The role of smart technologies in shaping tourist experience

The widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT) have entailed an authentic digital revolution in our society in general and in the travel and tourism industry in particular (Pencarelli, 2020; Cheng et al., 2023). From a social point of view, ICT have decisively contributed to the development of new lifestyles, communication patterns, and purchasing and consumption behaviours of people around the world (Egger et al., 2020). If a more tourist-focused perspective is adopted in this field of knowledge, it is necessary to emphasise that the great incidence of ICT in tourist behaviour is mainly due to tourism is an information-intensive phenomenon given its intangible nature and the simultaneity between production and consumption (Ye et al., 2014; No and Kim, 2015; Bretos et al., 2024). Thus, the destination apps, the recommendation websites and the social networks have currently become very useful tools for people when it comes to accessing, in real time, content on tourism accommodation, restaurants, tourist attractions or leisure activities in a destination (Xiang and Gretzel, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2014).

In addition, ICT significantly influence the strategies of public institutions and private companies operating in very diverse industries, with a new term breaking into force today, i.e. “Smart”. This concept refers to the application of technologies for the improvement of systems and processes in different fields, among which smart cities, smart tourism and smart hospitality stand out (Buhalis and Amaranggana, 2014; Law et al., 2022; Novera et al., 2022; Hsu, 2023; Pai et al., 2025). Specifically in the hospitality and tourism industry, smart reality consists of a set of integrated technologies, physical infrastructures and real-time data that are combined to form a unique and complex ecosystem (Pai et al., 2020). The artificial intelligence, internet, mobile communication and augmented/virtual reality are some of the most significant smart tourism technologies (STT) contributing to increase, nowadays, the competitiveness of both the tourist destinations in general and the hospitality and tourism businesses in particular (Huang et al., 2017; Jeong and Shin, 2020; Um and Chung, 2021; Shafiee et al., 2022; Yap et al., 2025).

Within academic research addressing the technology adoption process in a tourism context, three main conceptual approaches can be differentiated according to the study of Dorcic et al. (2019) on the state of the art of mobile technologies and smart tourism. First, the supply perspective, which focuses on the most important benefits of technologies for the hospitality and tourism businesses. Second, the technological approach, which encompasses the technical development of applications to improve user experience. Finally, the people-centred approach, which aims to examine the use of technologies by tourists. This perspective, which place tourists at the centre of the tourism intelligence of firms and destinations (Femenia and Ivars-BAIDAL, 2021), is the most popular approach in the literature (Mehraliyev et al., 2020). Particularly, most of the previous studies in this field have focused on delimitating the distinctive characteristics of the STT and analysing which of them have more influence on the search for information by tourists during the pre-trip stage. However, there is a strong need to enrich the literature by exploring the role of STT in shaping tourist experience (during the stay at the destination). Thus, for example, Pai et al. (2021) indicate that new knowledge should be generated addressing the mechanisms that link STT with both the tourist experience and behavioural intention.

With this in mind, our study is focused on examining how STT contribute to the tourist experience formation. In this sense, it is necessary to emphasise that tourists are increasingly participating in their experiences at tourist destinations, mainly due to the new possibilities offered by smart technologies (Borges and Avelar, 2025). Thus, co-creation is considered as an important driver of tourist experience, although more research effort is needed to understand the main antecedents and consequences of this variable (Buonincontri et al., 2017; Díaz et al., 2023). The present study aims to fill this research gap adopting an approach where not only the interaction between the tourist and the tourism providers but also the interaction between the tourist and other visitors are considered as relevant elements of experience co-creation (Sugathan and Ranjan, 2019). Under this approach, our paper aims to examine how the informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy of a smart technology, as perceived by individuals during their stay at the tourist destination, contribute to the experience co-creation. Likewise, it examines the potential interrelationships between the experience co-creation and other relevant variables (consequences) recognised in the academic literature on tourism behaviour: tourist satisfaction, experience memorability and tourist loyalty.

