of virtual reality experiences created with next-generation wearable devices on visit intentions | 163 | 23.29 |
| Lu et al. (2022), CURRENT ISSUES TOUR | The potential of virtual tourism in the recovery of the tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic | To investigate the factors and constraints influencing people's behaviour and the acceptability of the use of virtual tourism during the pandemic in China, and to explore how virtual tourism can help the tourism industry recover during and after the pandemic | 121 | 40.33 |
| Dwivedi et al. (2023), MARCA PSYCHOL | Metaverse Marketing: How the metaverse will shape the future of consumer research and practice | This study addresses these issues from a marketing perspective. It contributes to the broader study of the metaverse by offering expert opinions on the key marketing implications of the metaverse | 97 | 48.5 |
| Gursoy et al. (2022), J Hosp Market Manage | The metaverse in the hospitality and tourism sector: An overview of current trends and future research lines | In this opinion piece, we provide a brief overview of recent developments in the metaverse in the hospitality and tourism sector and discuss future lines of research for interested scholars | 91 | 30.33 |
| Rauschnabel et al. (2022), J BUS RES | What is augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity and future | We have synthesised the results of academic research, industry presentations, and discussions held during the fifth international AR VR conference, along with industry feedback, to present a definition of AR marketing | 77 | 25.67 |
| Buhalis et al. (2023) TOURISM MANAGEMENT | Metaverse as a disruptive technology revolutionising tourism management and marketing | Conceptualise the Metaverse in tourism and lay the foundations for a future research agenda | 70 | 35 |
| Buhalis et al. (2023), INT J CONTEMP HOSP MANAG-A | The metaverse as a driver of customer experience and value co-creation: implications for hospitality and tourism management and marketing | Explore the concept of the Metaverse and examine its potential impact on the experience of hotel customers. Explore the implications of the Metaverse for hotel management and marketing | 69 | 34.5 |
| Arpaci et al. (2022), TECHNOL SOC | Understanding the social sustainability of the Metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and the Big Five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach | Investigates the role of the Big Five personality traits and UTAUT2 factors in predicting the social sustainability of the Metaverse | 60 | 20 |
| Document | Title | Target | Total appointments | TC per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virtual Reality, Presence and Attitude Change: Empirical Evidence on Tourism | To investigate the feeling of presence during a virtual visit to a tourist destination and how presence influences post-virtual reality attitude change towards the destination | 515 | 73.57 | |
| Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing consumer marketing research | Assess the current and future impact of virtual reality on marketing | 171 | 34.2 | |
| Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing | To investigate the impact of virtual reality experiences created with next-generation wearable devices on visit intentions | 163 | 23.29 | |
| The potential of virtual tourism in the recovery of the tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic | To investigate the factors and constraints influencing people's behaviour and the acceptability of the use of virtual tourism during the pandemic in China, and to explore how virtual tourism can help the tourism industry recover during and after the pandemic | 121 | 40.33 | |
| Metaverse Marketing: How the metaverse will shape the future of consumer research and practice | This study addresses these issues from a marketing perspective. It contributes to the broader study of the metaverse by offering expert opinions on the key marketing implications of the metaverse | 97 | 48.5 | |
| The metaverse in the hospitality and tourism sector: An overview of current trends and future research lines | In this opinion piece, we provide a brief overview of recent developments in the metaverse in the hospitality and tourism sector and discuss future lines of research for interested scholars | 91 | 30.33 | |
| What is augmented reality marketing? Its definition, complexity and future | We have synthesised the results of academic research, industry presentations, and discussions held during the fifth international AR VR conference, along with industry feedback, to present a definition of AR marketing | 77 | 25.67 | |
| Metaverse as a disruptive technology revolutionising tourism management and marketing | Conceptualise the Metaverse in tourism and lay the foundations for a future research agenda | 70 | 35 | |
| The metaverse as a driver of customer experience and value co-creation: implications for hospitality and tourism management and marketing | Explore the concept of the Metaverse and examine its potential impact on the experience of hotel customers. Explore the implications of the Metaverse for hotel management and marketing | 69 | 34.5 | |
| Understanding the social sustainability of the Metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and the Big Five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach | Investigates the role of the Big Five personality traits and UTAUT2 factors in predicting the social sustainability of the Metaverse | 60 | 20 |
Main research topics, words most frequently used and countries with the greatest scientific contribution in this field.
Main issues addressed
Research on value creation in the metaverse applied to tourism explores user motivations and adoption challenges (Hong and Cho, 2024; Chi et al., 2024). Hong and Cho (2024) identified five main motivations for using the metaverse, including the search for benefits and extended social interactions (Agnihotri et al., 2024). However, Chi et al. (2024) modelled barriers to metaverse adoption in hospitality, highlighting security and privacy as major concerns (Chi et al., 2024). Other studies adopt qualitative approaches through interviews to understand the drivers and barriers of the metaverse in tourism (Chen et al., 2023). Various theories and models, such as UTAUT2 and innovation resistance theory, have been used to explain adoption and attitudes toward immersive technologies such as virtual reality and the metaverse (Cham et al., 2023).
Words most used
In Figure 5, the scientific output in tourism highlights terms such as “Tourism, impact, experience, tourism destinations, virtual reality, technology, China, Covid-19, technology adoption, and tourism behaviour’. China leads the research, followed by other countries.
The largest and most prominent terms in the word cloud are “tourism”, “experience”, “impact”, and “tourist destination”. Other large terms include “technology”, “virtual reality”, “tourist behavior”, and “covid-19”. Medium-sized terms include “technology adoption”, “sustainability”, “telepresence”, “satisfaction”, “tourism market”, “destination image”, “china”, and “model”. Smaller terms include “augmented reality”, “metaverses”, “internet”, “marketing”, “online”, “perception”, “behavior”, “decision making”, “engagement”, “consumption behavior”, “e-commerce”, “media”, “gamification”, “determinants”, “motivation”, “intention”, “challenges”, “products”, “flow”, “avatars”, “lessons”, “perceived”, “tourism management”, “human computer interaction”, and “least squares method”. The words are clustered visually and vary in color and size. The largest words are arranged in the center and radiates outwards as they get smaller.Word cloud. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The largest and most prominent terms in the word cloud are “tourism”, “experience”, “impact”, and “tourist destination”. Other large terms include “technology”, “virtual reality”, “tourist behavior”, and “covid-19”. Medium-sized terms include “technology adoption”, “sustainability”, “telepresence”, “satisfaction”, “tourism market”, “destination image”, “china”, and “model”. Smaller terms include “augmented reality”, “metaverses”, “internet”, “marketing”, “online”, “perception”, “behavior”, “decision making”, “engagement”, “consumption behavior”, “e-commerce”, “media”, “gamification”, “determinants”, “motivation”, “intention”, “challenges”, “products”, “flow”, “avatars”, “lessons”, “perceived”, “tourism management”, “human computer interaction”, and “least squares method”. The words are clustered visually and vary in color and size. The largest words are arranged in the center and radiates outwards as they get smaller.Word cloud. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
Countries with the highest scientific contribution in this field
According to Figure 6, China, the United States and the United Kingdom are the leading countries in scientific production on metaverse and tourism. They have collaborated closely with other nations such as Korea, Malaysia, Australia, and India.
The world map displays countries shaded in blue with connecting lines for international linkages. The horizontal axis is labeled “Latitude” and the vertical axis is labeled “Longitude”. China and the United States are the most prominently shaded regions, with multiple thick and thin lines extending between them and to other regions. Lines connect China to countries across Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. Additional lines connect the United States to Europe and other regions. Europe shows multiple connections linking to both China and the United States. Countries such as India, Australia, and several Southeast Asian and European nations are shaded in lighter blue, with thinner connecting lines extending to and from them. Large areas of Africa and South America are shown in gray, with no visible connections.Scientific collaboration between countries. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The world map displays countries shaded in blue with connecting lines for international linkages. The horizontal axis is labeled “Latitude” and the vertical axis is labeled “Longitude”. China and the United States are the most prominently shaded regions, with multiple thick and thin lines extending between them and to other regions. Lines connect China to countries across Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. Additional lines connect the United States to Europe and other regions. Europe shows multiple connections linking to both China and the United States. Countries such as India, Australia, and several Southeast Asian and European nations are shaded in lighter blue, with thinner connecting lines extending to and from them. Large areas of Africa and South America are shown in gray, with no visible connections.Scientific collaboration between countries. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
Binding metaverse and tourism issues
This topic modelling identifies five topics and contributes to the scientific community's reflection on the topics that are mostly being researched (Table 6). It also identifies gaps that could be explored to improve value creation for the user and the business sector to design value experiences.
