virtual tourist gaze

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Historical Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Literature
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• History by Period
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Intellectual History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Language Teaching and Learning
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Browse content in Law
• Company and Commercial Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Criminal Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Legal System and Practice
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Browse content in Economics
• Economic History
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Browse content in Politics
• Asian Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• European Union
• Human Rights and Politics
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Sociology of Religion
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 Virtual Travels and the Tourist Gaze

• Published: June 2011
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Chapter 2 expands on the idea of the Chicago Exposition as ‘the cheapest and most exhaustive journey over the earth that was ever made’, reflecting on cinema's capacity to serve as a vehicle for mobility, travel, and tourism. Associations between cinema and travel were widespread: actualities and travelogues revealed far away sights to Americans at home, while the sensation of travel was incorporated into film technology itself. This chapter examines how modes of entertainment ranging from illustrated lectures to phantom rides were foundational to later documentary approaches. These forms of virtual travel, ‘possessing the world’ in images, also fed into national and imperial consciousness. Establishing a spectatorial relationship to sights and scenes ‘over there’, these films helped to define a sense of ‘us’ and ‘here’. The chapter includes a close reading of Nanook of the North .

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

Heritage site-seeing through the visitor’s lens on Instagram

• Citation (BibTeX)

• Supplementary Information for Heritage site-seeing through the visitor’s lens on Instagram Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

View more stats

English Heritage is a charity that manages over 400 historic sites in the UK, from prehistoric sites to medieval castles, most of them free, non-ticketed, and unstaffed. As such, there is little information about visitor attendance and behaviour in those sites—a challenge common to other non-ticketed heritage sites. In this context, image-based social media such as Instagram appear as a possible solution, as photographs are often central to the tourist experience, and tourists present their imagined audiences with a self-narrative of their trip. Therefore, this study aims to improve our understanding of tourist behaviour in unstaffed heritage sites by analysing publicly available Instagram data. We collect posts on unstaffed English Heritage sites, finding that posting activity concentrates at a few sites. Focusing on 3,979 images each for the top five sites, we analyse image content using pre-trained object detection models. Besides off-the-shelf inference, we fine-tune a model to identify structures from particular heritage sites, and are able to describe the types of photographs taken by visitors in each site, supporting the notion of tourists as performers with the site serving as backdrop. Overall, this study demonstrates a methodology for understanding cultural behaviour at heritage sites using images from social media posts. In addition to recovering the otherwise lost connection between a heritage organisation and its visitors, our methodology can be readily extended to other tourist destinations to understand how visitors interact with and relate to these sites and the objects within them through their photographs.

1. Introduction

English Heritage is a charity managing over 400 historic buildings, monuments, and places. These include prehistoric sites, medieval castles, Roman forts, stately houses, and the ruins of numerous abbeys, priories, and villages. Access to 255 of these sites is free, representing over half of the charity’s portfolio. Since these free sites are unstaffed and non-ticketed, they pose a challenge in understanding visitor behaviour. More recently, however, tourists have often registered their experience by posting reviews, photographs, and comments on social media. Such data offer an unprecedented, though particular, view of the visitor experience at these sites. Given that photography is intrinsically linked to the being, doing, and performing of tourism (Robinson and Picard 1) , image-based social media data such as Instagram can serve as rich datasets revealing visitors’ preferences and behaviours (Balomenou et al. 173) . Besides summarising tourists’ perceived destination image (Donaire et al. 27) , photographs are central to the visitor experience itself, as visitors stage and enact performances to present their imagined audiences with a desired self-narrative of their trip (Belk 349; Larsen 425) . This study aims to improve our understanding of cultural behaviour in unstaffed heritage sites using publicly available Instagram data. Specifically, we ask:

(RQ1) What does the distribution of posts, across sites and across time, reveal about site popularity and temporal patterns in visitor engagement? (RQ2) What are visitors taking and sharing photographs of across different heritage sites? (RQ3) How do visitors perform and depict their interactions with heritage sites in these photographs?

This study extends existing research on tourism photography by establishing a methodology for analysing image content based on modern computer vision techniques. By profiling each site according to the proportion of its Instagram images that contain given objects, we explore what these photographs can reveal about site characteristics and visitor activities that users find attractive and hence post about whilst experiencing these sites. We demonstrate the use of object detection as a way of “cataloguing” or “indexing” a large volume of photographs based on their content; this not only provides a summary of visual attributes across sites, but also facilitates retrieving images that reveal how visitors relate to and interact with heritage sites.

Our dataset comprises public Instagram posts scraped from the hashtag and location pages relevant to 26 unstaffed heritage sites of interest, totalling 54,621 posts published in May 2014–April 2019. To examine RQ2–RQ3, we use a subset of 3,979 posts for each of the top five sites (matching the number of scraped posts for the fifth most-posted site). To analyse these images’ content, we conduct off-the-shelf inference using a pre-trained deep convolutional neural network-based object detection model. As the model’s pre-training dataset excludes heritage site-relevant object categories, we implement transfer learning by fine-tuning the model on a set of 520 images of a specific site, the Rollright Stones, annotated with the object labels “sculpture” and “stone”.

Through our analysis, we find that:

Bourdieu’s idea that tourist photographs typically serve to honour the unique encounter between a person and a site with high symbolic yield (36) may concern only a small fraction of visitor photographs on Instagram.

The results presented here support the claim by Galí and Donaire that ‘tourist photographs taken in western countries tend to avoid the presence of people’ in pursuing the ‘romantic ideal of tourism consumption’ (897).

Differently from Robinson and Picard’s proposition that vernacular tourist photography ‘makes no claims towards art’ (9), the evidence presented here indicates that tourist photography may rather ‘attempt to construct idealised images which beautify the object being photographed’, as put by Urry and Larsen (169).

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 locates this study’s research questions and contribution within existing tourism research using social media data, then reviews developments in computer vision techniques and determines their suitability for this study. Section 3 theorises the practice of travel photography on Instagram to motivate and inform the study’s research questions. Section 4 details methods for collecting and analysing Instagram data on unstaffed heritage sites. Section 5 presents the study’s findings, which Section 6 discusses in relation to existing research before concluding.

2. Literature review

2.1 understanding visitor engagement using social media data.

Defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (61) as ‘a group of Internet-based applications (…) that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content’ (UGC), social media constitutes a ‘mega trend’ with significant impact on the tourism system (Leung et al. 3) . UGC on social media platforms is a primary data source for investigating tourism consumption as it is cheaper and easier to access than government- or privately-owned transactional data (Li et al. 304) . While much tourism research focuses on text-based UGC such as reviews and blog posts, this study contributes to existing work on image-based UGC.

The majority of existing studies analyse the images’ metadata, comprising use-related, temporal, geographical, and textual information (Li et al. 308) . In demonstrating correlations between metadata-derived metrics and official visitor statistics, these studies highlight the potential of using social media data as a proxy for tourist activity. By identifying international tourists amongst Flickr users in China based on their location of origin, Su et al. show that the number and profile of these users correlate with official statistics on international tourists in 2009–2013 (30). Latorre-Martínez et al. obtain similar results for Flickr users in Zaragoza. Wood et al. demonstrate that Flickr metadata can reliably proxy empirical annual visitation rates at 836 recreational sites across the world. Likewise, Sessions et al. show that monthly Flickr activity is a statistically significant predictor of official visitor counts for 38 national parks in the United States. Analysing Instagram, Flickr, and Twitter posts geolocated to 56 national parks in Finland and South Africa, Tenkanen et al. find that social media activity is highly associated with park popularity, with social media-derived monthly visitation patterns correlating relatively well with official statistics in 2014 (1).