Finally, it should be noted that Google – i.e. Google Search and Google Maps – is the smart technology under investigation in our empirical research. It is mainly motivated by the following reasons. Firstly, according to Statista (2025), Google is the online search engine with the highest penetration in the world (79.1% of the market), being used to search for information not only for the destination choice and the travel planning but also to enhance the experience during the stay at the tourist destination. Secondly, Google has received an increasing attention in tourism literature regarding its role in forecasting the tourism demands (Claude, 2020), knowing the interests of people for tourist attractions and activities (Dinis et al., 2019) and analysing the perceived image of destinations (Leiras and Eusébio, 2023). However, academic research on the use of Google by tourists during their stay at the destination is extremely scarce, despite its relevance to understand how people use the smart technologies to enrich their experience at the tourist destination.

This section describes the theoretical framework of the present study, which is divided into two subsections. On the one hand, the concept of smart tourism and the distinctive characteristics of those technologies that shape this type of tourism. On the other hand, the tourists’ perceptions of the use of a smart technology during their experience at the destination and several variables closely related to that experience: co-creation, memorability, satisfaction and tourist loyalty.

When addressing the concept of smart tourism in this study, special attention is paid to the main contributions that had been recently made in the academic literature. On the one hand, there are several works defining smart tourism from a technological point of view; for example, Li (2017) and Ballina et al. (2019) consider smart tourism as integrated technological platforms that provide information to different stakeholders involved in a tourist destination. On the other hand, an ecosystem approach emerges in the literature conceiving smart tourism as a complex ecosystem that, supported by diverse technologies, provides value in real time to the destination stakeholders and visitors (Pai et al., 2020; Um and Chung, 2021). Combining both theoretical approaches, our study establishes that smart tourism consists of cutting-edge technologies that allow the collection, analysis and exploitation of data from multiple sources, providing value in real time and through multiple devices both to tourists and to destination stakeholders.

It should be noted that there are five main features defining the smart technologies (Huang et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Jeong and Shin, 2020; Nengovhela et al., 2020; Pai et al., 2020, 2021; Shin et al., 2021; Um and Chung, 2021; Czyz and Javed, 2025): informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy. Firstly, informativeness refers to the quality and accuracy of the information provided to people through the smart technologies. Secondly, accessibility consists of the availability of the smart technologies for individuals and ease of use of the information they provide. Thirdly, interactivity comprises the immediacy and bidirectionality of communication (and feedback) with people through the smart technologies. Fourthly, personalisation denotes the capacity of the smart technologies to provide information tailored to the needs of individuals. Finally, security/privacy refers to the capacity of the smart technologies to generate trust in people through the personal data protection.

People demand an increasingly participatory and interactive role during their visit to a tourist destination, so co-creation stands as a central question of the paradigm shift in tourism regarding the way in which experiences are developed (Sugathan and Ranjan, 2019; Sthapit et al., 2024). Co-creation, which can be defined as the participation of the tourists in the organisation of their own experience during the stay at the destination (Buonincontri and Micera, 2016; Mathis et al., 2016; Buonincontri et al., 2017; Subandi and Doughty, 2023), is not only based on the basic interactions between tourists and tourism providers, but also on more complex interactions that are mainly driven by technology (Borges and Avelar, 2025). On the one hand, technologies have a positive impact on the experience co-creation (Neuhofer et al., 2014; Buhalis and Sinarta, 2019) as they reinforce the collaboration between tourists and tourism providers (Buonincontri et al., 2017) and, consequently, facilitate the development of more interactive and personalised experiences (Bethune et al., 2022). On the other hand, technologies encourage that co-creation occurs not only as a consequence of the interaction between the tourist and the firms but also as the result of the interaction between the tourist and other visitors (Baron and Harris, 2010; Huang and Hsu, 2010; Tan et al., 2013; Campos et al., 2018; Rihova et al., 2018; Sugathan and Ranjan, 2019; Mascarenhas et al., 2024). With this regards, mobile technologies such as Google facilitate the interactions of the tourist with the tourism providers located at the destination, by providing information about their facilities, activities or prices, as well as the interactions with other visitors as the tourist has real-time access to online reviews about the destination.