Marginal topic probability
| Frequency | Marginal topic probability | |
|---|---|---|
| Topic 1 | 25 | 18.939% |
| Topic 2 | 19 | 14.394% |
| Topic 3 | 57 | 43.182% |
| Topic 4 | 13 | 9.848% |
| Topic 5 | 18 | 13.636% |
| Frequency | Marginal topic probability | |
|---|---|---|
| Topic 1 | 25 | 18.939% |
| Topic 2 | 19 | 14.394% |
| Topic 3 | 57 | 43.182% |
| Topic 4 | 13 | 9.848% |
| Topic 5 | 18 | 13.636% |
In this research, the Latent Dirichlet allocation technique (LDAvis) was applied to identify these latent themes by analysing the summaries of the different studies and categorising them into five topics (Hino and Fahey, 2019).
Topic 1 was identified as Metaverse and Tourism Transformation. These keywords, obtained through the topic modelling of scientific papers, suggest a focus on the intersection of the metaverse and the tourism and hospitality industry (Figure 7). Therefore, they reflect a research focus on how the metaverse is transforming the industry, addressing aspects such as technology adoption, user experience, sustainability, and changes in consumer behaviour.
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 70; within topic 35. “tourism”: overall topic 120; within topic 30. “travel”: overall topic 20; within topic 15. “hospitality”: overall topic 8; within topic 12. “digital”: overall topic 10; within topic 10. “use”: overall topic 7; within topic 8. “intention”: overall topic 28; within topic 10. “sustainability”: overall topic 5; within topic 5. “big”: overall topic 3; within topic 4. “constraints”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “five”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “neural”: overall topic 0; within topic 2. “offline”: overall topic 0; within topic 2. “armchair”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “technology”: overall topic 35; within topic 10. “innovation”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “industry”: overall topic 8; within topic 4. “adoption”: overall topic 18; within topic 7. “personality”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “social”: overall topic 10; within topic 5. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 1. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 70; within topic 35. “tourism”: overall topic 120; within topic 30. “travel”: overall topic 20; within topic 15. “hospitality”: overall topic 8; within topic 12. “digital”: overall topic 10; within topic 10. “use”: overall topic 7; within topic 8. “intention”: overall topic 28; within topic 10. “sustainability”: overall topic 5; within topic 5. “big”: overall topic 3; within topic 4. “constraints”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “five”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “neural”: overall topic 0; within topic 2. “offline”: overall topic 0; within topic 2. “armchair”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “technology”: overall topic 35; within topic 10. “innovation”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “industry”: overall topic 8; within topic 4. “adoption”: overall topic 18; within topic 7. “personality”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “social”: overall topic 10; within topic 5. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 1. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The articles that make up this topic refer to how the metaverse presents a new frontier for value creation in the travel and hospitality industry, transforming how users interact and experience tourism in a personalised way (Agnihotri et al., 2024). The metaverse facilitates the creation of digital economies where users can buy, sell, and exchange virtual goods related to their trips, such as NFT collectables (Lee et al., 2024).
The creation of digital twins allows offering 3D virtual tours, enhancing the booking experience (Milanesi et al., 2024). The metaverse becomes a platform for virtual trade fairs and exhibitions, providing travel companies with new ways to market their services (Batat, 2024). Implementing technologies such as blockchain and NFTs also introduces new ways of transacting, ticketing, and identification within the metaverse (Agnihotri et al., 2024). The metaverse complements physical travel, enhancing the traditional industry through new interactions and value generation (Table 7).
Top 10 scientific articles that support topic 1
| AU | DI | TC | PY | Topic 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arpaci I; Karatas K; Kusci I; Al-Emran M | 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102120 | 159 | 2022 | 0.987568 |
| Schiopu A; Hornoiu R; Padurean A; Nica A | 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102091 | 45 | 2022 | 0.9849 |
| Zaman U; Koo I; Abbasi S; Raza S; Qureshi M | 10.3390/su14116441 | 60 | 2022 | 0.979789 |
| Agnihotri A; Bhattacharya S; Sakka G; Vrontis D | 10.1108/IJCHM-10–2023–1585 | 3 | 2024 | 0.977613 |
| Ahn S; Jin B; Seo H | 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114557 | 20 | 2024 | 0.97669 |
| Hong D; Cho C | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2233133 | 8 | 2024 | 0.97612 |
| Yoon S; Nam Y | 10.1016/j.jdmm.2024.100865 | 5 | 2024 | 0.975908 |
| Choubey V; Chakraborty D; Sharma A; Khorana; Sangeeta S; Buhalis D | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2414881 | 1 | 2025 | 0.974568 |
| Baltaci F; Ba Er M; Çelik M | 10.1002/jtr.2685 | 3 | 2024 | 0.973803 |
| Chakraborty D; Mehta P; Khorana S | 10.1108/IJCHM-09–2023–1500 | 2 | 2024 | 0.971825 |
| AU | DI | TC | PY | Topic 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arpaci I; Karatas K; Kusci I; Al-Emran M | 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102120 | 159 | 2022 | 0.987568 |
| Schiopu A; Hornoiu R; Padurean A; Nica A | 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102091 | 45 | 2022 | 0.9849 |
| Zaman U; Koo I; Abbasi S; Raza S; Qureshi M | 10.3390/su14116441 | 60 | 2022 | 0.979789 |
| Agnihotri A; Bhattacharya S; Sakka G; Vrontis D | 10.1108/IJCHM-10–2023–1585 | 3 | 2024 | 0.977613 |
| Ahn S; Jin B; Seo H | 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114557 | 20 | 2024 | 0.97669 |
| Hong D; Cho C | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2233133 | 8 | 2024 | 0.97612 |
| Yoon S; Nam Y | 10.1016/j.jdmm.2024.100865 | 5 | 2024 | 0.975908 |
| Choubey V; Chakraborty D; Sharma A; Khorana; Sangeeta S; Buhalis D | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2414881 | 1 | 2025 | 0.974568 |
| Baltaci F; Ba Er M; Çelik M | 10.1002/jtr.2685 | 3 | 2024 | 0.973803 |
| Chakraborty D; Mehta P; Khorana S | 10.1108/IJCHM-09–2023–1500 | 2 | 2024 | 0.971825 |
The second topic is the metaverse and technology adoption in Tourism (Table 8 and Figure 8). The scientific articles that make up this topic suggest a focus on the intersection of the metaverse with the tourism industry and the adoption of emerging technologies.