Analyses of geographical and temporal metadata can reveal tourists’ behaviour and preferences. Popescu et al. identify tourist sites, estimate visit times, and detect panoramic spots using Flickr metadata of 723,303 photographs taken during one-day visits across 183 cities. To identify tourist attractions in cities, Kisilevich et al. and Zhou et al. perform a spatial clustering analysis on geolocated images. By clustering images with respect to Flickr users’ origin, Vu et al. compare destination preferences and travel trajectories amongst Asian and Western tourists in Hong Kong. Su et al. similarly exploit Flickr metadata on users’ origin to characterise the geographical preferences of international tourists visiting China. Besides identifying popular destinations, geolocation metadata can reveal sites that lack published photographs, as Farahani et al. and Motamed and Mahmoudi Farahani demonstrate for the cities of Shiraz and Melbourne respectively.

Overall, existing studies demonstrate that metadata from image-based UGC may contain valuable insight on tourist consumption patterns, particularly concerning where and when they visit. However, demographic biases in social media usage and whether visitors perceive the site as social media-worthy may lead to discrepancies with actual visitation patterns. While RQ1 examines the distribution of posts across sites and time to investigate visitation patterns amongst Instagram users, the lack of empirical visitor data on unstaffed heritage sites precludes considering how reliably Instagram metadata might proxy for tourist activity.

Prior tourism research that does examine the images themselves commonly uses manual content analysis, whereby researchers empirically quantify visual representation in images using reliable, explicitly defined categories (Bell 13) . Also focusing on heritage tourism, Farahani et al.‘s content analysis of 186 photographs of Nasir-al-Molk Mosque in Shiraz revealed the site’s physical and spiritual qualities that contribute to its popularity amongst Flickr, 500px, and Instagram users. McMullen similarly examines 200 popular Pinterest photographs of four heritage tourist destinations in the US to understand what users find most interesting about these destinations. Content analysis of geolocated social media photographs can indicate tourists’ perceived image of a city, as Motamed and Farahani and Galí and Donaire show for Melbourne and Barcelona respectively. Donaire et al. complement their content analysis of Flickr photographs of the Boí Valley with a cluster analysis to segment tourists based on their photographs’ elements and angles of perspective.

While content analysis can thus provide insight into how tourists engage with a given destination, such manual categorisation imposes significant resource demands that limit the practicality of analysing large numbers of images (Balomenou et al. 174) . At the upper end, Pearce et al.‘s content analysis of 10,912 photographs from blog posts by Chinese tourists to interpret their visual representations of the Great Ocean Road in Australia required four months’ worth of regular work by two full-time staff (28). Li et al. thus highlight the need in social media-related tourism research for more advanced analytic techniques applied directly on images (310). Notably, Rossi et al.'s image classification framework, comprising a scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) descriptor and support vector machine (SVM) classifier, enables them to assign 90,000 Instagram images of Venice to one of six categories, whose frequency and geographical distribution reveal tourist consumption patterns. Analysing 238,290 Flickr images geolocated to Melbourne, Miah et al. use speeded up robust features (SURF) to represent visual content, then employ kernel density estimation to identify representative images relevant to specific tourist attractions.

Nonetheless, deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based feature extractors have superseded SIFT- and SURF-based models across computer vision tasks. Whereas the latter use hand-engineered filters to extract features from images, DCNNs use trainable filters to learn image features directly and automatically from data with minimal domain knowledge (Liu et al. 7). As the next section details, this study extends previous research by employing DCNN-based techniques to examine what visitors to unstaffed heritage sites post photographs of. In particular, object detection enables extracting valuable details per image across this study’s sample of 19,895 Instagram images across five sites.

2.2. Object detection

Object detection is a computer vision task which aims ‘to determine whether or not there are any instances of objects from the given categories (such as humans, cars, bicycles, dogs or cats) in some given image and, if present, to return the spatial location and extent of each object instance (e.g. via a bounding box)’ (Liu et al. 1). Past studies using DCNNs have recorded state-of-the-art performance on object detection, as well as in other computer vision tasks such as scene recognition, fine-grained recognition, and domain adaptation (Donahue et al.) object and action classification (Oquab et al.) , scene recognition, fine-grained recognition, attribute detection, image retrieval (Sharif Razavian et al.) , and unsupervised image clustering (Guérin et al.) . Relative to handcrafted features, DCNN-based features provide a more powerful, discriminative representation of images (Liu et al. 193) .

Off-the-shelf DCNN-based inference is restricted to the target object categories a given model was trained on. Consequently, objects more specific to heritage sites (e.g. “arch”, “ruin”, “stone”) remain undetected. As training requires large amounts of labelled data and is computationally expensive, transfer learning is used to transfer knowledge from models trained for a given source domain and learning task to a different target domain and learning task (Pan and Yang) . Researchers have used this approach effectively for object detection on images of X-rayed baggage (Akcay et al.) , traffic signs (Arcos-García et al.) , and packed food products in a refrigerator (Talukdar et al.) . Similarly, we fine-tune a pre-trained detector to improve its performance on images of a specific heritage site.

Therefore, this study extends existing tourism research on image-based UGC by demonstrating how DCNN-based object detection techniques can be used to understand visitor cultural behaviour at unstaffed heritage sites. In addition to revealing what visitors are taking and sharing photographs of, object detection can identify photographs depicting interactions of visitors themselves with the site for further qualitative analysis. The next section contextualises and motivates these research questions by theorising the process of taking then sharing travel photographs on Instagram.

3. Theoretical background

To motivate and inform this study’s research questions around the practice of tourist photography on Instagram, we draw on the concepts of the tourist gaze and self-presentation as central to both the ‘first act’ of taking photographs and the ‘second act’ of sharing photographs online (Nov and Ye) .

3.1. The tourist gaze: How do visitors look at the site?

Urry and Larsen argue that tourism experiences are ‘fundamentally visual’ in nature: the ‘tourist gaze’ organises visitors’ encounters with the ‘other’ to provide some sense of competence, pleasure, and structure to these experiences (14). This ‘gaze’ emerges from the twin birth of mass tourism and photographic techniques in the mid-19 th century, from which time photography and tourism have been intrinsically linked. ‘Photography is what one does on holiday, and also what makes a holiday’ (Bourdieu and Whiteside 36) . Photographs summarise the tourist’s perceived destination image (Donaire et al. 27) , and can serve as rich datasets revealing tourists’ preferences and behaviours (Balomenou et al. 173) . In exploiting this opportunity, this study recognises that the ‘hermeneutic circle of representation’ (Urry 140) and the selective framing of photographs may shape how Instagram photographs depict the tourist gaze.

Although commonly seen as providing a faithful reproduction of reality (Bourdieu and Whiteside 93) , photography is an active signifying practice that attempts to construct idealised images aestheticizing its subject Urry and Larsen . Tourists’ selectivity in taking and retaining photographs creates a more polished and positive set of evidences than does the experience itself Belk and Hsiu‐yen Yeh . This study’s particular view filtered through Instagram compounds such distortion from the camera lens as the platform’s ‘social currency’ of likes and comments fosters ‘an online culture where the primary motive is to impress rather than just inform’ (Jacob 261) . Even as photography may render travel into ‘a strategy for accumulating photographs’ (Sontag 9) , Instagram adds the goal of capturing Instagram-worthy moments (Jacob 262) .

Recognising that photography is thus central to the tourist gaze, RQ2 explores visitors’ gaze of unstaffed heritage sites by analysing what they take and share photographs of.

3.2. Self-presentation: How do visitors look?

Tourist photography is bound up with self-presentation and ‘strategic impression management’ (Goffman; Larsen 424) . Photographs enable tourists to create ‘extensions of self in place, simultaneously capturing moments as lived and securing projected memories’ (Scarles 471) . In selectively taking and retaining photographs, tourists collect illustrations to construct a self-narrative (Belk and Hsiu‐yen Yeh 349) . Photographs thus not only mark what is significant to the tourist, but also form a conscious attempt at fashioning one’s self-image (Manovich) .