With this in mind, this study tries to provide relevant knowledge on the experience co-creation formation and posits that the informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy of a smart technology, as perceived by tourists during their stay at the destination, contribute to the experience co-creation. Firstly, in a context of high levels of informativeness of a smart technology, individuals will be more motivated to enhance their destination experience with the quality information provided by that technology during the stay (Jeong and Shin, 2020). Secondly, when a smart technology is highly accessible, individuals will enjoy using that technology to acquire new information during the trip (Zhang et al., 2022), thus contributing to the development of their destination experience. Thirdly, if individuals consider that a smart technology is highly interactive, they will interact more enthusiastically during the stay with the stakeholders and found the information to be more relevant to configure their destination experience (Jeong and Shin, 2020). Fourthly, regarding the personalisation, a smart technology will contribute more to the creation of the experience if the information that it provides is more adapted to the specific needs of tourists (Shin et al., 2021). Finally, tourists will use more a smart technology to enhance their experience if they perceive that their personal information is not at risk (Pai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). According to these theoretical arguments, the following research hypotheses are formulated:

Tourist destinations, which can be considered a set of multisensorial experiences that are able to evoke an amalgam of emotions and feelings among visitors (Prebensen and Xie, 2017; Fu et al., 2018; Su et al., 2021), currently base their competitive advantages on the adoption of a people-centred approach where the generation of value for visitors and the contribution to their satisfaction prevail (Frías et al., 2019). According to previous research on consumer behaviour in tourism, it can be established that the greater participation of visitors in a tourist destination, thanks among other reasons to the use of STT during their stay (Dhanya et al., 2024), contributes to a better compliance with their expectations and needs (Dorcic et al., 2019; Sơn and Phuc, 2025). In addition, this greater participation or co-creation leads visitors to enjoy their encounters with the tourist attractions and their interactions with local people with greater emotion and feeling (Lalicic and Weismayer, 2016). Both benefits of the experience co-creation represent the essence of tourist satisfaction (Rodríguez and San Martín, 2008). With this in mind, and as showed by several previous studies (Prebensen et al., 2016; Buonincontri et al., 2017; Lončarić et al., 2018; Sơn and Phuc, 2025), the next hypothesis is established linking experience co-creation and tourist satisfaction:

For its part, the concept of experience memorability is currently gaining great relevance in tourism research (Sthapit et al., 2024). From the destination point of view, managers aim to inspire and persuade potential tourists by promising memorable experiences through websites, social networks and other communication channels (Köchling and Lohmann, 2022). Adopting a tourist-centred approach, an experience is memorable if it is very positive for the visitor and remembered over time ( Kim et al., 2012; Yin et al., 2017), thus involving the individuals’ long-term memory (Hu and Xu, 2021). According to the study conducted by Kim and Ritchie (2014), memorable experiences are based on high levels of hedonism, authenticity, disconnection, recognition and personal growth thanks to the multiple interactions of the visitors with the tourist attractions, the tourism services and the local people at the destination. With this in mind, the present study postulates that both co-creation and satisfaction, which are derived from their specific experiences with the tourist destination (Zatori et al., 2018), can be relevant factors determining the memorability of their experiences – some previous studies such as Sthapit et al. (2020), Ye et al. (2021) or Lee et al. (2024) have recently adopted this approach. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Finally, the relationships among attitudes, intentions and behaviours have been widely recognised in the literature (Al-Ansi and Han, 2019). In this sense, special attention has been paid to the concept of tourist loyalty, which refers to the commitment that the individuals manifest with the destinations over time (San Martín et al., 2013). According to Petrick (2004), tourists who exhibit a high commitment to the destination after their experience are characterised by having a high predisposition not only to visit the place again in the future but also to recommend it to relative and friends. Thus, in the literature, the relevance of physical word-of-mouth communication as a dimension of tourist loyalty has been widely recognised, currently also considering digital or electronic word-of-mouth derived from the participation of tourists in social networks by sharing photos, videos and opinions about their experience at the destination (Chen et al., 2020).

