2nd International Tourism and Sport Management Conference Debrecen 2012.09.05-06.

Kajos Attila Assistant Lecturer, University of Pcs, Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, PhD Student, University of Pcs, Faculty of Business and Economics, Business Administration Doctoral School kajos@gamma.ttk.hu Dr. Bnyai Edit, PhD Associate Professor, University of Pcs, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Business and Management edit@ktk.pte.hu

BEYOND REALITY THE POSSIBILITIES OF AUGMENTED REALITY IN CULTURAL AND HERITAGE TOURISM
ABSTRACT The virtual world used to defined, as a threat to travel and tourism sector (CHEONG 1995). In this paper we introduce a new technology which is able to create new value in cultural and heritage tourism (beside other territories). With the help of augmented reality a technology capable of superimposing computer generated content such as pictures, multimedia, 3D models or even archaeological information onto real environment we can provide enhanced visitor experience at museums or cultural heritage sites. Through the displays of a commonly used smartphone or other mobile device, even three dimensional virtual reconstruction of a ruin in the real environment is possible (TAKATOMI et al. 2011), but it can also provide written or auditive information about an exhibited painting or its artist in a museum. We can take a virtual walk in the ancient Agora or watch a gladiator fight at the circus arena. The article is clearing the most important definitions and connecting cultural heritage tourism and augmented reality, presenting the currently used or prototype versions of these systems and showing the technologys main advantages and disadvantages. Keywords: augmented reality, cultural tourism, heritage, interaction 1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

While the theoretical background of the current topic is relatively wide, we shall discuss our accepted definitions of the main phrases and expressions used in this article especially those represented in the title. That is why we point out the definitions of tourism, cultural tourism, cultural and heritage tourism and augmented reality accepted by us, in order to create the theoretical frame of the topic. Mainly, we are accepting the tourism definition of Lengyel (1989), and the definition created by WTO. According to the Hague Declaration on Tourism it encompasses all free movements of persons away from their places of residence and work, as well as the service industries created to satisfy the needs resulting from these movements (WTO, 1989). We also accept that tourism incorporates all of the previously mentioned movement regardless of its motivation, goal or time scale (LENGYEL, 1989). With this definition we do not limit the

Kajos-Bnyai: Beyond Reality pp. 120-125 tourist as an individual or group of individuals coming from a different city or country, but also who lives or works in the same territory (i.e. the individual who visits a museum in his/her home town also considered as tourist). This definition is especially important in the field of marketing, while in many cases services, and destinations do not consider the people living in the same city as potential client, which is a big mistake. The term cultural tourism according to Trcsnyi is every segment which is not mass tourism (Trcsnyi 2002). Csap and Matesz agrees with Trcsnyi and adds that The tourist who is involved in cultural tourism is the one whos goal is not to reproduce their domestic needs in another destination, but has the motivation to get acquainted with other cultures landscape values (CSAP&MATESZ 2007 p. 275). Cultural and heritage tourism is defined by Silberberg as visits by persons from outside the host community motivated wholly or in part by an interest in the historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyle/heritage offerings of a community, region, group or institution (SILBERBERG, 1995 p. 361). In our interpretation cultural and heritage tourism is also not limited to individuals coming from outside the host community because we think that the target audience of such marketing campaigns can also be a person or persons inside the location of the given attraction or heritage site. In that case the main mission of the communicator is to facilitate such individuals to discover or rediscover the given site, and on the long turn, to become a marketing tool through word-of-mouth communication. According to Azuma (1997) augmented reality (AR) is about augmenting the real world environment with virtual information by improving peoples senses and skills. AR mixes virtual characters with the actual world (AZUMA, 1997 p. 2). He identified three common characteristics of AR has three common characteristics: its a combination of the real and virtual, its interactive in real-time and having the content registered in 3D. With these features AR allows the user to see the real world, with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with the real world. Therefore, AR supplements reality, rather than completely replacing it. (AZUMA, 1997 p. 2). The dimensions of the current article didnt allow the detailed presentation of this technical innovation. For those who are interested of the technology we recommend the previously mentioned articles or a very detailed survey made by Carmigniani et al. (2010). Details are also available in Hungarian by the writers of this article (KAJOS&BNYAI 2011a; KAJOS&BNYAI 2012b) or by Balknyi and Orbn (2011). At this point we must underpin, that in one case we are not strictly following the criteria of Azuma. We do not insist the content to be registered in real 3D, which requires much higher technical equipment. 2. CONNECTION
REALITY BETWEEN CULTURAL AND HERITAGE TOURISM AND AUGMENTED