Conceptualising the tourist as ‘playful performer and cultural producer’ Stylianou-Lambert further highlights how photography facilitates the construction of self-identities and socialities (1821). Through photography, the landscape becomes a theatrical stage in which tourists are embodied, expressive subjects enacting choreographed and experimental performances (Larsen) . Pearce and Wang’s ethological study of the postures of tourists at iconic tourism sites emphasises the performative nature of tourist photography. The authors derive categories of tourist poses in solo photographs, including “composed”, “dynamic”, “interacting”, and “model” poses ( Fig. 1 ).

The authors also include “bland”, “projecting”, “cute”, and “costume” categories.

The concept of self-presentation thus highlights the curated, performed nature of the Instagram photographs under study. Although this study’s visual analysis of these photographs casts them in a static frame, understanding their place within dynamic, social processes provides contextual knowledge for interpreting analytical results. RQ2 recognises that self-presentation motives influence what objects visitors choose to photograph and display on Instagram. By bringing both the posting of photographs, as well as the taking of them, into the analytical frame, this offers further insights into cultural behaviour around heritage sites. Moreover, besides analysing what the images contain, we consider how often visitors’ photographs present themselves together with a salient site feature to determine the extent to which photographs serve as joint signifiers of “I am here; here is the place that I am.” Subsequently, RQ3 explores the performative, embodied nature of tourist photography by applying Pearce and Wang’s typology of poses to such photographs depicting both people and site-specific features. Furthermore, we extend the notion of performativity to include visitors’ ‘extended selves’ (Belk) in the form of personal possessions and pets by considering images depicting visitors’ bicycles and dogs alongside salient site features.

4. Methodology

This section details this study’s methods of collecting and analysing Instagram data on unstaffed heritage sites.

4.1. Instagram data

This study’s primary data source comprises public Instagram posts on unstaffed heritage sites managed by English Heritage. We use Instagram as it is the most actively used image-based social media platform in the United Kingdom (UK): We are Flint’s (39) survey of 2,008 Internet users aged over 18 in the UK finds that 41% of respondents use Instagram, whereas 36% use Pinterest.

4.2. Webscraping

We select 26 unstaffed heritage sites of key interest as determined in consultation with English Heritage. For each site, we manually search Instagram to determine its relevant hashtag and location pages, which we then scrape using Instaphyte. [1] Appendix A of the Supplementary Information lists all scraped pages.

Besides downloading images from the given hashtag or location page, Instaphyte generates a CSV file containing the images’ metadata. These metadata include each post’s unique code, Unix timestamp, caption, user ID, number of likes, number of comments, and image URL. For posts containing multiple images, Instaphyte retrieves the first image only.

Since a post may include both hashtag and location information (and thus be scraped twice), we keep only unique posts as identified by their code. We narrow this sample to posts published in the five-year period from 1 May 2014 (which comes after the earliest post for 18 sites) to 30 April 2019 (which precedes the last post for 23 sites). This yields 54,621 posts across the 26 sites, ranging from three (Roman Wall of St Albans) to 12,087 (Castlerigg Stone Circle) posts per site.

This study’s sample is representative only of visitors who use public Instagram accounts and who add the site’s relevant hashtag and/or location to their posts. Gender and age biases exist amongst Instagram users: We are Flint’s (39) survey of UK Internet users finds that more women (48%) than men (35%) report using Instagram, and that usage is dominant amongst those aged 18–34. Furthermore, both the practice of sharing photographs online and the decision to do so publicly may be linked to visitors’ demographic and motivational characteristics. Lo et al.'s survey of Hong Kong residents indicates that those who post travel photographs online tend to be younger, better educated, and earn a higher income than those who do not. Surveying Flickr users, Nov and Ye find that those expressing greater commitment to the online community and having a higher number of contacts tend to share more photographs publicly. Additionally for Instagram, the decision to share posts publicly may be an unconscious one since posts are public by default, unless users make their account private so that only approved followers can view their posts (“Controlling Your Visibility”) . Therefore, this study’s findings concern a specific subset of visitors and cannot be generalised to all who visit the heritage sites under study.

Following the University of Oxford’s Central University Research Ethics Committee best practice guidance for Internet-based research, users’ specific consent is not required when collecting their publicly available Instagram posts. When displaying these data, we de-identify images to protect users.

4.3. Deriving posting activity from the metadata

To analyse these posts’ distribution across sites and time (RQ1), we narrow the sample to the top 10 sites by number of posts, totalling 45,286 posts. We operationalise site popularity as the number of posts per site over the five-year period under study. As a robustness check, we derive the number of photograph user-days (PUD) per site. PUD counts each unique user once per day, i.e. a user uploading multiple posts per day is only counted once. PUD thus provides a more user-centric operationalisation of site popularity than post counts by adjusting for potential cases where a single user (or bot) generates a large fraction of posts. Past studies show that PUD derived from social media metadata can provide a reliable estimate of official visitor statistics (Wood et al.; Sessions et al.; Tenkanen et al.) . To consider temporal patterns in posting activity, we convert each post’s Unix timestamp to human-readable local time, assuming the London time zone.

4.4. Object detection

This study applies object detection to Instagram images of the top five sites to characterise what visitors post photographs of RQ2 and to identify relevant images for exploring visitors’ presented interactions at these sites (RQ3). As the fifth most-posted site has 3,979 scraped posts, we randomly sample the same amount from the top four sites, yielding 19,895 images. We use the Tensorflow Object Detection API [2] (Huang et al.) to implement off-the-shelf inference and transfer learning.

An object detection model predicts whether an image contains any instances of objects from predefined categories. For each object detected, the model returns its predicted location (bounding box), category, and confidence level. The most commonly used metric to evaluate model performance is Average Precision (AP), whose mean (mAP) over all object categories is used to compare model performance (Liu et al. 9).

Off-the-shelf inference

For off-the-shelf inference, we use a Faster R-CNN detector with Inception ResNet V2 feature extractor pre-trained on Open Images V4, available from the TensorFlow detection model zoo. [3] We select this model as its Open Images mAP of 54 is the highest amongst all available models. Since this study analyses a static dataset (rather than continuous stream) of images without requiring real-time inference, we prioritise model performance over speed.

Initial results from off-the-shelf inference include 600 possible object categories per Open Images V4, which the model was trained on. We retain detections with over 50% confidence and select 12 categories of interest, namely: “person”, “human face”, “tree”, “castle”, “building”, “house”, “tower”, “sculpture”, “flower”, “bird”, “dog”, and “bicycle”. Additionally, we incorporate “boy”, “girl”, “man”, and “woman” into the pre-existing category “person”; “blue jay”, “canary”, “duck”, “eagle”, “falcon”, “goose”, “owl”, “raven”, “sparrow”, and “swan” into “bird”; “bronze sculpture” into “sculpture”; and “rose” into “flower”.

We derive the category “selfie” from “human face” detections covering at least 3.8% of the image area, then discard “human face” detections otherwise (as these would typically be superfluous to an existing “person” detection). This threshold corresponds to the median area of “human face” bounding boxes in the dataset. These bounding-box areas have a skewed distribution ( Fig. 2 ): after a large peak of small-area detections, there is a long tail of larger areas that more likely convey users’ ‘desire to frame the self in a picture taken to be shared with an online audience’, that is, a selfie (Dinhopl and Gretzel 130) .

However, as noted above, off-the-shelf inference using the pre-trained detector does produce false positives (incorrect detections) and false negatives (undetected ground truths). Given a lack of annotated ground-truth images, evaluating the detector’s mAP on this study’s dataset is beyond the current scope. Nonetheless, we conduct transfer learning to address the problem of false negatives due to heritage site-relevant object categories being absent from the pre-trained model’s training dataset.