With this behavioural approach to tourist loyalty, and considering that destination experience is a relevant factor contributing to behavioural intentions (Anjum and Ali, 2025), this study postulates two research hypotheses about the main determinants of the loyalty towards a tourist destination. On the one hand, the relationship between tourist satisfaction and loyalty, which has been confirmed over several decades by many hospitality and tourism studies, such as those conducted by Prayag and Ryan (2012), Kim and Thapa (2018), Al-Ansi and Han (2019), Quynh et al. (2021), Torabi et al. (2023) or Králiková et al. (2025), among others. On the other hand, the link between experience memorability and tourist loyalty, which has been confirmed by recent research in consumer behaviour in hospitality and tourism – e.g. (Tom Dieck et al., 2018); Wu and Cheng (2018), Alves et al. (2019), Sharma and Nayak (2019), Sthapit et al. (2020), Horng and Hsu (2021), Cao et al. (2024) or Tulung et al. (2025). Thus, the last two research hypotheses are proposed in the present study:

The hypotheses of this study are indicated in the theoretical model shown in Figure 1.

To test the hypotheses, a quantitative study was conducted based on online surveys targeted to Spanish people taking part of a panel managed by Netquest, a company specialising in online marketing research. Considering that the population under study consisted of Spanish travellers aged over 18 years, the next steps were followed to select the sample of 1,000 respondents who participated in the study. Firstly, a non-probabilistic quota sampling method was used defining the profile of the survey sample according to the characteristics of “gender”, “age” and “region of origin” of Spanish travellers, which was obtained from the data provided by the Spanish Institute of Statistics (the online questionnaire was sent to the panellists who matched the required profile). Second, an initial screening question (“if they had travelled at least once, for leisure reasons, in the previous year”) was made in the questionnaire. Only those individuals who answered affirmatively advanced to the next question, which was if “they had used, during their stay at the last destination visited (in the immediately previous year), the mobile applications of Google Search and Google Maps to search for information about tourist attractions or hospitality services, among others”. Again, only those who answered in a positive way (more than 90.0% of the respondents initially contacted) went forward to the following sections of the online questionnaire.

Particularly, the survey questionnaire was structured into four main blocks to collect the characteristics and assessments of the sample of respondents. The first block was related to the main sociodemographic features of respondents, such as gender, age and education level. The second one included some questions about the tourist behaviour in the last year – for example, preferences, motivations and destination activities. The third block gathered the evaluations regarding the use of Google by the respondent during his/her stay at the last tourist destination visited, i.e. informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy. The last section of the online questionnaire comprised several multi-item scales measuring the tourists’ assessments of the experience and their attitudes towards the destination. All the variables included in the theoretical model were measured using seven-point Likert scales, which were adapted from previous studies (see  Appendix).

Survey-based studies may be biased by simultaneously measuring different variables in a questionnaire. In particular, the common method variance could come into play in this type of studies, since it refers to the systematic variation between variables due to the common method used in their measurement (McGonagle, 2017). As a result, causal relationships between variables may be enhanced or diminished in an artificial way (Malhotra et al., 2017). Following the guidelines proposed by Chang et al. (2010), the present study aimed at minimising the potential bias caused by the common method in two ways. On the one hand, the ambiguous, vague, and unknown terms in the wording of the items in the questionnaire were avoided. On the other hand, the measurement scales of the predictor and dependent variables were clearly separated.

The data was collected in accordance with the ISO 26362:2009 standard, which aims to ensure the quality of the responses from panellists. In this sense, the IP addresses of respondents were verified to ensure that the questionnaire was only sent once, and several control questions were included in the questionnaire to check the reliability of responses. Finally, 1,000 valid surveys were obtained with a very high correspondence between the sample and the population under study in terms of demographic profile (Table 1). In addition, 81.5% of the sample evaluated their experiences in Spanish destinations, whereas 19.5% did so considering overseas destinations.

Firstly, the possible bias motivated by the common method of measuring the variables in the survey questionnaire was assessed. To that end, the so-called Harman’s single-factor test was applied through the SPSS IBM Statistics software (see a detailed explanation of this test in the work published by Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results indicate that the main factor explained 24.5% of the variance collected in all the variables, which is lower than the maximum recommended limit of 50%. Thus, it can be confirmed that the common method variance is acceptable for data analysis.