Probability topic 2 – top 10 articles
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Sharafi M; Al-Emran M; Al-Qaysi N; Iranmanesh M; Ibrahim N | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2260984 | 26 | 2024 | 0.982025 |
| Calderon-Fajardo V; Puig-Cabrera M; Rodriguez-Rodriguez I | 10.1080/13683500.2024.2330675 | 9 | 2024 | 0.979084 |
| Cheung M; Leung W; Chang M; Wong; Randy Y M R; Tse S | 10.1108/INTR-06–2023–0496 | 1 | 2024 | 0.977352 |
| Yu J; Kim S; Chiriko A; Choi; Hyunjun H; Radic A; Ariza-Montes A; Han H | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2438914 | 0 | 2024 | 0.977233 |
| Akyurek S; Genc G; Calik I; Sengel U | 10.1016/j.jhlste.2024.100503 | 2 | 2024 | 0.976727 |
| Chen X; Zhang K; Huang Y | 10.3390/su15118760 | 0 | 2023 | 0.976155 |
| Beheshti M; Mladenovic D; Sadraei R; Zareravasan A | 10.1108/IJCHM-09–2023–1487 | 0 | 2024 | 0.975206 |
| Gupta R; Rathore B; Biswas B; Jaiswal; Mahadeo M; Singh R | 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103882 | 16 | 2024 | 0.971167 |
| Melo M; Gonçalves G; Jorge F; Losada N; Barbosa L; Teixeira M; Bessa M | 10.1108/JHTT-01–2023–0015 | 8 | 2024 | 0.969804 |
| Kim J; Erdem M; Kim B | 10.1108/IJCHM-08–2023–1209 | 1 | 2025 | 0.96883 |
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Sharafi M; Al-Emran M; Al-Qaysi N; Iranmanesh M; Ibrahim N | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2260984 | 26 | 2024 | 0.982025 |
| Calderon-Fajardo V; Puig-Cabrera M; Rodriguez-Rodriguez I | 10.1080/13683500.2024.2330675 | 9 | 2024 | 0.979084 |
| Cheung M; Leung W; Chang M; Wong; Randy Y M R; Tse S | 10.1108/INTR-06–2023–0496 | 1 | 2024 | 0.977352 |
| Yu J; Kim S; Chiriko A; Choi; Hyunjun H; Radic A; Ariza-Montes A; Han H | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2438914 | 0 | 2024 | 0.977233 |
| Akyurek S; Genc G; Calik I; Sengel U | 10.1016/j.jhlste.2024.100503 | 2 | 2024 | 0.976727 |
| Chen X; Zhang K; Huang Y | 10.3390/su15118760 | 0 | 2023 | 0.976155 |
| Beheshti M; Mladenovic D; Sadraei R; Zareravasan A | 10.1108/IJCHM-09–2023–1487 | 0 | 2024 | 0.975206 |
| Gupta R; Rathore B; Biswas B; Jaiswal; Mahadeo M; Singh R | 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103882 | 16 | 2024 | 0.971167 |
| Melo M; Gonçalves G; Jorge F; Losada N; Barbosa L; Teixeira M; Bessa M | 10.1108/JHTT-01–2023–0015 | 8 | 2024 | 0.969804 |
| Kim J; Erdem M; Kim B | 10.1108/IJCHM-08–2023–1209 | 1 | 2025 | 0.96883 |
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 90; within topic 18. “technology”: overall topic 40; within topic 12. “acceptance”: overall topic 18; within topic 9. “information”: overall topic 10; within topic 6. “search”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “perceived”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “adoption”: overall topic 20; within topic 6. “tourist”: overall topic 22; within topic 6. “model”: overall topic 20; within topic 6. “smartphone”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “agenda”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “reality”: overall topic 80; within topic 10. “virtual”: overall topic 92; within topic 11. “artificial”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “z”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “tourism”: overall topic 138; within topic 12. “motivation”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “research”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “gen”: overall topic 2; within topic 1. “user”: overall topic 11; within topic 3. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 2. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 90; within topic 18. “technology”: overall topic 40; within topic 12. “acceptance”: overall topic 18; within topic 9. “information”: overall topic 10; within topic 6. “search”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “perceived”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “adoption”: overall topic 20; within topic 6. “tourist”: overall topic 22; within topic 6. “model”: overall topic 20; within topic 6. “smartphone”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “agenda”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “reality”: overall topic 80; within topic 10. “virtual”: overall topic 92; within topic 11. “artificial”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “z”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “tourism”: overall topic 138; within topic 12. “motivation”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “research”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “gen”: overall topic 2; within topic 1. “user”: overall topic 11; within topic 3. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 2. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
This topic focusses on how the metaverse transforms tourism, addressing technological adoption, experience, virtual representation, and theoretical models to understand the changes.
An important finding that supports this topic concerns the models used to understand metaverse adoption in tourism, including UTAUT-2 and the TAM (Kılıçarslan et al., 2025).
Enabling conditions are an essential pillar that tourism providers must ensure for the metaverse industry to gain importance in the sector (Calderón-Fajardo et al., 2024). The metaverse presents itself as a new educational frontier with unlimited opportunities for interactive learning and global classroom experiences in tourism education (Akyürek et al., 2024).
3D modelling and gamification in the metaverse make it inclusive for people with physical or economic limitations (Yu et al., 2024). Motivations for using the metaverse in tourism include curiosity, the need to show off, socialisation, learning and education (Kılıçarslan et al., 2025). Creating immersive experiences that people perceive as valuable and are willing to pay for is crucial to capitalising on the tourism metaverse (Calderón-Fajardo et al., 2024).
The metaverse adds value at all stages of the tourism product, generating new opportunities and requiring operating models adapted to immersive digital environments. Developing immersive and personalised experiences in the metaverse can serve as a key differentiator in the tourism market, attracting generations such as Z and Millennials (Calderón-Fajardo et al., 2024; Assiouras et al., 2025).
Incorporating metaverse technology into niches such as space exploration, creating transparent platforms, and addressing accessibility barriers has significant potential (Beheshti et al., 2024). The metaverse creates commercial opportunities in emerging markets, demanding new content and the adoption of AI and audiovisual technologies (Yu et al., 2024).
Promoting the tourism metaverse should highlight its timeless, spaceless nature and potential to serve niche markets such as the elderly and disabled (Yu et al., 2024).
Topic 3 is entitled Immersive Tourism and Value Creation. These keywords, obtained through topic modelling of scientific papers, suggest a focus on the intersection of tourism with immersive technologies and the metaverse (Figure 9).
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “virtual”: overall topic 27; within topic 78. “tourism”: overall topic 65; within topic 85. “reality”: overall topic 25; within topic 65. “destination”: overall topic 10; within topic 25. “augmented”: overall topic 6; within topic 20. “marketing”: overall topic 8; within topic 18. “experience”: overall topic 20; within topic 22. “presence”: overall topic 3; within topic 12. “model”: overall topic 10; within topic 14. “tourist”: overall topic 12; within topic 15. “metaverse”: overall topic 80; within topic 25. “behavior”: overall topic 10; within topic 12. “intention”: overall topic 25; within topic 13. “technology”: overall topic 35; within topic 14. “value”: overall topic 7; within topic 8. “digital”: overall topic 12; within topic 9. “travel”: overall topic 22; within topic 11. “theory”: overall topic 12; within topic 8. “museum”: overall topic 2; within topic 6. “heritage”: overall topic 5; within topic 7. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 3. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “virtual”: overall topic 27; within topic 78. “tourism”: overall topic 65; within topic 85. “reality”: overall topic 25; within topic 65. “destination”: overall topic 10; within topic 25. “augmented”: overall topic 6; within topic 20. “marketing”: overall topic 8; within topic 18. “experience”: overall topic 20; within topic 22. “presence”: overall topic 3; within topic 12. “model”: overall topic 10; within topic 14. “tourist”: overall topic 12; within topic 15. “metaverse”: overall topic 80; within topic 25. “behavior”: overall topic 10; within topic 12. “intention”: overall topic 25; within topic 13. “technology”: overall topic 35; within topic 14. “value”: overall topic 7; within topic 8. “digital”: overall topic 12; within topic 9. “travel”: overall topic 22; within topic 11. “theory”: overall topic 12; within topic 8. “museum”: overall topic 2; within topic 6. “heritage”: overall topic 5; within topic 7. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 3. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The articles that comprise it showcase research on how virtual and immersive technologies, especially the metaverse, are transforming the tourism industry for value creation. Studies address the tourist experience, virtual destination representation, marketing strategies, and consumer behaviour. They suggest an interest in how these technologies can offer alternative and potentially more sustainable travel experiences.
This topic highlights how technologies are presented as indispensable tools to improve the tourist experience and generate new forms of value, Table 9 (Cham et al., 2023; Prados-Castillo et al., 2024). VR engages consumers, promotes destinations, and transforms experiences in hotels, museums, heritage, and tourism branding, positively influencing (Cham et al., 2023) (see Table 10).