Transfer learning

Taking the Rollright Stones site as a case study, we fine-tune a Faster R-CNN detector pretrained on the MS COCO dataset to obtain more informative results concerning RQ2–RQ3. We select the Rollright Stones for two main reasons. Firstly, models pre-trained on Open Images or MS COCO cannot detect “stone” since both datasets exclude this category. Although Open Images includes the category “sculpture”, woven-wood sculptures at the Rollright Stones do not resemble sculptures in Open Images that typically are carved or sculpted from clay, metal, stone, or wood. [4] Secondly, the site has the fifth-highest number of scraped images, thus providing adequate training data.

From the 3,979 images of the Rollright Stones, we randomly select 1,000 images for annotation. We evenly distribute these images between four authors for annotation with “stone” and “sculpture” as target object categories. Annotation yields 650 images containing at least one sculpture or stone, with 119 sculptures and 1,889 stones in total. We randomly split these with an 80:20 ratio into a training set of 520 images (97 sculptures, 1,532 stones) and a testing set of 130 images (22 sculptures, 357 stones).

Using the training set, we fine-tune a Faster R-CNN detector with Inception V2 feature extractor pre-trained on the MS COCO dataset. Relative to other COCO-trained models available from the TensorFlow detection model zoo, this model provides a good trade-off between performance (COCO mAP of 28 reported) and speed (58 ms per image)—Appendix C of the Supplementary Information provides more details. The fine-tuned model records a mAP of 60.85 on the testing set, which is the average of its APs of 76.95 for “sculpture” and 44.74 for “stone” (calculated at an intersection over union threshold > 0.5). Results for the fine-tuned model are shown in Fig. 3 .

To address RQ2–RQ3, we incorporate results from both manual annotation and transfer learning. Since manual annotation only covers 1,000 images, we use the fine-tuned model to obtain predictions on the remaining 2,979 images. This provides “sculpture” and “stone” detections on all 3,979 images of the Rollright Stones, though the model may tend to overestimate the occurrence of “stone”: proportionally, “stone” occurs in 54.7% of the manually-annotated images, but is detected in 70.1% of the remaining images by the fine-tuned model. We combine these detections with those from off-the-shelf inference for each image. This yields a more comprehensive account of what the images contain for RQ2, and enables identifying images in which people (detected via off-the-shelf inference) co-occur with “sculpture” or “stone” (detected via manual annotation or transfer learning) for RQ3.

5.1. Posting patterns across sites and time

Figure 4 shows the top 10 sites by number of posts and photograph user-days (PUD) in the five-year period under study (Appendix B of the Supplementary Information presents results on all sites scraped). Both metrics agree in ranking the top 10 sites amongst Instagram users. Castlerigg Stone Circle has the highest number of posts by far, at 12,087 or 26.7% of the 45,286 posts in the top 10. Rufford Abbey is a distant second at 7,786 posts (17.2% in the top 10), after which the difference between successive sites becomes less stark: Rufford Abbey is more closely followed by Reculver Towers and Roman Fort (6,353 or 14.0%), Bury St Edmunds Abbey (5,279 or 11.7%), and the Rollright Stones (3,979 or 8.8%). The last five sites together account for 9,802 or 21.7% of posts in the top 10. Overall, these results indicate that the present sample of 26 unstaffed sites comprises a small number of very popular sites, and a long tail of sites less popular amongst Instagram users.

PUD counts each unique user once per day.

All top 10 sites display a clear concentration of posts on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays than other days of the week ( Fig. 5a ). This supports the notion of having visitors having leisurely “days out” to these sites on weekends. Users mostly publish their posts between 4 pm and 9 pm ( Fig. 5b ), possibly indicating that Instagram photographs serve not only as immediate markers of “I am here, right now,” but also to share memories of “I was there.”

The distribution of Instagram posts across sites and time allows us to answer RQ1. We find that user interest concentrates on a few key sites, revealing not only expected peaks on weekends, but also deviations from this norm possibly due to on-site events. Naturally, these results concern a particular subset of visitors, namely those uploading tagged images onto their public Instagram accounts.

5.2. What visitors take photographs of

Figure 6 characterises each of the top five sites by depicting the percentage of its images containing a given object, out of a sample of 3,979 images per site.

Objects detected with at least 50% confidence using a Faster R-CNN detector pre-trained on Open Images V4. Each site’s cumulative percentage does not equal 100% since images can contain multiple categories or none. The bottom row describes the object found in the Rollright Stones after applying transfer learning to also detect sculptures and stones.

Overall, object detection recovers the main features of every site. Generally across all sites, the object categories most commonly detected using off-the-shelf inference are trees and people, reflecting the sites’ outdoor setting and the presence of visitors. Although object detection cannot infer whether the people photographed are users themselves or other visitors, it provides a means of retrieving these images for further analysis. Nonetheless, only between 22.7% (the Rollright Stones) and 37.6% (Rufford Abbey) of images depict people, indicating that the majority of photographs exclude human presence. [5]

Besides considering the object categories that do appear in images, it is instructive to note that not all images contain instances of the target object categories (see Appendix B, Supplementary Information, for example images). Castlerigg Stone Circle and the Rollright Stones have 28.7% and 19.9% of images in which no objects were detected, partly due to the inability of off-the-shelf inference to identify the sites’ stones as an object category. Transfer learning on the Rollright Stones images crucially supplements off-the-shelf inference by detecting the site’s stones and woven-tree sculptures: “stone” and “sculpture” respectively feature in 66.2% and 15.0% of the site’s images, decreasing the proportion of images without detected objects to 5.8%. This demonstrates that visitors not only view the site’s prehistoric stones as its distinctive feature, but also find attractive the woven-tree sculptures added in 2017 (“The Three Fairies Sculpture”) . This improvement, however, may include false-positive detections. Reculver Towers and Roman Fort’s proportion of images lacking detected objects is relatively high at 26%—these include photographs of the site’s coastal surroundings and sunset views (Fig. A5 in Appendix B, Supplementary Information). Without target categories that suitably capture these site characteristics, object detection thus overlooks information on visitor behaviour contained in these images.

Given that tourist photography is bound up with self-presentation and performativity, Fig. 7 explores how often photographs serve as joint signifiers of person-and-place. For clarity, we combine “building”, “castle”, “house”, and “tower” into the category “structure”. As shown for Rufford Abbey, Reculver Towers and Roman Fort, and Bury St Edmunds Abbey, people and structures are depicted more often in isolation from each other than in the same image. Reculver Towers and Roman Fort has the highest overlap ratio (intersection over union, IOU) between “person” and “structure” images at 6.8%, i.e. of all images containing either or both of “person” and “structure”, only 6.8% have both categories co-occurring. Bury St Edmunds Abbey and Rufford Abbey have smaller IOUs at 4.3% and 2.2% respectively.

Numbers are image counts in each subset, e.g. Rufford Abbey has 1,451 images depicting “person” without “structure”.

Using object detection to retrieve images depicting “structure” without “person” can reveal how visitor photography aestheticizes the site. Taking Rufford Abbey and Bury St Edmunds Abbey as examples, Fig. 8 shows that such images may thus focus more on portraying the site’s architectural qualities rather than visitors themselves. Besides the buildings’ iconic exteriors, these images highlight details including archways, ceilings, doorways, and windows that visitors find Instagram-worthy in experiencing the site.

Answering RQ2, results from object detection show not only what but also how often visitors include particular object categories in their Instagram photographs. Characterising sites by the proportion of images containing given object categories both profiles sites in terms of the visual characteristics that attract visitors, and reveals common visitor behaviour at these sites. For instance, visitors to Rufford Abbey and Bury St Edmunds Abbey interact with and photograph both the built and natural environments at these sites. Both sites also have the highest proportion of images with people and selfies. Reculver Towers and Roman Fort is most popular for depicting cycling and dog-walking amongst Instagram users. Considering co-occurrence patterns, only a small fraction of images containing either or both of people and structures depict both categories co-occurring.