Secondly, the EQS software was used to perform a confirmatory factor analysis with which to assess both the reliability and the validity of the variables included in the theoretical model (Table 2). After the elimination of the last item used in the measurement of loyalty (its standardised coefficient was very low), the values related to the goodness-of-fit indices highlighted that the factorial structure adjust correctly to empirical data. In addition, it was observed that the reliability of the constructs is high, as all the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients are very close to or above 0.9 and the average variance extracted coefficients are greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Likewise, the convergent validity is verified, as the standardised lambda coefficients of all the items are significant and greater than 0.5 (Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). For its part, Table 3 illustrates the results obtained regarding the discriminant validity of the constructs, following the procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981). It can be observed that the average variance extracted coefficient of each construct was greater than the squared correlations between that construct and the rest. Consequently, it was possible to confirm the discriminant validity of the variables.

Finally, Table 4 indicates the results of the estimation of the structural model, i.e. the goodness-of-fit indices, the standardised coefficients for the different relationships, and the R² values for each of the dependent variables. The results of the first estimation confirmed the causal relationships established in the model, except for the effect of personalisation on experience co-creation (H4 was rejected). After the reformulation of the model, in which this non-significant relationship was excluded, the results of the Lagrange multiplier test did not suggest the inclusion of any other relationship.

As indicated in Table 4, the tourists’ perceptions regarding the informativeness, accessibility, interactivity and security or privacy in the use of the smart technology at the destination have significant and positive influences on experience co-creation (H1, H2, H3 and H5 are confirmed). In turn, co-creation has significant and positive effects on tourist satisfaction and experience memorability (H6 and H7 are confirmed). In addition, memorability is positively influenced by tourist satisfaction (H8 is confirmed). It should be noted that the total effect of co-creation on memorability (0.42) is the result of adding the direct effect (0.16) and the indirect effect through satisfaction (0.41 x 0.64). For its part, loyalty is positively influenced by tourist satisfaction and experience memorability (H9 and H10 are confirmed). Although the direct effect of satisfaction on loyalty is lower than the influence of memorability, the total effect of satisfaction on loyalty (0.61) is higher when adding the direct effect (0.35) and the indirect one (0.64 × 0.40). Finally, regarding the R² coefficients obtained for each dependent variable, it should be noted that very high values are obtained for three variables, namely: the experience co-creation, with a R² value above 0.7; and the memorability and loyalty, with R² values very closed to or greater than 0.5. However, a low R² coefficient (lower than 0.2) is obtained for satisfaction, which represents a limited explanation of this variable of the model.

In tourism research, there are numerous studies that have focused on the role of STT in the pre-trip stage. However, there is an important need to expand the body of literature on the role that STT play in shaping the tourist experience (during the stay at the destination). Under these circumstances, the present study provides knowledge about how the informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy of STT contribute to the co-creation, which is currently recognised as an important driver of tourist experience. Likewise, the potential interrelationships between the experience co-creation and other relevant variables in tourism , i.e. tourist satisfaction, experience memorability and tourist loyalty, are examined to better understand the main consequences of co-creation. The smart technology considered in our empirical research is Google, a technology that encourage the interactions between the tourist and other destination stakeholders – e.g. tourism providers and other visitors – and which has received very little attention in the academic literature despite being widely used by individuals not only to search for information in the travel planning stage but also to enhance their experience during the stay at the tourist destination.

Taking as a reference the characteristics of smart technologies proposed by Shin et al. (2021) and other studies in this field, the evidence obtained in our empirical research shows that accessibility, interactivity, security and, especially, informativeness perceived in the use of the smart technology positively affect the experience co-creation. These findings are consistent with the characteristics of the technology considered in the present study. The Google apps can be used on smartphones at any time and place (accessibility), providing a wide variety of information on tourism attractions and services (informativeness), and with high levels of security and interactivity. On the other hand, the non-significant effect of personalisation on the experience co-creation may be because the smart technology under investigation is highly standardised, though its intrinsic utility is performing tailored searches for information.