Probability topic 3 – top 10 articles
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SINGH P; HASTEER N; SINDHWANI R; PHILIP A; SHARMA R | 10.1007/s13198-024-02560-z | 0 | 2024 | 0.985286 |
| XIONG Z; LUO L; LU X | 10.1080/10941665.2023.2246598 | 9 | 2023 | 0.98434 |
| TRIVIÑO-TARRADAS P; MOHEDO-GATÓN A; CARRANZA-CAÑADAS P; HIDALGO-FERNANDEZ R | 10.3390/su16166966 | 2 | 2024 | 0.982008 |
| FATMA A; BHATT V | 10.1080/14724049.2023.2273751 | 2 | 2024 | 0.980684 |
| SHIN H; KANG J | 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.12.009 | 16 | 2024 | 0.979576 |
| WU Q; WANG J | 10.1108/IJCHM-05–2024–0685 | 0 | 2024 | 0.978953 |
| LI Y; LIANG J; HUANG J; YANG M; LI R; BAI H | 10.3390/su141912693 | 15 | 2022 | 0.977475 |
| KUMAR H; RAUSCHNABEL P; AGARWAL M; SINGH R; SRIVASTAVA R | 10.1016/j.im.2023.103910 | 28 | 2024 | 0.977471 |
| NGUYEN T; LE T; CHAU N | 10.3390/su15064765 | 12 | 2023 | 0.977435 |
| ZHANG R; ABD R A | 10.1080/13683500.2022.2070459 | 15 | 2022 | 0.976278 |
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SINGH P; HASTEER N; SINDHWANI R; PHILIP A; SHARMA R | 10.1007/s13198-024-02560-z | 0 | 2024 | 0.985286 |
| XIONG Z; LUO L; LU X | 10.1080/10941665.2023.2246598 | 9 | 2023 | 0.98434 |
| TRIVIÑO-TARRADAS P; MOHEDO-GATÓN A; CARRANZA-CAÑADAS P; HIDALGO-FERNANDEZ R | 10.3390/su16166966 | 2 | 2024 | 0.982008 |
| FATMA A; BHATT V | 10.1080/14724049.2023.2273751 | 2 | 2024 | 0.980684 |
| SHIN H; KANG J | 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.12.009 | 16 | 2024 | 0.979576 |
| WU Q; WANG J | 10.1108/IJCHM-05–2024–0685 | 0 | 2024 | 0.978953 |
| LI Y; LIANG J; HUANG J; YANG M; LI R; BAI H | 10.3390/su141912693 | 15 | 2022 | 0.977475 |
| KUMAR H; RAUSCHNABEL P; AGARWAL M; SINGH R; SRIVASTAVA R | 10.1016/j.im.2023.103910 | 28 | 2024 | 0.977471 |
| NGUYEN T; LE T; CHAU N | 10.3390/su15064765 | 12 | 2023 | 0.977435 |
| ZHANG R; ABD R A | 10.1080/13683500.2022.2070459 | 15 | 2022 | 0.976278 |
Probability topic 4 – top 10 articles
| TI | AU | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JIANG S; ZHANG Z; XU H; PAN Y | 10.3390/su162310231 | 0 | 2024 | 0.979717 |
| LIU S; HAO F | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2350401 | 5 | 2024 | 0.977371 |
| ASSIOURAS I; BAYER R | 10.1108/TR-02–2024–0100 | 2 | 2025 | 0.972188 |
| ADNAN N; RASHED M; ALI W | 10.1080/13683500.2024.2390678 | 1 | 2024 | 0.966223 |
| ASIF M; FAZEL H | 10.1108/GKMC-12–2023–0482 | 2 | 2024 | 0.96606 |
| BEHERA R; BALA P; RANA N | 10.1007/s40558-023-00274–9 | 6 | 2024 | 0.964458 |
| BAYDENI ? Z E; TÜRKO ? LU T; KART N | 10.1108/WHATT-04–2024–0081 | 3 | 2024 | 0.957366 |
| SPIELMANN N; MANTONAKIS A | 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.037 | 83 | 2018 | 0.954871 |
| SEPE F; LUONGO S; DI G L; DELLA C V | 10.1108/EJIM-05–2024–0557 | 0 | 2024 | 0.954818 |
| ZULFIQAR U; ABBAS A; AMAN-ULLAH A; MEHMOOD W | 10.1108/JTF-01–2024–0013 | 8 | 2024 | 0.94906 |
| TI | AU | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JIANG S; ZHANG Z; XU H; PAN Y | 10.3390/su162310231 | 0 | 2024 | 0.979717 |
| LIU S; HAO F | 10.1080/10941665.2024.2350401 | 5 | 2024 | 0.977371 |
| ASSIOURAS I; BAYER R | 10.1108/TR-02–2024–0100 | 2 | 2025 | 0.972188 |
| ADNAN N; RASHED M; ALI W | 10.1080/13683500.2024.2390678 | 1 | 2024 | 0.966223 |
| ASIF M; FAZEL H | 10.1108/GKMC-12–2023–0482 | 2 | 2024 | 0.96606 |
| BEHERA R; BALA P; RANA N | 10.1007/s40558-023-00274–9 | 6 | 2024 | 0.964458 |
| BAYDENI ? Z E; TÜRKO ? LU T; KART N | 10.1108/WHATT-04–2024–0081 | 3 | 2024 | 0.957366 |
| SPIELMANN N; MANTONAKIS A | 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.037 | 83 | 2018 | 0.954871 |
| SEPE F; LUONGO S; DI G L; DELLA C V | 10.1108/EJIM-05–2024–0557 | 0 | 2024 | 0.954818 |
| ZULFIQAR U; ABBAS A; AMAN-ULLAH A; MEHMOOD W | 10.1108/JTF-01–2024–0013 | 8 | 2024 | 0.94906 |
VR experiences created with next-generation wearable devices positively and significantly impact intentions to visit sites and attractions in a destination (Marasco et al., 2018). VR quality—visual appeal and emotional engagement—strongly influences user intentions (Marasco et al., 2018; Yersüren and Özel, 2023). Using VR to build a favourable destination image is more effective than traditional approaches (Kim et al., 2022).
Digital technologies turn museums into interactive platforms, facilitating value co-creation and generating sustainable tourism experiences and development (Massari et al., 2024). Co-creation of value, facilitated by immersive technologies, is considered fundamental for the sustainable growth of the tourism industry (John and Supramaniam, 2024).
The fourth theme addresses immersive technologies for sustainable tourism and heritage, focussing on the intersection of metaverse, culture, and sustainability and prioritising user experience (Figure 10).
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “cultural”: overall topic 5; within topic 4. “tourism”: overall topic 135; within topic 15. “sustainable”: overall topic 6; within topic 3. “heritage”: overall topic 7; within topic 3. “metaverse”: overall topic 95; within topic 7. “interactivity”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. “intention”: overall topic 32; within topic 4. “influencing”: overall topic 2; within topic 1. “factors”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. “users”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “self”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. “online”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “elevation”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “continuous”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “gratitude”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “compassion”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “booking”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “revisit”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “resort”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “behavioral”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling of issues – topic 4. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “cultural”: overall topic 5; within topic 4. “tourism”: overall topic 135; within topic 15. “sustainable”: overall topic 6; within topic 3. “heritage”: overall topic 7; within topic 3. “metaverse”: overall topic 95; within topic 7. “interactivity”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. “intention”: overall topic 32; within topic 4. “influencing”: overall topic 2; within topic 1. “factors”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. “users”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “self”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. “online”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “elevation”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “continuous”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “gratitude”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “compassion”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “booking”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “revisit”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “resort”: overall topic 1; within topic 1. “behavioral”: overall topic 6; within topic 2. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling of issues – topic 4. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
They reflect research on how the metaverse is revolutionising tourism and cultural heritage preservation, addressing aspects such as sustainability, user experience, technology adoption, and impact on consumer behaviour. Immersive technologies explore new ways to experience and preserving heritage, promoting more sustainable tourism.
Immersive technologies (AR and Metaverse) drive sustainable tourism and heritage, generating new forms of value creation (Cranmer et al., 2023; Adnan et al., 2024). The Metaverse, in particular, has the potential to revolutionise sustainable tourism practices by aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), offering immersive experiences that educate, promote equality, and reduce environmental impact through virtual journeys (Adnan et al., 2024).