5.3. Visitors’ performativity in photographs

To investigate how visitors perform and depict their interactions with heritage sites, we use object detection to identify images in which people and their extended selves co-occur with salient site features, such as represented by the overlapping regions in Fig. 7 . While a content analysis of all images retrieved is beyond this study’s scope, we present examples that explore and illustrate visitors’ performativity in their Instagram photographs.

Drawing on Pearce and Wang’s (116) typology of tourists’ poses in solo photographs, which includes “composed”, “dynamic”, “interacting”, and “model” poses ( Fig. 1 ), from the images in which “person” co-occurs with “building” or “house”, we find visitors adopting “composed” poses in which they appear relaxed and may lean against a balustrade or wall, sometimes using the site as an artistic stage upon which individuals enact and showcase their special occasion with “model” poses. Some photographs exhibit more playful performances as visitors adopt “interacting” and “dynamic” poses by climbing, sitting, jumping and using dramatic lighting effects to draw more attention to themselves, or even facing away from the camera and walking towards the site, as shown on Fig. 9 . The latter images do not conform to Pearce and Wang’s proposed categories, but we suggest they connote a sense of “exploring”, as if visitors are inviting their online audience to “come along” on their journeys at the site.

Fig. 10a shows that sculptures at Rufford Abbey encourage playful behaviour amongst visitors, such as mimicking the sculpture’s bodily pose or facial expression, incorporating the sculpture as if it were another person in a group pose, and using the sculpture as a photographic frame encircling the person. These “interacting” poses suggest that the sculptures’ size and playful appearance encourage direct and playful interaction in visitors’ photographic performances. Similarly, images with “person” and “sculpture” at the Rollright Stones exhibit “interacting” poses where visitors “dance” with the Three Fairies Dancing Sculpture and use the woven-tree archway as photographic frame ( Fig. 10b ). “Composed” poses include visitors in costume, who thereby engage with the folklore and legend associated with the site.

Visitors’ performances of their extended selves also include photographing their bicycles or pet dogs alongside site features. As Reculver Towers and Roman Fort has the highest proportion of images with bicycles ( Fig. 6 ), Fig. 11a illustrates how Instagram users perform as both cyclist and tourist by positioning their bicycle as central prop on the stage of the site’s iconic “castle”. Likewise, images where dogs and key site features co-occur exhibit users’ self-presentation as heritage site visitor and dog-owner ( Fig. 11b ). Visitors frame their dogs in a similar way to how people are depicted at these sites, even including portrait-style shots and deliberate playfulness in setting their pets atop the sites’ ledges or stones.

To address RQ3, object detection provides a useful means of retrieving images in which people and salient site features co-occur. Examples depicting people co-occurring with built structures show that besides “composed” poses against iconic views of the site, visitors may employ framing and posing to direct the viewer attention towards their photographic performances with the site as backdrop. Smaller-sized sculptures such as at Rufford Abbey and the Rollright Stones tend to evoke more playful, “interacting” poses amongst visitors. Considering visitors’ presentation of their extended selves, photographs depicting bicycles or dogs alongside site features demonstrate an interplay between capturing visitors’ idealised view of the site and including their own experience and identity as cyclists or dog-owners.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This study aimed to improve our understanding of cultural behaviour in unstaffed heritage sites by analysing publicly available Instagram data. We focused on what the distribution of posts, considered across sites and across time, reveals about site popularity and temporal patterns in visitor engagement (RQ1), what visitors are taking and sharing photographs of across different sites (RQ2), and how visitors perform and depict their interactions with heritage sites through their photographs (RQ3).

We scraped the hashtags and location pages relevant to 26 unstaffed heritage sites of interest, obtaining 54,621 posts published in May 2014–April 2019. Concerning RQ1, ranking the popularity of sites by number of posts (with a robustness check based on the number of photograph user-days, i.e. counting each unique user once per day) reveals that posting activity is concentrated in a small fraction of very popular sites, followed by a long tail of sites that have received less attention from Instagram users. On a larger geographical and temporal scale, this result mirrors Farahani et al.'s finding that a small fraction of heritage sites accounts for the majority of 186 social media images geo-tagged within the historic city of Shiraz in 2015 (205).

To address RQ2–RQ3, we used pre-trained DCNN-based object detection models for off-the-shelf inference and transfer learning to analyse 19,895 images across the top five sites. Compared to previous studies using manual content analysis on tourist photographs (Donaire et al.; Galí and Donaire; Pearce et al.) , this study’s method is less labour-intensive and scales more easily to larger datasets.

We demonstrated three main findings regarding RQ2. Firstly, comparing the proportion of images depicting object categories of interest within and between sites can reveal site characteristics and visitor activities more associated with visitor engagement and photography. Secondly, only a minority of photographs depict people, out of which a small fraction depict people along with sites’ built structures. And thirdly, images depicting built structures in the absence of people reveals architectural details that visitors find attractive and picture-worthy.

Amongst the top five sites, images of Rufford Abbey and Bury St Edmunds Abbey have the widest variety of visual content. Besides the sites’ built structures, their natural surroundings within Rufford Abbey Country Park and Bury St Edmunds Abbey Gardens include flowers and birds that visitors depict in Instagram images tagged to the sites. Reculver Towers and Roman Fort especially attracts cyclists and dog-owners. Woven-tree sculptures at the Rollright Stones often feature in the site’s images, alongside its prehistoric stones. In a similar vein, Rossi et al. characterise tourism consumption in Venice by classifying Instagram photographs to one of six predefined categories using traditional computer vision techniques (based on handcrafted features). While we likewise demonstrate that Instagram photographs can provide insight into how tourists engage with heritage sites, using object detection methods enables the consideration of multiple potential object categories per image rather than a single category, and facilitates a comparative perspective across different sites. This approach should also be beneficial to audience segmentation tools, as different objects might help identify audience “types”, depending on people’s interest in heritage, cultural activities, or days out.

We found that the majority of Instagram images across the top five sites exclude people. This accords with previous studies that also consider the degree of human presence in tourist photographs, collected via visitor-employed photography (Garrod) or social media (Donaire et al.; Galí and Donaire) . Our findings support Galí and Donaire’s claim that ‘tourist photographs taken in western countries tend to avoid the presence of people’ in pursuing the ‘romantic ideal of tourism consumption’ (897).

To interrogate the notion of tourist photographs serving as joint signifiers of “I (person) am here; here (structure) is the place that I am,” we measured the cooccurrence between people and built structures in images of three sites. While the emphasis on “image as evidence” in tourist photography is well-documented (Sontag 6; Urry and Larsen 179; Jacob 262) , this study contributes new insight by showing that images where people depict themselves with heritage sites’ built structures only form a small share of such evidence on Instagram: of all images containing either or both of people and structures in three sites under study, only up to 6.8% depict both object categories. Therefore, Bourdieu’s suggestion that tourist photographs typically serve to consecrate the unique encounter between a person and a site with high symbolic yield (36) may concern only a small fraction of visitor photographs on Instagram. We further posit that Instagram’s role as curator of users’ exhibition spaces online may reduce visitors’ felt need to include themselves in framing their photographs since the platform automatically associates each post with the respective user’s account (Hogan) .