Regarding the consequences of experience co-creation, our empirical evidences shows that co-creation has a positive effect on the memorability of the experience and, in a greater extent, the tourist satisfaction. In this sense, it could be confirmed that the role of experience co-creation is more prominent in the short term (affecting the satisfaction with the specific experience) than in the long term (influencing the memorable character of the experience). For its part, satisfaction influences memorability and, together with this last variable, loyalty towards the tourist destination. Thus, tourist satisfaction, both directly and indirectly, positively affects the loyalty and emerges as the main driver of loyalty. These results confirm the findings of previous studies about the influence of satisfaction on loyalty but also provide new knowledge about the role of experience memorability in the “beliefs-attitudes-intentions” chain in tourism.

Our findings can be very useful for the destination marketing organisations (DMOs) and the hospitality and tourism businesses, especially with regard to the adoption of smart technologies. Increasingly, tourists self-organise their experiences in real time at the destination and their overall assessments depend largely on their technological skills and the optimisation of the technology for searching for and contracting in situ the tourist attractions and tourism services. This co-creation is usually performed using smart technologies such as the Google apps. Therefore, it is essential that the DMOs and the hospitality and tourism businesses offer useful, detailed and updated information in their Google profiles (and in another specific applications that they can use). The web address, geolocation on Google Maps, opening hours, prices and the pictures and reviews from other visitors can be essential pieces of information for people to choose certain tourist attractions or hospitality services and, thus, optimise their experience in real time.

The present study also evidences the relevance of the experience memorability in loyalty formation in tourism. Managers should focus on understanding the role that technology plays in the different stages of tourist experience, as a starting point to valorise the destination and leave a mark on visitors after their experience at the tourist site. In this sense, it should be emphasised that smart technologies such as the Google apps influence tourist experience at two levels. Firstly, technological platforms make it easier to locate, use and evaluate in real time different attractions and services at the tourist site, which positively affects the co-creation of the experience. Secondly, the sum of all the experiences at the tourist destination, influenced by the co-creation in a positive manner, contribute to a more favourable overall experience and, consequently, to a more memorable experience, and to higher levels of satisfaction and loyalty.

It is indispensable to have an integral and holistic vision of the tourist experience, reducing the potential gap between the destination marketing and management strategies and those of the hospitality and tourism businesses that operate at the destination. This proposal includes the development of diverse actions (for example, training or financial support) for the successful adoption of technologies among the destination stakeholders. In other words, tourist destinations have to promote a proper implementation and management of technological platforms such as Google or other mobile applications, not only in the channels and resources managed by destinations as administrative entities but also in all the public and private organisations shaping the intelligent tourism ecosystems nowadays.

Our paper focuses on Google as it is the main web search engine worldwide and is becoming increasingly important for tourists as a mobile application to search for (and share) information before, during and after their experience at the destination. However, it would be necessary to examine how our theoretical model would work if specific tourism platforms were considered for the analysis (for example, an online travel website such as Booking, a travel review website such as TripAdvisor, a social travelling platform such as Minube, or a destination app). Particularly, it could be examined how the experience co-creation is influenced by each of the five characteristics of the technology, i.e. informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, personalisation and security/privacy, comparing a tourism platform with the Google apps. A research question would be, for example, whether the informativeness has a more positive influence on experience co-creation in the case of a tourism platform, which usually provide visitors with more detailed information about the destination. Another question would be whether the (generally higher) accessibility of a tourism non-specific technology has a more positive effect on experience co-creation.

In addition, it is worth considering other variables that could help to further explain the relationship between smart technologies and co-creation in the travel and tourism industry. In this sense, it could be interesting the use of different types of co-creation depending on the context under investigation. While as the concept of experience co-creation is very useful to analyse the influence of STT on shaping tourist experience, the concept of value co-creation would be more appropriate to examine the influence of STT on tourist behaviour before and after the visit. More concretely, the effects of STT on both the exchange of information between the tourist and the destination agents before the visit and the sharing of content (generated by the own tourist) with other people after the visit should be explored. Finally, some variables related to the behaviour – for example, destination attachment or involvement – and the sociodemographic profile – for example, age or education level – of visitors would be very useful to examine the potential effects moderating the causal relationships among the variables considered in this study.