This technology can facilitate self-transcending emotions, leading to value co-creation and mitigating co-construction in sustainable tourism (Assiouras et al., 2025). AR, on the other hand, is revealed as a strategic tool for sustainability in cultural heritage attractions, operating under the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework by generating economic (new opportunities, efficiency), social (increased accessibility, preservation of knowledge) and environmental (sustainable use of infrastructure) value (Cranmer et al., 2023). Virtual tours and contextualised interactions attract broad audiences, enrich the experience, and preserve heritage through digital reconstructions (Behera et al., 2023; Cranmer et al., 2023).
The fifth theme is recognised as the Impact of the Metaverse on Tourism and Hospitality (Figure 11). The articles that comprise it focus on the intersection of the metaverse and the tourism and hospitality industry and reflect research on how it is revolutionising the industry. They address aspects such as immersive experiences, new marketing strategies (Maldonado-Lopez et al., 2024), the transformation of destinations and hotels, and the impact on consumer behaviour.
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 90; within topic 18. “experience”: overall topic 30; within topic 12. “travel”: overall topic 34; within topic 8. “tourism”: overall topic 133; within topic 17. “immersive”: overall topic 10; within topic 5. “engagement”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “chat g p t”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “mouth”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “word”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “hotel”: overall topic 3; within topic 3. “brand”: overall topic 4; within topic 3. “marketing”: overall topic 20; within topic 10. “technology”: overall topic 40; within topic 10. “a i”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “theory”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “place”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “utilitarian”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “media”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. “responses”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “z”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 5. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The horizontal bar chart displays word frequencies with two bars per word. The legend at the bottom right indicates that gray denotes “Overall term frequency” and red denotes “Term frequency within a topic”. The horizontal axis at the top is labeled “weights” and ranges from 0 to 150 in increments of 20 units. The vertical axis is labeled “words” and lists 20 words. The data values for the words are as follows: “metaverse”: overall topic 90; within topic 18. “experience”: overall topic 30; within topic 12. “travel”: overall topic 34; within topic 8. “tourism”: overall topic 133; within topic 17. “immersive”: overall topic 10; within topic 5. “engagement”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “chat g p t”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “mouth”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “word”: overall topic 1; within topic 3. “hotel”: overall topic 3; within topic 3. “brand”: overall topic 4; within topic 3. “marketing”: overall topic 20; within topic 10. “technology”: overall topic 40; within topic 10. “a i”: overall topic 1; within topic 2. “theory”: overall topic 15; within topic 5. “place”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “utilitarian”: overall topic 2; within topic 2. “media”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. “responses”: overall topic 3; within topic 2. “z”: overall topic 4; within topic 2. Note: All data values are approximated.Modelling issues – topic 5. Source(s): Obtained through using topic modelling
The studies explore how these technologies can offer new, potentially more sustainable, and accessible ways of experiencing tourism, reinforcing the value proposition that tourism businesses can offer.
Virtual reality has become a key marketing tool for travel agencies, as it influences tourists' decision-making by creating attractive mental images of destinations and thus affecting their final choice (Hao et al., 2025). AI, Web 3.0, and avatars are revolutionising the industry by providing users with immersive and personalised experiences (Table 11).
Probability topic 5 – top 10 articles
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POLAT E; CELIK F; IBRAHIM B; GURSOY D | 10.1080/10548408.2024.2317741 | 12 | 2024 | 0.982788 |
| WANG J; LI Y; MIAO L; LIU Y; LI; JING J | 10.1080/10548408.2024.2379322 | 1 | 2024 | 0.978042 |
| SHAMIN N; GUPTA S; SHIN M | 10.1108/IJCHM-10–2023–1590 | 2 | 2024 | 0.977969 |
| ZAMAN M; HASAN R; VO-THANH T; SHAMS R; RAHMAN M; JASIM K | 10.1108/IJCHM-08–2023–1265 | 13 | 2024 | 0.9768 |
| WONGKITRUNGRUENG A; SUPRAWAN L | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2175162 | 70 | 2024 | 0.97362 |
| BOGICEVIC V; LIU S; KANDAMPULLY J; SEO; SOOBIN S; RUDD N | 10.1177/10963480241256564 | 2 | 2024 | 0.971988 |
| RAHMAN S; CHOWDHURY N; BOWDEN J; CARLSON J | 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104159 | 2 | 2025 | 0.969951 |
| CHON K; HAO F | 10.1108/TR-10–2023–0753 | 14 | 2025 | 0.969833 |
| WANG Y; GUO R | 10.1177/13567667241307958 | 0 | 2025 | 0.968829 |
| HAO F; BACK K; CHON K | 10.1108/IJCHM-03–2024–0323 | 0 | 2025 | 0.967633 |
| AU | DI | TC | PY | TOPIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POLAT E; CELIK F; IBRAHIM B; GURSOY D | 10.1080/10548408.2024.2317741 | 12 | 2024 | 0.982788 |
| WANG J; LI Y; MIAO L; LIU Y; LI; JING J | 10.1080/10548408.2024.2379322 | 1 | 2024 | 0.978042 |
| SHAMIN N; GUPTA S; SHIN M | 10.1108/IJCHM-10–2023–1590 | 2 | 2024 | 0.977969 |
| ZAMAN M; HASAN R; VO-THANH T; SHAMS R; RAHMAN M; JASIM K | 10.1108/IJCHM-08–2023–1265 | 13 | 2024 | 0.9768 |
| WONGKITRUNGRUENG A; SUPRAWAN L | 10.1080/10447318.2023.2175162 | 70 | 2024 | 0.97362 |
| BOGICEVIC V; LIU S; KANDAMPULLY J; SEO; SOOBIN S; RUDD N | 10.1177/10963480241256564 | 2 | 2024 | 0.971988 |
| RAHMAN S; CHOWDHURY N; BOWDEN J; CARLSON J | 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104159 | 2 | 2025 | 0.969951 |
| CHON K; HAO F | 10.1108/TR-10–2023–0753 | 14 | 2025 | 0.969833 |
| WANG Y; GUO R | 10.1177/13567667241307958 | 0 | 2025 | 0.968829 |
| HAO F; BACK K; CHON K | 10.1108/IJCHM-03–2024–0323 | 0 | 2025 | 0.967633 |
Perceived usefulness emerges as a crucial driver of the platform's practical benefits, whereas perceived enjoyment drives the emotional gratifications derived from the experience (Jo, 2023).
Immersive storytelling in the metaverse increases presence, interaction, and immersion, enhancing the image and visits to the tourist destination (Zhang and Wang, 2023).
The aesthetics, commerciality, community, creativity, efficiency, immersion, interoperability, personalisation, privacy, and testability of the metaverse define the customer experience in virtual environments (Rahman et al., 2025).
As part of the study, it is essential to examine the information to understand the conceptual structure and the main elements that comprise each cluster. In Figure 12, the dendrogram reveals three major thematic clusters: marketing, technology adoption, and user acceptance. Technology adoption connects tourism, sustainability, and the metaverse. User acceptance, linked to social networks, focusses on satisfaction, experience, and technology adoption. These findings suggest that the success of virtual reality in tourism depends both on effective marketing and on the user acceptance and sustainable integration of new technologies (Sepe et al., 2024; Rahman et al., 2025).