Images depicting the sites’ built structures in the absence of people include examples focusing on architectural details that visitors find attractive and hence choose to curate and display for themselves and their imagined audience. Contrary to Robinson and Picard’s suggestion that vernacular tourist photography ‘makes no claims towards art’ (9), these examples show that tourist photography may rather ‘attempt to construct idealised images which beautify the object being photographed’ (Urry and Larsen 169) . Despite not depicting the visitors themselves, these images affirm the notion of self-presentation in online tourist photography, whereby users seek ‘to capture images that could make a place more appealing to others because of their exceptional photographic eyes and perspectives’ (Lo and McKercher 111).

Answering RQ3, we found that visitors display a range of poses in enacting performances against the backdrop of salient site features. We employed Pearce and Wang’s categorisation of tourist poses to characterise these performances. At Rufford Abbey, Reculver Towers and Roman Fort, and Bury St Edmunds Abbey, visitors commonly adopt “composed” poses in front of the sites’ built structures. These photographs resemble Stylianou-Lambert’s description of online tourist photographs that serve as a proof of ‘being there’, whereby the act of posing in front of a landmark follows specific conventions of ‘frontality, eye-level shooting, smiling, posing, and letting the landmark show’ (1830). Crang notes that in turning their backs on the site to face the camera, visitors separate themselves from their present experience as they perform for an imagined audience elsewhere (366–367). While the examples observed in this study mainly conform to this pattern and to Pearce and Wang’s categorisation, a few exceptions depicted visitors facing away from the camera and towards the site. We suggest that these exceptions connote an “exploring” pose of visitors inviting their imagined audience to journey with them.

Sculptures at Rufford Abbey and the Rollright Stones evoke “interacting” poses as visitors engaged with the sculpture by mimicking or touching it. These performances convey a playful attitude and sense of ownership (Stylianou-Lambert 1830) , and demonstrate the holiday snap’s conscious celebration of disjuncture with normal work-related behaviours (Robinson and Picard 6) .

Whereas the literature on performativity in tourist photography mainly focuses on visitors’ embodied actions, we expanded this notion to include visitors’ ‘extended selves’ (Belk) of bicycles and dogs. Examples for both cases reflect an interplay between capturing an idealised view of the site and personalising the site, as visitors simultaneously present their identities as visitor and cyclist (or dog owner). Despite excluding visitors themselves, these examples demonstrate Instagram users’ selectivity in framing and sharing photographs so as to reflect their desired self-image (Lo and McKercher).

In sum, this study has shown that analysing publicly available Instagram data can improve our understanding of tourist behaviour at unstaffed heritage sites by gauging relative temporal patterns in posting activity, revealing site features and visitor activities that are commonly photographed across sites, and illustrating how visitors present themselves through photographic performances against the backdrop of salient site features. Since these findings concern Instagram users with public accounts who include the site’s relevant hashtag and/or location in their posts, they are not representative of visitors in general.

This study concedes several limitations, which also suggest avenues for further research. Firstly, our analysis neglected image captions. As the online equivalent of visitors’ spoken commentaries accompanying their recollections around traditional photographic albums (Robinson and Picard 14) , the caption crucially states the photograph’s signifying intention (Bourdieu and Whiteside 92) . Further research using natural language processing alongside computer vision techniques may recover some of this lost context, thus providing a fuller understanding of how tourists engage with heritage sites in terms of Instagram users’ own motives and meanings ascribed to their posts.

Secondly, results from object detection included false-positive and false-negative predictions. Although we evaluated the fine-tuned model’s performance on a testing dataset, the lack of annotated data precluded evaluating both the off-the-shelf detector and the fine-tuned model on testing sets representing all sites. Moreover, the restriction of object detectors to their target categories inevitably overlooks other visual attributes of interest, such as a site’s coastal or countryside surroundings. Overall, it would be useful to explore different training configurations and target categories, consider transfer learning between different target datasets to reduce the amount of annotation required (e.g. using this study’s fine-tuned model to detect stones in images of Castlerigg Stone Circle), and complement these results using methods for holistic scene understanding (Xiao et al.) .

Thirdly, our analysis of visitors’ performativity in their photographs drew upon illustrative examples that may not be representative of all images in which people and salient site features co-occur. Nonetheless, this study’s methodology for readily identifying subsets of such images from large datasets provides a useful starting point for a more systematic content analysis of these images.

Finally, this study’s analysis of Instagram data is removed from the physical and social contexts creating these posts. Consequently, it cannot infer the motivational and circumstantial reasons behind posting activity and image content, and might overlook ways in which visitors interact with the site which might not appear as photos on Instagram. Future research can employ participant observation and qualitative interviewing of visitors to better understand not only what their photographs include (and exclude), but also why .

Overall, this study has afforded an unprecedented view into visitor behaviour at unstaffed heritage sites through the lens of Instagram. Since this study mainly relied on off-the-shelf inference with a pre-trained object detection model, the present methodology can be readily applied in other contexts (be they different destinations, collections of images, or social media platforms) to understand how visitors engage with tourist destinations through their photographs. Secondarily, object detection methods can be used by charities such as English Heritage itself to monitor what their visitors are posting about across their unstaffed sites. This would help recover the otherwise lost connection between the charity and its visitors concerning the latter’s experience at heritage sites, thus informing the charity’s mission ‘to bring the story of England to life’ for its visitors ( English Heritage: Annual Report 2017/18 3) .

Data Repository

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OGAMMY

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Knowledge Exchange Fellowship from The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH) at the University of Oxford, Grant number 0005946.

Available from https://github.com/ScriptSmith/instaphyte (accessed 23 February 2022).

. Available from https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/research/object_detection (accessed 22 February 2022).

Available from https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/research/object_detection/g3doc/detection_model_zoo.md (accessed 22 February 2022) as faster_rcnn_inception_resnet_v2_atrous_oidv4.

Available from https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/visualizer/index.html (accessed 23 February 2022).

Taking “selfie” into account only marginally increases these proportions to 23.1% and 39.0% respectively, as “selfie” tends to co-occur with “person”.

Submitted : August 31, 2022 EDT

Accepted : September 19, 2022 EDT

Works Cited

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Tourist Gaze: Towards Contextualised Virtual Environments

2005, The Kluwer International Series on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Related Papers

Maeva Veerapen

Abstract This paper draws on existing phenomenological discourse of place to examine presence during the experience of virtual worlds. By analysing the occupied and experienced places during the inworld experience–the physical and virtual surroundings, for example–this paper aims to understand how the user feels a sense of presence or a sense of being in a virtual place.

Bradly Alicea

Giuseppe Riva

Anuario de psicología

Maria V. Sanchez-Vives

Daniel Bacchus

This paper critiques existing methods and experimentation that use virtual reality (VR) and associated technologies to define and measure ‘presence’. Relevant contemporary philosophical resources are used to critique and reframe existing research, introducing a new post-human perspective on presence. Here, a new methodology is built as a foundation for research methods used for capturing subjective, experiential data and to contribute to current thinking around experiential design for VR.

Presence: …

Ann Morrison

Shaleph O'Neill

ACM Computing Surveys

Mary Whitton

The presence construct, most commonly defined as the sense of “being there,” has driven research and development of virtual environments (VEs) for decades. Despite that, there is not widespread agreement on how to define or operationalize this construct. The literature contains many different definitions of presence and many proposed measures for it. This article reviews many of the definitions, measures, and models of presence from the literature. We also review several related constructs, including social presence, copresence, immersion, agency, transportation, reality judgment, and embodiment. In addition, we present a meta-analysis of existing presence models and propose a model of presence informed by Slater’s Place Illusion and Plausibility Illusion constructs.

Wijnand IJsselsteijn

ABSTRACT The concept of presence, ie the sensation of 'being there'in a mediated environment, has received substantial attention from the virtual reality community, and is becoming increasingly relevant both to broadcasters and display developers. Although research into presence is still at an early stage of development, there is a consensus that presence has multiple determinants. To identify and test which parameters affect presence, a reliable, robust and valid means of measuring presence is required.