On one hand we have a cultural heritage attraction i.e. a city or quarter with cultural importance, a monument, old shattered buildings, ruins, historical battlefield, etc. On the other hand we have a technology which can superimpose digital content (pictures, sounds, videos, charts, texts, 3 dimensional objects, signals, indicators etc.) with the help of such nowadays ordinary tools as smartphones, monitors or projectors. The question is what we get if we combine them? The technology itself exists for about two decades now, but the widespread hardware is only available for the last few years. With the rise of IT and mobile technology the possibilities previously only existed in science fictions became reality. Three dimension modelling is not newfangled, it is already used in the fields of architecture (BEARDSLY ET AL., 1996), medicine (STUDHOLME ET AL., 1999) and even archaeology (STYLIADIS, 2007) e.g. heritage recording (REMONDINO, 2011). Also, 3D modelling is long ago used for the

2nd International Tourism and Sport Management Conference Debrecen 2012.09.05-06. reconstruction and conservation of cultural and heritage sites. The importance of the topic is reflected by the fact, that the 12th annual International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage was held in Prato, Italy. Previously we had the possibility to create television programme or online virtual tours for those who were interested, but for the visitors on the site remained the miniaturized model and some printed information on the wall or floor of the exhibition room or the heritage site. With the help of a simple smart phone and other visual equipments the actual heritage site can be enhanced by virtual content, so the spectator can see the 3D model of the building once stand the place of the ruin or watch a gladiator battle on the ground of the circus. The first ready to use AR archaeological tool was Archeoguide designed by Tim Gleue and Patrick Dhne in 2005. The equipment made up by a Head Mounted Display, a laptop, a wireless router was way too heavy and expensive for the everyday use. The AR technology requires four tools: a display, a processing unit, a tracking device and user interface. Once it was really hard to create the adequate configuration, but now everything fits into our hands. We have smartphones with a computing capacity of over 1GHz, built in GPS, gyroscope, accelerator, video camera (sometimes 2) with over 5 megapixels and haptic user interface (touchscreen) and mobile internet or Wi-Fi for the data transfer. So now only our imagination can be a limit.

Figure 1: The equipment and the real time augmentation model Source (Source GLUE&DAHNE, 2005) 3. THE ADVANTAGE AND USE OF AR ON CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES As every new features and services in the world of tourism, the use of augmented reality also requires investments. Creating the proper software, content or maybe the infrastructure can be costly and in a recent time needs further investment, but the technology evolving rapidly, and the enhanced services can attract more tourists or visitors. Furthermore as the technology develops, the earlier tools and solutions became cheaper, so maybe if this new type of investment is yet too expensive, the decision-makers might think about the best solution for their attractions and services at latter stage. We can briefly summarize the main advantages of AR techniques as the following: 1) The supplement content connected to a given object or attraction can be augmented in a way that is not harming or disturbing its environment. For example there is no need for information boards, information points, etc. 2) Information boards require space in an exhibition room or hall and the amount of displayed information is limited to the size of the board. With a virtual database we get much more