The hierarchical clustering dendrogram displays grouped keywords connected by branching lines. A horizontal orange line spans across the diagram, indicating a cluster cut threshold. The dendrogram is divided into three main color-coded clusters: blue on the left, green in the center, and purple on the right, with red branches representing higher-level merges. In the left blue cluster, the words “virtual reality”, “tourist destination”, “tourist behavior”, and “china” are grouped closely, with “marketing” branching above them as a higher-level connection. In the central green cluster, “technology adoption” branches upward and connects to “tourism”, which further links to “sustainability” and “metaverses” as closely related terms. In the right purple cluster, “user acceptance” branches upward and connects to “impact”, “satisfaction”, “virtual reality”, and “experience”. Another branch connects “technology” to “adoption” and “reality”. At a higher level, red branches connect the three clusters, with “social media” acting as a central linking node between the green and purple clusters.Dendrogram of topics. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The hierarchical clustering dendrogram displays grouped keywords connected by branching lines. A horizontal orange line spans across the diagram, indicating a cluster cut threshold. The dendrogram is divided into three main color-coded clusters: blue on the left, green in the center, and purple on the right, with red branches representing higher-level merges. In the left blue cluster, the words “virtual reality”, “tourist destination”, “tourist behavior”, and “china” are grouped closely, with “marketing” branching above them as a higher-level connection. In the central green cluster, “technology adoption” branches upward and connects to “tourism”, which further links to “sustainability” and “metaverses” as closely related terms. In the right purple cluster, “user acceptance” branches upward and connects to “impact”, “satisfaction”, “virtual reality”, and “experience”. Another branch connects “technology” to “adoption” and “reality”. At a higher level, red branches connect the three clusters, with “social media” acting as a central linking node between the green and purple clusters.Dendrogram of topics. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
Thematic approaches of great interest in the Metaverse applied to tourism research
It is evident in Figure 13 that the separation into three main clusters is complete. The first, in green, integrates “tourism”, “virtual reality”, and “tourist behaviour”, reflecting a strong relationship between immersive technology and behaviour in tourist destinations (Jiang et al., 2024). The second, in blue, highlights “virtual reality”, “satisfaction”, and “experience”, indicating that technology adoption depends on user experience and perception (Jafar et al., 2024). The third group, in pink, connects “social networks” and “consumption behaviour”, underlining the role of digital platforms in the promotion and adoption of technologies (Massari et al., 2024).
The network graph displays keywords as nodes connected by lines, forming thematic clusters. Node size and color vary. The largest green cluster is centered on “tourism”, “tourist destination”, “tourist behavior”, and “virtual reality”. These nodes are closely connected, along with “technology adoption”, “marketing”, “tourism market”, and “tourism management”. “Sustainability” and “cultural heritage” appear nearby with smaller connections. On the right, a blue cluster centers on “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “satisfaction”, which are among the largest nodes. These connect to “adoption”, “motivation”, “attitude”, “customer engagement”, “telepresence”, “intention”, and “response”. Above this, a red cluster centers on “experience”, connected to “behavior”, “reality”, “information”, and “involvement”. A smaller purple cluster includes “user acceptance”, linked to “perceived usefulness”, “information-technology”, and “research agenda”. At the bottom, a pink cluster includes “social media”, connected to “advertising” and “consumption behavior”, bridging toward the central tourism cluster. On the left, a small orange cluster includes “metaverses”, “immersive”, and “decision making”, forming a loosely connected group.Co-occurrence network. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The network graph displays keywords as nodes connected by lines, forming thematic clusters. Node size and color vary. The largest green cluster is centered on “tourism”, “tourist destination”, “tourist behavior”, and “virtual reality”. These nodes are closely connected, along with “technology adoption”, “marketing”, “tourism market”, and “tourism management”. “Sustainability” and “cultural heritage” appear nearby with smaller connections. On the right, a blue cluster centers on “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “satisfaction”, which are among the largest nodes. These connect to “adoption”, “motivation”, “attitude”, “customer engagement”, “telepresence”, “intention”, and “response”. Above this, a red cluster centers on “experience”, connected to “behavior”, “reality”, “information”, and “involvement”. A smaller purple cluster includes “user acceptance”, linked to “perceived usefulness”, “information-technology”, and “research agenda”. At the bottom, a pink cluster includes “social media”, connected to “advertising” and “consumption behavior”, bridging toward the central tourism cluster. On the left, a small orange cluster includes “metaverses”, “immersive”, and “decision making”, forming a loosely connected group.Co-occurrence network. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
In addition, “sustainability” and “metaverses” appear more isolated, suggesting emerging areas that are still in consolidation.
It is essential to identify the categories of themes using centrality and density, for this, it is necessary to clarify that the density of a theme indicates its progress, while centrality describes the degree of relationship between the different themes (Esfahani et al., 2019).
The thematic map in Figure 14 reveals that “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “adoption” are driving themes: highly developed and central to the field, as are “Tourism”, “tourist destination”, and “virtual reality”. On the other hand, basic themes such as “Reality”, “Behaviour”, “Involvement”, “Metaverse”, “Immersive”, and “Human Computer Interaction” are fundamental but still in consolidation. “Sustainability”, “cultural heritage”, and “heritage tourism” emerge as themes in decline or incipient growth, requiring more attention. Finally, “destination image” and “decision making” are niche, specialised, and mature themes with less cross-cutting impact. This analysis suggests that research is geared towards strengthening the adoption of virtual reality in tourism, while areas such as sustainability and metaverses offer future opportunities.
The horizontal axis is labeled “Relevance degree (Centrality)” and the vertical axis is labeled “Development degree (Density)” and increases from bottom to top. A vertical dashed line and a horizontal dashed line intersect at the center, dividing the chart into four quadrants. The quadrants are labeled as follows: top left “Niche Themes”, top right “Motor Themes”, bottom left “Emerging or Declining Themes”, and bottom right “Basic Themes”. Each theme is represented by a colored circle with text labels inside or adjacent to it. In the top left quadrant: A circle labeled “destination image”, “engagement”, and “guidelines” is positioned toward the upper right of the quadrant. A circle labeled “decision making”, “economic and social effects”, and “systematic review” is positioned toward the left-central area of the quadrant. In the bottom left quadrant: A circle labeled “attachment” and “others” is positioned toward the center of the quadrant. In the top right quadrant: A large circle labeled “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “adoption” is positioned toward the upper right of the quadrant. A medium-sized circle labeled “tourism”, “tourist destination”, and “virtual reality” is positioned slightly below and to the left of the largest circle, near the horizontal dashed line. In the bottom right quadrant: A circle labeled “reality”, “behavior”, and “involvement” is positioned slightly below the horizontal dashed line near the center of the quadrant. A circle labeled “metaverses”, “immersive”, and “human computer interaction” is positioned toward the right side of the quadrant. A circle labeled “sustainability”, “cultural heritage”, and “heritage tourism” is positioned near the vertical dashed line at the lower center. Near the center above the horizontal dashed line: A small circle labeled “virtual worlds”, “communication”, and “experiences” is positioned close to the intersection of the dashed lines. The circles vary in size, with the “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “adoption” circle being the largest.Thematic map. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
The horizontal axis is labeled “Relevance degree (Centrality)” and the vertical axis is labeled “Development degree (Density)” and increases from bottom to top. A vertical dashed line and a horizontal dashed line intersect at the center, dividing the chart into four quadrants. The quadrants are labeled as follows: top left “Niche Themes”, top right “Motor Themes”, bottom left “Emerging or Declining Themes”, and bottom right “Basic Themes”. Each theme is represented by a colored circle with text labels inside or adjacent to it. In the top left quadrant: A circle labeled “destination image”, “engagement”, and “guidelines” is positioned toward the upper right of the quadrant. A circle labeled “decision making”, “economic and social effects”, and “systematic review” is positioned toward the left-central area of the quadrant. In the bottom left quadrant: A circle labeled “attachment” and “others” is positioned toward the center of the quadrant. In the top right quadrant: A large circle labeled “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “adoption” is positioned toward the upper right of the quadrant. A medium-sized circle labeled “tourism”, “tourist destination”, and “virtual reality” is positioned slightly below and to the left of the largest circle, near the horizontal dashed line. In the bottom right quadrant: A circle labeled “reality”, “behavior”, and “involvement” is positioned slightly below the horizontal dashed line near the center of the quadrant. A circle labeled “metaverses”, “immersive”, and “human computer interaction” is positioned toward the right side of the quadrant. A circle labeled “sustainability”, “cultural heritage”, and “heritage tourism” is positioned near the vertical dashed line at the lower center. Near the center above the horizontal dashed line: A small circle labeled “virtual worlds”, “communication”, and “experiences” is positioned close to the intersection of the dashed lines. The circles vary in size, with the “virtual reality”, “impact”, and “adoption” circle being the largest.Thematic map. Source(s): Obtained by using biblioshiny
Embedding topic modelling
The Annotated Corpus Map provides a two-dimensional visualisation of the document using a scatter diagram. Documents are displayed as a set of points, each with the x-axis attribute value determining its position on the horizontal axis and the y-axis attribute value determining its position on the vertical axis. The widget groups the documents according to the annotation configuration and assigns keywords to each group. Keywords are extracted using the TF-IDF method (Chen, 2024).
