虛擬複製旅遊體驗感受之探討

Abstract

虛擬複製旅遊體驗在科技的進步與當今旅遊多元的需求下，受到愈來愈多人的關注。然而，關於虛擬複製旅遊體驗的能否替代實際現地的造訪有著分歧的解釋。儘管多數學者皆認為物理真實的旅遊難以被取代，但仍有部分研究觀察到在一些情況下，人們更願意使用虛擬實境(virtual reality, VR)等科技進行旅遊體驗。此外，談到旅遊則不免要提及旅遊領域中一個相當重要的概念——道地性，因為它關係到遊客對旅遊對象或是旅遊體驗的滿意度、行為意圖、以及是否感到合理；不過，虛擬複製旅遊體驗的道地性是目前文獻較為缺少的一塊。 回顧目前相關研究，支持虛擬複製旅遊體驗具有替代性的研究指出，當發生阻礙或是具有特定動機時，遊客會較傾向進行或是滿足於虛擬複製旅遊體驗。2020年的新冠疫情為世界帶來巨大的衝擊，相關研究也指出風險感知等因素造成人們選擇虛擬複製旅遊體驗的意願提升，似乎再次印證這種旅遊形式在特定情況下具有現地造訪的替代性。不過，過去這些研究缺乏疫情前後的比較，因此有待進一步確認。道地性相關的文獻指出，道地性是一個受到地點限制的概念，部分學者也以實體複製品進行實驗，並且證實複製旅遊體驗的位置會影響感知者的道地性。本研究認為相較於實體，虛擬複製旅遊體驗更容易在不同位置進行，然而尚不確定其是否也會因體驗位置不同而產生道地性的差異。 因此，本論文將透過兩個研究來瞭解虛擬複製旅遊體驗的替代性及道地性此兩種感受。研究一使用沉浸式虛擬實境(immersive virtual reality, IVR)探討虛擬複製旅遊的現地造訪替代性，並且以疫情之狀況為例，來理解受測者的IVR使用意願與對現地造訪意願之影響。研究二則是討論位置是否會改變虛擬複製旅遊體驗的道地性感知；首先研究二的第一個實驗為探討虛擬複製空間的旅遊體驗，在分析完畢後，為更加確認此實驗與過去研究的結果，遂再以虛擬複製物件的觀賞體驗來進行第二個實驗，並新增參照組作為對照。 研究一之結果與過去的結論相同：在疫情的狀況下，相較於實地造訪，受測者有較高的意願進行虛擬複製旅遊體驗。值得注意的是，疫情前人們在進行完IVR體驗後會更想造訪現地，但是於疫情期間的IVR體驗並不會影響現地造訪意願。綜合這些結果，顯示虛擬複製旅遊體驗在某些情況下確實具有一定的真實旅遊替代性。研究二的結果發現，人們所處的位置並不會影響虛擬複製旅遊體驗的道地性感受；實體複製旅遊體驗則表現出位於現地體驗的道地性較高的現象，顯示位置對於虛擬與實體的複製旅遊體驗有不同的效果。此結果說明IVR可能具有跨越空間的能力，讓使用者不論身在何處都擁有相同程度的身臨其境感受。本研究結果為虛擬複製旅遊體驗的感受增加了新的認識，證實它的現地旅遊替代性和在不同位置時的道地性。

With the advancement of technology and the diverse needs of tourism nowadays, virtual replica touristic experiences have attracted more and more people's attention. However, there are divergent interpretations as to whether they can substitute for actual on-site visits. Although most scholars believe that physical and real tourism cannot be replaced, some studies have observed that in some cases, people are more willing to use technologies such as virtual reality (VR) for touristic experiences. In addition, when it comes to tourism, it is inevitable to mention a very important concept in the field of tourism - authenticity, because it is related to tourists' satisfaction with tourism objects or experiences, behavioral intentions, and whether they feel reasonable. However, the authenticity of virtual replica touristic experiences is the relatively lacking piece in the current literature. Reviewing the related research, studies supporting the substitution of virtual replica touristic experiences point out that when obstacles or specific motivations occur, tourists will be more inclined to carry out or be satisfied with a virtual replica tourism experience. The COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 has had a huge impact on the world, and studies have also shown that factors such as risk perception have increased people's willingness to choose virtual replica touristic experiences, which seems to confirm once again that this form of tourism can replace on-site visits under certain circumstances. However, these past studies lacked comparisons before and after the epidemic. Therefore, further confirmation is needed. As for the literature related to authenticity, it is pointed out that authenticity is a concept limited by location. Some scholars have also conducted experiments with physical replica, and confirmed that the location of the replica touristic experience will affect the perceivers’ authenticity. This study argues that compared to physical ones, virtual replica touristic experiences are easier to carry out in different locations, but it is not yet certain whether it will also produce authentic differences due to different experience locations. This thesis will use two studies to understand the replacement and authenticity of virtual replica touristic experiences. Study 1 uses immersive virtual reality (IVR) to explore the alternatives to on-site visits, and takes the situation of the epidemic as an example to understand the impact of the subjects' willingness to use IVR and on-site visit intentions. Study 2 is to discuss whether the location will change the authenticity perception of the virtual replica touristic experiences. The first experiment of Study 2 is to explore the travel experience of the virtual replica space. After the analysis, in order to confirm this experiment and previous studies, the second experiment was carried out with the viewing experience of virtual replica objects, and a control group was added as a control. The results of Study 1 are the same as the previous conclusions: under the epidemic situation, compared with on-site visits, the participants have a higher willingness to carry out virtual replica tourist experiences. It is worth noting that before the epidemic, people would be more willing to visit the place after the IVR experiences. But the IVR experiences during the epidemic did not affect the willingness to visit the place. Combining these results, it shows that the virtual replica touristic experiences do have a certain degree of real tourism replacement in some cases. The results of Study 2 found that the location of people does not affect the authenticity of the virtual replica touristic experiences; the physical ones show a phenomenon of higher authenticity in the on-site experience, suggesting that the location has a different impact on the virtual and physical experiences. This result claims that IVR may have the ability to span spaces, allowing users to have the same degree of immersive experience no matter where they are. The findings of this study add new insights into the perception of virtually replicating a tourist experience, confirming its substitutability for on-site tourism and its authenticity in different locations.