RELATED PAPERS

078 ATTALA RASYA ALAMSYAH 1

Rehabilitation Research and Practice

François Prince

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

Akhilesh Mishra

Fungal Genomics & Biology

Yaniv Harari

Risalath Ali

Effect of pentoxifylline on anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease

Shirinsadat Badri

Nor Intang Setyo H.

Nadia Ananda

Jurnal ASIIMETRIK: Jurnal Ilmiah Rekayasa & Inovasi

SITI ROHANA NASUTION

Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research

Miston Mapuranga

Revista Geografica De America Central

PABLO DAZA ALVAREZ

Fernanda Loureiro

Ignacio Rullansky

Performance of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) as affected by weed control measures

Journal of Cereal Research

Andres Fernando Bermeo

Journal of Advanced Scientific Research

Vardi Venkateswarlu

16_ muh Ikram

International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review

Adamu Bello

ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD)

Murat Yeşil

Anthony Manasia

International Journal of Antennas and Propagation

Journal of Neurology

Ksenija Gorni

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Jack Mostow

International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology

Shubham Rawat

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

The social media tourist gaze: social media photography and its disruption at the zoo

• Author & abstract
• 3 References
• 1 Citations
• Most related
• Related works & more

Corrections

(University of Canberra)

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher, references listed on ideas.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

The Tourist Gaze: Towards Contextualised Virtual Environments

Cite this chapter.

• Phil Turner 16 ,
• Susan Turner 16 &
• Fiona Carroll 16  

Part of the book series: The Kluwer International Series on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW,volume 5))

1027 Accesses

16 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Alcañiz, M., Baños, R., Botella, C., Cottone, P., Freeman, J., Gaggioli. A, Keogh, E., Mantovani, F., Mantovani, G., Montesa, J., Peripiña, C., Rey, B. Riva, G. and Waterworth, J. (2002) The EMMA Project: Engaging Media for Mental Health Applications. Proc. Fifth Annual International Workshop Presence 2002 , Porto, Portugal, 201–212.

Google Scholar  

Bakstein, H. and Pajdla, T. (2003) Rendering novel views from a set of omni-directional mosaic images. In Proceedings of Omnivis 2003 . Los Alamitos: IEEE Press.

Canter, D. (1977) The Psychology of Place . London: Architectural Press.

Canter, D. (1997) The Facets Of Place. In G. T. Moore and R. W. Marans, (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4: Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization . New York: Plenum, 109–147.

Casey, E.S. (1997). The Fate of Place . Univ. of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles

Culler, J. (1981) Semiotics of Tourism, American Journal of Semiotics , 1(1–2) , 127–140

Dourish, P. (2000) Where the action is . MIT Press.

Downing, F. (2003) Transcending memory: remembrance and the design of place, Design Studies , 24(3) , 213–235.

Feldman, D., Assaf, Z., Weinshall, D. and Peleg, S. (2003) New View Synthesis with Non-Stationary Mosaicing. In Proceedings of Mirage 2003 , INRIA, France.

Gibson, J.J. (1986) The Ecological Approach To Visual Perception , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Gustafson, P. (2001) Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations, Journal of Environmental Psychology , 21 , 5–16.

Jorgensen, B. S. and Stedman, R. C. (2001) Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes towards their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 21 , 233–248.

Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., and Davidoff, J. D. (2001). A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The ITC Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments , 10(3) , 282–297.

Lombard, M. and Ditton, T. (1997) At the heart of it all: The concept of Presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 3(2) . Published electronically.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945) The Phenomenology Of Perception . London: Routlege

Murrell, K.F.H. (1965) Ergonomics — Man in his working environment , London: Chapman and Hall.

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness , London: Pion Books

Ryan, M.-L. (2000) Narrative As Virtual Reality: Immersion And Interactivity In Literature and Electronic Media . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Seamon D. (no date) http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/index.htm

Schloerb, D. W. (1995) A Quantitive Measure Of Telepresence. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments , 4(1) , 64–80.

Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: An exploratory study of environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 6 , 281–298.

Slater M., Usoh M. & Steed A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence, Tele-operators and Virtual Environments , 3 , 130–144

Slater, M., Steed, A., McCarthy, J. and Marinelli, F. (1998) The influence of body movement on presence in virtual environments, Human Factors , 40 , 469–477.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Stefanovic, I.L. (1998) Phenomenological encounters with place: Cavtat to Square One, Journal of Environmental Psychology , 18 , 31–44

Tuan, Y.-F. (1997) Space and Place: the Perspective of Experience . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Turner, P. and Turner, S. (2000) Cui Bono?, Proceedings of the 1st French-British Virtual Reality International Workshop , Brest, July 2000.

Turner, P. and Turner, S. (2002) Embedding context of use in CVE design. Presence: Tele-operators and virtual environments , 11(6) , 665–676.

Turner, P. and Turner, S. (to appear) Place and Sense of Place. Presence: Tele-operators and virtual environments .

Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze (second edition). London: Sage.

Whitehead, A.N.(1925/ 1997) Science and the Modern World . Free Press.

Witmer, B.G. and Singer, M.J. (1998) Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments , 7(3) , 225–240.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Computing, Napier University, Edinburgh

Phil Turner, Susan Turner & Fiona Carroll

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Phil Turner  & Elisabeth Davenport  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Turner, P., Turner, S., Carroll, F. (2005). The Tourist Gaze: Towards Contextualised Virtual Environments. In: Turner, P., Davenport, E. (eds) Spaces, Spatiality and Technology. The Kluwer International Series on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3273-0_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3273-0_19

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-3272-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-3273-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home  >  All Conferences  >  Who makes the tourism experience in the 21st century?  >  Sense and sensibility  >  To see or to experience - that is the question. Tourist Gaze as motivation for travel.

To see or to experience - that is the question. Tourist Gaze as motivation for travel.