A Gaussian mixture model was employed, which assumes data generated by multiple Gaussian distributions with unknown parameters. It generalises k-means clustering by incorporating the covariance structure and centres of the underlying distributions (Reynolds, 2009).
The corpus evidences a comprehensive transformation in tourism and culture driven by emerging technologies and generational demands (Table 12 and Figure 15). For example, C1 (sustainability) stands out as a transversal axis, indirectly connecting with C3 (virtual reality in destinations) and C4 (adoption of AI in hospitality). C2 reveals a shift in brand strategies towards consumer-centric augmented experiences. C5 underscores the urgency of rethinking museums for Generation Z. The configuration suggests that technological innovation is not isolated, but co-evolves with ethical values and new forms of engagement. These findings offer a critical roadmap for future interdisciplinary research.
Representativeness by cluster
| Cluster | Frequency | Marginal topic probability |
|---|---|---|
| C1 – Sustainable | 30 | 0.22727 |
| C2 – AR brand consumer | 22 | 0.16667 |
| C3 – VR destination tours | 33 | 0.25000 |
| C4 – Hospitality adoption | 18 | 0.13636 |
| C5 – Engagement generation museum | 15 | 0.11364 |
| Others | 14 | 0.10606 |
| Cluster | Frequency | Marginal topic probability |
|---|---|---|
| C1 – Sustainable | 30 | 0.22727 |
| C2 – AR brand consumer | 22 | 0.16667 |
| C3 – VR destination tours | 33 | 0.25000 |
| C4 – Hospitality adoption | 18 | 0.13636 |
| C5 – Engagement generation museum | 15 | 0.11364 |
| Others | 14 | 0.10606 |
The clustered map displays keywords grouped into five colored clusters. Each cluster is enclosed by a dashed boundary and contains multiple circular nodes representing terms. The legend on the bottom right identifies the clusters with colors: “C1” in blue, “C2” in red, “C3” in green, “C4” in orange, and “C5” in yellow. In the top right, the blue cluster “C1” contains the keyword “sustainable” at its center, surrounded by multiple blue nodes. In the bottom right, the orange cluster “C4” contains the keywords “hospitality”, “adoption”, “industry”, and “a i”, grouped within the orange dashed boundary. In the bottom left, the red cluster “C2” contains the keywords “a r”, “brand”, “augmented”, and “consumer”, grouped closely together within the red dashed boundary. In the top left, the green cluster “C3” contains the keywords “v r”, “virtual”, “destination”, and “tours”, surrounded by green nodes. In the center, the yellow cluster “C5” contains the keywords “engagement”, “z”, “gen”, and “museum”, positioned within a yellow dashed boundary. Several gray nodes appear between clusters, outside the boundaries. The clusters vary in size and density, with C1 and C3 appearing larger than the others.Corpus map. Source(s): Obtained by using VOSviewer
The clustered map displays keywords grouped into five colored clusters. Each cluster is enclosed by a dashed boundary and contains multiple circular nodes representing terms. The legend on the bottom right identifies the clusters with colors: “C1” in blue, “C2” in red, “C3” in green, “C4” in orange, and “C5” in yellow. In the top right, the blue cluster “C1” contains the keyword “sustainable” at its center, surrounded by multiple blue nodes. In the bottom right, the orange cluster “C4” contains the keywords “hospitality”, “adoption”, “industry”, and “a i”, grouped within the orange dashed boundary. In the bottom left, the red cluster “C2” contains the keywords “a r”, “brand”, “augmented”, and “consumer”, grouped closely together within the red dashed boundary. In the top left, the green cluster “C3” contains the keywords “v r”, “virtual”, “destination”, and “tours”, surrounded by green nodes. In the center, the yellow cluster “C5” contains the keywords “engagement”, “z”, “gen”, and “museum”, positioned within a yellow dashed boundary. Several gray nodes appear between clusters, outside the boundaries. The clusters vary in size and density, with C1 and C3 appearing larger than the others.Corpus map. Source(s): Obtained by using VOSviewer
Discussion of the results
At the discussion level, the main findings reveal a significant annual growth of 18.77% in the scientific output on tourism in the metaverse, underlining the field's growing relevance. Identifying leading authors and journals, such as Fei Hao of Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, provides a basis for understanding the current research landscape. However, it is crucial to highlight the main research areas and concepts identified for value creation.
The study explores the creation of value in the tourism metaverse, focussing on motivations like social interaction and key concerns such as security and privacy.
Thematic modelling analysis reveals five main themes that inform value creation and its impact on strategic business decision making. Topic 1, Metaverse and Tourism Transformation, highlights how the metaverse is transforming the industry, addressing technology adoption, user experience, sustainability, and changes in consumer behaviour.
Topic 2 focusses on ease of use, which is identified as a critical factor in tourism users' acceptance of metaverse technology. The metaverse is also presented as a new educational frontier and a revolutionary marketing tool for destinations and cultural heritage.
Topic 3 provides insights on how technologies are considered indispensable tools to enhance the tourist experience and generate new value forms, such as engaging consumers, marketing destinations, and selling services through virtual reality (VR). Personalization of trips, social interaction, and feedback collection in immersive environments are key to improving the tourism experience and creating value.
Topic 4 contributes to the idea that immersive technologies, such as AR and the Metaverse, are fundamental tools for sustainable tourism and heritage. They offer new ways of creating value by educating, promoting equality, and reducing environmental impact through virtual journeys.
Topic 5 provides insight into how virtual reality is a powerful marketing catalyst for travel agencies. By allowing tourists to experience destinations in advance, VR influences tourists' decisions and increases their motivation to travel. Personalisation, immersive experiences, and a positive brand image are benefits of adopting the metaverse in tourism.
Keyword co-occurrence and thematic mapping highlight VR and adoption as core themes, with success anchored on marketing, user acceptance, and sustainable tech integration in tourism.
Synthesis and way forward
Our review can be synthesised in Table 13 in the CCM map from constructs, contexts, and measures, which is practical for research-and-design staging. Each row connects a focal construct (the theoretical lever) and the tourism contexts in which it is most salient (archetypal use cases) and a tight set of measures of outcomes (KPIs) for summative and equivalent assessment. In this way, the CCM map articulates standardising what to test (construct), where to test it (context), and how to test it (impact KPI). In this way, Table 13 bridges theory and practice. It helps scholars construct testable propositions and choose their designs (e.g. field experiments or longitudinal panels) and helps managers set pilots with success thresholds and risk safeguards. It also supports the readiness × expected value portfolio by providing the measurement foundation for prioritising and scaling interventions.