Kajos-Bnyai: Beyond Reality pp. 120-125 information written or audio and in countless languages and we can place more exhibition objects on the freed space. 3) The extra content enhances the customer value, which extends the service value, helps customer satisfaction, generates positive word of mouth and all in all results higher attendance. 4) Gives the opportunity for real time customer experience sharing through online community applications (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.) which can also generate higher attendance and awareness. Main augmented reality devices usable for cultural heritage tourism marketing can be separated by its displays, tracking methods and data transfer methods. The display can be mobile (head mounted or handheld), fixed (spatial) or projection based. The tracking can be optical (cameras), geolocation based or hybrid, while the data transfer can go through the internet, intranet (Wi-Fi with server) or installed (from the devices own media). Each of these methods has their advantages and disadvantages. In this article we are introducing some already in use or prototype solutions separated by the tracking methods used. 3.1 (Geo)location based tracking system The location and movement of the user is tracked by sensory type (e.g. GPS, WiFi, RFID, etc) solutions. The advantage of such tracking systems is the usability in- and outdoors as well. In indoors (e.g. in museums) it gives the opportunity of proper navigation and the tracking of the user (helps better visitor management). The technology is mainly used outdoors with the help of the Global Positioning System (GPS) which is nowadays a basic application of an average smartphone. Such systems require a database with the attractions of a given territory (so called Points Of Interest or POI). With the help of the GPS, users and POIs relative position is determinable and the augmented content is superimposed on the display of the mobile device at the accurate GPS coordinates. This method is used by New Yorks Nearest Subway application, which leads as it name suggests us to the nearest subway station with the help of direction arrows appearing on the screen of the phone. In such cases the data is transferred through mobile internet connection, but the download of the database is also available and in such cases we can use the application offline. The applications Streetmuseum and Londinium (free applications designed by Museum of London) superimposes pictures from the ancient and the 19th century London at certain POIs. The application is available for both Android and iPhone. Compatibility is one of the most critical part of AR, if we are not offering on site hireable devices (like at the Natural History Museum) then we have to be sure, that the application is available for a various of devices. Instead of picture, AR is capable of sound transfer. With the help of location tracking, we can identify the position of the visitor in the museum, and we can provide more proper audio guide, the visitor can choose his or her own way and dont have to follow the previously designed route. 3.2 Optical tracking systems Optical tracking requires a camera and a visual, recognizable object (a fiducial marker or a picture). As soon as the object appears at the site of the camera, the augmented object appears on the display unit (the screen of a monitor, a smartphone, a notebook, etc.) replacing the marker. We can use the technology indoors e.g. in a museum, where after pointing the camera to a painting, extra information about the painter, the era when it was painted, etc. appears on

2nd International Tourism and Sport Management Conference Debrecen 2012.09.05-06. the screen. Instead of mobile devices, we can use video cameras equipped with motion recognition and a spatially fixed large screen. When the camera identifies the visitor, it superimposes content on the screen next to the visitor. Another optical tracking based solution, is when a monitor with a camera is attached in front of an exhibit and superimposes the content. Such technology used by the Maritime Museum in Auckland, where a big screen stands in front of a sailing boat, and who stands in front of the screen sees the virtual sailors doing their job on board. This is fixed or spatial AR solution. 3.3. Hybrid tracking system Hybrid systems combines the advantages of the two technology while avoids their weaknesses. The only problem is that the more stable and faster system costs more. It requires greater bandwidth because in case of many users the speed could drop drastically, which results bad user experience. One of the most promising solution is the MAR (in its full name complete end-to-end mobile augmented reality) project leaded by processor company, Intel. The application uses a so called SIFT (Scale-invariant feature transform) algorithm to search in the 150 000 mainly English Wikipedia entry, and superimposes the content on the mobile display. The application simultaneously uses GPS and optical tracking, which is a really good solution in cases, where the POIs are very close to each other (e.g. in a big city). With the help of the picture taken by the camera and the GPS coordinate, the program recognizes the attraction easier and more reliably (EL COUBASI ET AL. 2010). If its unable to recognize the attraction, than offers the user the five most similar pictures to choose from near to the given destination. The application reaches the database through mobile internet, which is still relatively slow or even unreachable in different areas. However the current weakness of the technology, the rapid development of mobile technology anticipates, that hybrid technology is the future of AR. Especially when small head mounted displays like Google glasses spread and become cheaper. 4. CONCLUSION Augmented reality carries lot of potential for marketers in many sectors including the cultural and heritage tourism. Augmented reality allows museum and cultural institution managers to enhance their current services with virtual content. With the help of this technology we can create greater customer experience, save exhibition space and reach a much higher visitor satisfaction. It allows us to present a picture, its creator and even the painting process itself in such ways it was unreachable before with the use of an everyday smartphone. The augmented service is also a basis for product differentiation and a tool of brand building. It offers such advantages which are nowadays not commonly reachable. References 1. Aubert A.- Csap J. (2002): Unique Features of the tourist attractions in Hungarys historical small cities In: Aubert A.-Csap J. (ed.): Settlement dynamics and its spatial impacts. PTE TTK FI, Pcs, pp. 137-147 Azuma, R. (1997): A Survey of Augmented Reality. in: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v .6, n.4, August, p. 355-385 Balknyi Pter & Orbn Zsolt (2011): Virtulis informcik a fizikai trben: a kiterjesztett valsg jvkpe, Informcis Trsadalom Vol. XI. No.1-4. pp. 48-63.