To see or to experience - that is the question. Tourist Gaze as motivation for travel. Author: Lech Guzowski 2 Commentries Why do people travel? What is the driving force behind their decision to choose one place over another? Over centuries the reasons for travelling have been changing, but usually revolving around travelling for culture and pleasure purposes Nowadays, the most common categorization is 'business' and 'pleasure'. A theory called the Tourist Gaze says that the motivation that makes people leave their normal places of work and residence for short periods of time is to gaze upon and experience different scenes, landscapes or landmarks which are out of the ordinary. This paper sets out to explore the concept of the tourism gaze in more detail by looking at the historical development of travel and tourism. Also, different approaches will be looked at including the 'places one must see, and the ongoing discussion tourist vs. traveller. Travelling to explore and learn about other cultures is not a new phenomenon. Medieval times saw the religious pilgrimages as a reason for visiting remote places of worship. "Grand Tours" in the 17th century were embarked upon by young aristocrats for educational purposes. However, it was not until 1840s when travel became available for the wider population. It was due to middle class being wealthy enough to travel for pleasure. The technological advancements in the 20th century caused an extensive growth in travel, which became part of nearly everybody's yearly life cycle. The tourist gaze is directed to features of landscape and landmarks that are unlike the ones that one can witness in one's everyday surroundings. When a tourist sees a small village in England he associates the gaze with 'real olde England'. In any historic period it has been constructed as a contrast to its opposition, the non-tourism forms of social experience and consciousness. Over the years the tourist gaze has been questioned concerning its authenticity. Consider, for example, the Hula dance, which originated as a religious performance at the platform temple and now is performed on stages for tourists. As for tourist attractions they have been defined as an empirical relationship between a tourist, a sight and a marker (piece of information about a sight). Markers come in a variety of forms; i.e. guidebooks, slide shows, souvenir matchbooks, photographs, etc. Sights that attract tourist are the well-marked ones and include mountain ranges, the Mona Lisa painting or even entire nation-states like the Vatican. Tourists chose the places to gaze upon on the basis of anticipation of intense pleasure involving different senses than those normally encountered. The choice can also be made on the base of wanting to see a live event, scheduled to take place at a particular moment. The gaze and tourism itself is also often about the body-as-seen, for example the Hula dance. In simple terms, travel is motivated by the need of co-presence that involves seeing or touching or hearing or smelling or tasting a particular place. In modern tourism sightseeing has its own moral structure which is a collective sense that certain sights must be seen. If one goes to London, one 'must see' Big Ben; if one goes to Rome, one 'must see' the Colosseum; if one goes to Paris, one 'must see' the Louvre, etc. The 'must see' approach brings on the subject of the 'sight sacralization' process, which involves a site 'going' through five different stages; naming, framing and elevation, enshrinement, mechanical reproduction, social reproduction. However, both the sight sacralisation and the 'must see' approach have been questioned, with most criticism falling on to the latter. The ongoing discussion about the tourist vs. traveller is only spurred on by the 'must see' attitude. A Tourist, as oppose to a traveller, will not spent too long on marvelling at a beautiful landscape simply because he needs to run to see X, Y and Z. Nowadays most people go to Paris just to see the Eiffel Tower, very often not realizing there are dozens of other remarkable places worth visiting merely because they did not devote the time to do some research. They go to see it only because it is in Paris and it is famous for being famous. Looking at the tourist vs. traveller debate which is driven by the 'must see' approach brings the question, is it the tourist gaze experience still true? . People should learn about the places they are going to and once there get local and not rush. However, if the tourist gaze is constructed as an opposition to the non-tourist experience maybe we have to be tourists not travellers. The lifestyle is much faster than a century ago leaving less time for appreciation and experiencing things. The answer is difficult and quite possibly will be delivered in the future when looking back and making a judgement will be more appropriate. Urry, J. (2002): The Tourist Gaze, 2nd Edition, London: Sage MacCannell, D. (1999) The Tourist. London: California Press. Kendle, A. (2006) 4 Ways to be a traveller, not a tourist [online]. http://www.vagabondish.com/4-ways-to-be-a-traveler-not-a-tourist/

The Tourist Gaze - to see is to experience? Author: Emma Prior I chose this paper as I was intrigued to see what someone else had to say about the tourist gaze after researching upon it for my paper. There is a substantial amount of examples which makes your information more significant and interesting for readers. A fault however is the absence of academic literature labelled throughout the text. I could however tell in certain places where you used key authors such as McCannel & Urry from my own secondary research on the tourist gaze, and how you noted your references at the end. I found it an interesting paper, which is easy to read due to the noticeable introduction and conclusion. You cover aspects of how the tourist gaze works, without losing focus of the paper. I like the structure and how you mention a history of how travelling to see things isn't a recent phenomenon, why people want to gaze, tourists lack of appreciation for the gaze, and different forms of gazing. It would however of also been interesting to read a segment on the future of the gaze, to see your opinions on whether the tourist gaze as a motivator for travel will ever weaken, or whether the anticipation of intense pleasure through the tourist gaze will always be required (Urry 2002). Your argument of whether the tourist gaze is about 'seeing' or 'experiencing' is something that in my opinion in today's society is more understood as 'seeing' is 'experiencing', and therefore not a separate context. This is because tourists are more interested in the quantity of attractions than quality of attractions which can be seen as a problem for tourism interest. Also as you highlighted yourself 'lifestyle is much faster than a century ago leaving less time for appreciation and experiencing', so this 'experiencing' is now just done by 'seeing'. Society want to be able to say they have seen certain things, without technically experiencing things. As you so rightly put it, tourists would rather 'run to see X Y and Z', without spending hours gazing upon one single attraction. Basically now we like to tick things off one by one as we have seen them. Tourism is all about having the memories and photographs to share with others after the 'experience' (Perkins & Thorns 2001). These memories of certain gazes, are something that you'll never forget (Osbourne 2000). It makes individuals look good amongst others when they say how they have seen a sum of these attractions because they are so iconic. You mentioned how tourists want to see and experience different things due to different tourist gazes, i.e. the photographic gaze in terms of Mona Lisa, and covered how certain attractions are must 'see's', but could of also highlighted how attractions can be visited because the romantic gaze. It is referred to as romantic to see the Eiffel Tower with a partner, and therefore couples go to experience the romance over the actual attraction. (Urry 2002). To conclude, this is an interesting paper, which shows that you have successfully investigated and gathered relevant information regarding the Tourist Gaze. It covers the chosen topic well, and has give me a greater understanding of the topic. However I believe the above issues I raised could of made your paper that slightly more creditable. References Osbourne, P, D (2000) Travelling light: photography, travel & visual culture, Manchester: University Press Perkins, C, H., Thorns, C, D (2001) Gazing or Performing: Reflections on Urry's Tourist Gaze in the Context of Contemporary Experience in the Antipodes, International Sociology, Vol 16 (2) 185-204 Urry, J (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edition, SAGE Publications: London

The Tourist Gaze-more than just the sight sense? Author: Cindy Schmidt I want to comment on this particular conferences paper because it is a very interesting topic and relates to some extent to my dissertation 'Using all five senses in Tourism - Multi-Sensory Marketing as a new strategic way of strengthening your brand?' Senses in tourism are often underestimated, bearing in mind what great influence they can have on a tourist experience. I really do like the structure of your paper due to the fact that it is easy to follow and clearly arranged. You gave some background information and then narrowed the topic down to your main focus. Moreover, emphasizing your arguments with several examples made your thoughts even more understandable and interesting. In the end there was also a critical approach to the topic which makes the reader think and even more likely to read the full conference paper. In the past years, tourists 'were looking for new experiences' (Urry, 1990, cited in Munt, 1994, p. 102) which was supported by your argument that tourists chose the places to gaze upon on the basis of anticipation of intense pleasure involving different senses than those normally encountered. As you were writing about the 'must sees' in different destinations, it is argued by several authors like Adler, 1989; Urry, 1990; Macnaghten and Urry, 1998; Rojek, 1995; Crawshaw and Urry, 1997 (cited in Franklin, 2003, p. 83) that the visual sense is the most often utilized sense when considering tourism. However, Pan and Ryan (2009, p. 628) believe 'that the tourist experience is multisensory and involves more than just the visual' which was mentioned in one of your paragraphs as well. To some extent I want to take Emma's thoughts into consideration. I agree that 'seeing' is 'experiencing'. However, I would not agree with the statement that 'experiencing is now just done by seeing' because even though the sight sense seems to be the most influencing one, other senses, especially the smell sense, seem to have an impact on the tourist as well, no matter if it is consciously or unconsciously. Lindstrom (2005, p. 87) points out that 80 per cent of men and 90 per cent of women can connect memories with a particular smell. People will remember different senses, even though they are gazing from one attraction to another, because senses are directly connected to our memory. Another thought could be that even an atmosphere is one type of experiencing a sight (Franklin, 2003, p.88), which cannot be captured in a photograph. Let us therefore take the example of the Eiffel Tower, which was described as a romantic gaze. I would say, it depends on the tourist how much 'input' he or she gets from a short gaze around an attraction. However, photographs still seem to be most important memories when sharing certain gazes, as you mentioned Emma. All in all, the paper was really interesting to read and leaves scope to put thinking further as it was seen in the comment. The topic itself is very broad and I think, you did a really good job to stick to the main points. Franklin, A. (2003) Tourism An introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Lindstrom, M. (2005) Broad sensory branding, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (2), pp. 84-87. Munt, I. (1994) The 'Other' Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the New Middle Classes. Culture & Society, 11, pp. 101-123. Pan, S., Ryan, C. (2009) Tourism Sense-Marketing: The role of the senses and travel journalism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, pp. 625-639.