Construct-context-Measure (CCM) map for metaverse in tourism
| Construct (C) | Definitions | Contexts (tourism use cases) | Measures (KPIs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immersive co-creation | Visitor coproduction in XR/metaverse touchpoints | Pre-trip inspiration; on-site guidance; museums/heritage | VISITOR EXPERIENCE |
| Presence (ITC-SOPI). Emotions (SAM) | |||
| Revisit (CSAT) | |||
| Personalisation | Data-driven tailoring of content/flow | Destination marketing; booking funnels | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Conversion | |||
| Dwell time | |||
| Smart operations | Staff training; digital twins; service recovery | Hotels, attractions, transport | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Task time | |||
| Error rate | |||
| Satisfaction (CSAT) | |||
| Accessibility/inclusion | Accessibility-by-design, language, device reach | Museums/heritage; public sites | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Accessibility CSAT | |||
| Reach (access needs) | |||
| Governance/ethics | Privacy-by-design, security, interoperability | All deployments | GOVERNANCE |
| DPIA completion; Incident rate | |||
| Opt-in/opt-out ratios |
| Construct (C) | Definitions | Contexts (tourism use cases) | Measures (KPIs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immersive co-creation | Visitor coproduction in XR/metaverse touchpoints | Pre-trip inspiration; on-site guidance; museums/heritage | VISITOR EXPERIENCE |
| Presence (ITC-SOPI). Emotions (SAM) | |||
| Revisit (CSAT) | |||
| Personalisation | Data-driven tailoring of content/flow | Destination marketing; booking funnels | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Conversion | |||
| Dwell time | |||
| Smart operations | Staff training; digital twins; service recovery | Hotels, attractions, transport | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Task time | |||
| Error rate | |||
| Satisfaction (CSAT) | |||
| Accessibility/inclusion | Accessibility-by-design, language, device reach | Museums/heritage; public sites | OPERATIONS/BUSINESS |
| Accessibility CSAT | |||
| Reach (access needs) | |||
| Governance/ethics | Privacy-by-design, security, interoperability | All deployments | GOVERNANCE |
| DPIA completion; Incident rate | |||
| Opt-in/opt-out ratios |
Note(s): Note of authors. See Appendix for measures (KPIs) definitions
This CCM table brings together the frameworks, relevant tourism contexts, and a streamlined collection of measurable results to facilitate a systematic and consistent assessment across different studies and contexts. It supports the alignment of interventions with standard KPIs (visitor experience, operations, business outcomes, and governance), which builds the premise for measurement with the foregoing variables to shift the prioritisation of an initiative to the readiness x expected value framework, design disciplined pilots with specific pre-set thresholds, and to scale under an evidence-based rationale. The framework also promotes clear and replicable reporting, cross-destination benchmarking, and the integration of accessibility, privacy, security, and interoperability as design constraints.
Key contributions and takeaways at a glance
Looking back to all the previous knowledge that we have seen in this manuscript, we can consolidate the preceding results into four concise takeaways.
A decision-centric analysis. Our research summarises the body of the literature into five value-creation topics, concerning to decision-relevant insights.
Construct-Context Measures (CCM) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) set. Our investigation offers the connection between what to study (constructs), where to apply it (tourism use cases) and how to evaluate it (KPI), allowing future researches a theoretical body to compare other evidences.
Managerial lens (readiness x expected value). We offer a playbook to the tourism managers as a playbook to diagnose, pilot, and scale these systems.
Research Agenda. We offer a concise four-step method (Theory, Context, Characteristics and Methods TCCM) linked to the previous KPI to advance in the decision-making process of tourism activities.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the present research underlines the significant and growing scientific attention to applying the metaverse in the tourism sector, evidenced by a robust annual growth in output. The literature review reveals that value creation emerges as a central research focus, exploring user motivations and barriers to technological adoption.
The results of the thematic modelling highlight five main areas that define the transformation of tourism by the metaverse: the transformation of tourism itself, technology adoption, immersive tourism, and value creation (the most prevalent theme), the use of immersive technologies for sustainable tourism and heritage, and the overall impact of the metaverse on tourism and hospitality. Particularly relevant is the potential of the metaverse to offer immersive and personalised experiences that transcend physical limitations, allowing users to interact with destinations and services in innovative ways. Virtual reality (VR) is a key technology that influences tourists' decision-making and enhances the experience at multiple stages of the travel cycle.
The co-occurrence analysis and thematic mapping confirm that VR and 'adoption' are central and highly developed research themes. However, sustainability and full integration of the metaverse still present significant opportunities for future research. Ultimately, the successful application of metaverse in tourism will depend on effective marketing strategies, prioritisation of user experience and acceptance, and sustainable integration of these disruptive technologies.
Limitations and future lines of research
This study has certain limitations due to its nature as a systematic review and bibliometric analysis, particularly because it relies on previous research available in databases (Web of Science and Scopus). Therefore, there may be relevant work in other sources that has not been considered. Future research could expand to other databases and explore adoption barriers in tourism, particularly regarding privacy and security. Longitudinal research could provide valuable information on the evolution of technology adoption and its long-term effects on tourism behaviour. It is essential to advance the integration of the metaverse with sustainable tourism practices, develop robust predictive models, and explore innovative business models. Finally, the analysis of ethical and social impacts represents a line of great relevance for future studies.
Implications
This article offers essential practical and theoretical implications for the tourism sector. From a practical perspective, it provides detailed guidance to companies on emerging trends in the metaverse, facilitating informed strategic decisions and enabling a better understanding of consumer behaviour in immersive environments by placing the user at the centre of the strategy. From a theoretical perspective, it identifies emerging themes for future research, strengthening the conceptual basis for value creation in tourism through immersive technologies.
Appendix
Measures (KPI) and definition
| Construct/Domain | KPI | Short definition | Scale | Key reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immersive co-creation | Presence | The subjective sense of “being there” in a mediated environment | ITC-SOPI | Lessiter et al. (2001), Schubert et al. (2001) |
| Emotions | Affective state along valence and arousal | SAM-PANAS | Bradley and Lang (1994), Watson et al. (1988) | |
| Revisit Intention | Likelihood of returning; satisfaction with experience | CSAT as % top-box or index | Fornell et al. (1996) | |
| Personalisation | Conversion | Share of sessions/users achieving a defined goal | Conversions ÷ sessions/users; define goal and attribution window | Farris et al. (2010), Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick (2019) |
| Dwell Time | Mean active time with content/app | Seconds/minutes per session; specify inactivity thresholds | Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick (2019), Farris et al. (2010) | |
| Smart operations | Task Time | Time to complete a specified task | Mean/median seconds per task; include dispersion and success rate | International Organization for Standardization (2018) |
| Error Rate | Frequency of user/system errors per task/session | Errors ÷ tasks (or per 100 tasks); classify by severity | International Organization for Standardization (2018) | |
| Satisfaction | Satisfaction with a specific service interaction | % satisfied/top-box or index; state scale and timing | Fornell et al. (1996) | |
| Accessibility/Inclusion | Accessibility CSAT | Satisfaction among access-needs users | Targeted CSAT; report by cohort and assistive tech used | Panda and Kaur (2023) |
| Reach (access-needs) | Proportion of users from access-needs cohorts served | % of cohort engaging/completing key tasks; document method/ethics | International Organization for Standardization (2018), Panda and Kaur (2023) | |
| Governance/ethics | DPIA completion | Data Protection Impact Assessment executed where required | Binary + date/outcomes; GDPR Art. 35 | Coskun (2015) |
| Opt-in/opt-out ratio | Consent vs. refusal for data processing | Opt-ins ÷ total choices; by purpose | European Union (2016) | |
| Incident rate | Security incidents per period | Incidents/month or quarter; by severity | Cichonski et al. (2005), International Organization for Standardization (2016) |
| Construct/Domain | KPI | Short definition | Scale | Key reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immersive co-creation | Presence | The subjective sense of “being there” in a mediated environment | ITC-SOPI | |
| Emotions | Affective state along valence and arousal | SAM-PANAS | ||
| Revisit Intention | Likelihood of returning; satisfaction with experience | CSAT as % top-box or index | ||
| Personalisation | Conversion | Share of sessions/users achieving a defined goal | Conversions ÷ sessions/users; define goal and attribution window | |
| Dwell Time | Mean active time with content/app | Seconds/minutes per session; specify inactivity thresholds | ||
| Smart operations | Task Time | Time to complete a specified task | Mean/median seconds per task; include dispersion and success rate | |
| Error Rate | Frequency of user/system errors per task/session | Errors ÷ tasks (or per 100 tasks); classify by severity | ||
| Satisfaction | Satisfaction with a specific service interaction | % satisfied/top-box or index; state scale and timing | ||
| Accessibility/Inclusion | Accessibility CSAT | Satisfaction among access-needs users | Targeted CSAT; report by cohort and assistive tech used | |
| Reach (access-needs) | Proportion of users from access-needs cohorts served | % of cohort engaging/completing key tasks; document method/ethics | ||
| Governance/ethics | DPIA completion | Data Protection Impact Assessment executed where required | Binary + date/outcomes; GDPR Art. 35 | |
| Opt-in/opt-out ratio | Consent vs. refusal for data processing | Opt-ins ÷ total choices; by purpose | ||
| Incident rate | Security incidents per period | Incidents/month or quarter; by severity |