2. 3.

Kajos-Bnyai: Beyond Reality pp. 120-125 4. Beardsley, P., Torr, P., and Zisserman, A. (1996): 3D model acquisition from extended image sequences. In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge, UK, vol. 2, pp. 683695 Carmigniani J., Furht B., Anisetti M., Ceravolo P., Damiani E., Ivkovic M. (2011): Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications, Multimed Tools Appl (2011) 51:341377 DOI 10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6 Cheong, Roger (1995): The virtual threat to travel and tourism, Tourism Management, Vol.16 No. 6., pp. 417-422, 1995 Csap Jnos Matesz Krisztina (2007): A kulturlis turizmus jelentsge s szerepe napjaink idegenforgalmban. Fldrajzi rtest - Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 56. vf. 3-4. fzet pp. 291-301 275.o. El Choubasi M., Nestrates O., Wu Y., Kozintsev I., Haussecker H. (2010): An augmented reality Tourist Guide on your Mobile Device, In: Advances in Multimedia modelling (ed:S.Boll): Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, Volume 5916/2010, pp. 588-602 Kajos Attila Bnyai Edit (2011a): Valsgos csoda Az augmented reality s a marketing kapcsoldsi pontjai In: Paradigma- s stratgiavltsi knyszer a gazdasgban, Svhlik (szerk.) VI. KHEOPS Tudomnyos Konferencia, Mr, 2011. mjus 18. ISBN 978-963-87553-8-4, p.28-46 Kajos Attila dr.Bnyai Edit (2011b): Az augmented reality jelene s jvje, mint a marketingkommunikci eszkze, In: Fojtik J. (szerk): Felels marketing A Magyar Marketing Szvetsg Marketing Oktatk Klubja 17. Orszgos konferencijnak eladsai, Pcs, 2011. augusztus 29-30 pp. 509-520 Gimeno J., Olanda R., Martinez B., Sanchez F.M (2011):Multiuser Augmented Reality System for Indoor Exhibitions, In: P. Campos et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2011, Part IV, LNCS 6949, pp. 576579, 2011. Lengyel Mrton (1992): A turizmus ltalnos elmlete. Bp., 212 old. 25.o McKercher, B.-du Cros, H- (2002) Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management, The Haworth Hospitality Press, Binghamton, NY, p. 267 Michalk (1999): A vrosi turizmus elmlete s gyakorlata. Magyar Tudomnyos Akadmia Fldrajztudomnyi Kutatintzet, Budapest, 168 p. Remondino, Fabio (2011): Heritage Recording and 3D Modeling with Photogrammetry and 3D Scanning, Remote Sensing, Vol 3.,2011, pp. 1104-1138, ISSN: 2072-4292 Silberberg, T. (1995) Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage Sites, Tourism Management. Vol.16, No. 5, pp. 361-65 (p.361) Studholme C., Hill D.L.G., Hawkes D.J., An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment, Pattern Recognition 32 (1999) 7186. Styliadis, A.D. (2007): Digital documentation of historical buildings with 3-d modeling functionality. Automation in Construction, 16, 498-510, 2007. Gleue T. and Dahne P. (2002): Design and Implementation of a Mobile Device for Outdoor Augmented Reality in the ARCHEOGUIDE Project, Proc. of the ACM Conference on Virtual reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage, pp. 161-168, 2002. Taketomi T., Sato T., Yokoya N. (2010): AR Cultural Heritage Reconstruction Based on Featured Landmark Database Constructed by Using Omnidirectional Range Sensor In: Proc. ACCV 2010 Workshop on e-Heritage (Electronic Cultural Heritage), Nov. 2010 Tasndi J. (2002): A turizmus rendszere, Aula Kiad, Budapest, 280. Trcsnyi (2002): A kulturlis fldrajz alapjai In: Tth J. (szerk.): ltalnos trsadalomfldrajz II., Dialog Campus Kiad, Budapest-Pcs pp. 336-359 WTO (1989): The Hague Declaration on Tourism. WTO, Madrid

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22. 23.