Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366

25th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering

Systems and Intelligent Information & Engineering
25th International Conference on Knowledge-Based
Systems
Impact of the availability of gamified e-guides on museum visit
Impact of the availability ofintention
gamified e-guides on museum visit
intention
Beata Bieszk-Stolorza, Krzysztof Dmytrówa, Jurgita Eglinskieneb, Susanne Marxc,
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz
Agnieszka Miluniec
a
, Krzysztof
d
, KarolinaDmytrów a
, Jurgita
Muszyńska d Eglinskieneb, Susanne
, Grażyna Niedoszytkoe, Marx ,
c

Agnieszka
WeronikaMiluniec Podlesińska
d
, Karolina
e
, AttilaMuszyńska
v. Rostoványi
d
, Grażyna
f
, JakubNiedoszytko
Swachad,*, ,
e

Weronika PodlesińskaRené Larsen

e
, Attila
Vilsholmv. Rostoványi
g f
, Senija Vurzer, Jakub f Swacha *, d,

René Larsen Vilsholm , Senija Vurzerf g

University of Szczecin, University of Szczecin, Institute of Economics and Finance, ul. Mickiewicza 64, Szczecin 71-101, Poland
a

a
b
Lithuanian
University of Szczecin, University Sea Museum,
of Szczecin, Smiltynės
Institute of Economicsg.3,and
Klaipėda 93100,
Finance, Lithuania 64, Szczecin 71-101, Poland
ul. Mickiewicza
c
Hochschule Stralsund b – University of Applied Sciences, Zur Schwedenschanze 15, Stralsund 18435, Germany
Lithuanian Sea Museum, Smiltynės g.3, Klaipėda 93100, Lithuania
c
Hochschule
d
University
Stralsundof– Szczecin,
UniversityInstitute of Management,
of Applied Sciences, Zurul. Cukrowa 8, Szczecin
Schwedenschanze 71-004, Poland
15, Stralsund 18435, Germany
e
National
d Marine
University Fisheries
of Szczecin, Research
Institute Institute, al. ul.
of Management, Jana Pawła II8,1,Szczecin
Cukrowa Gdynia71-004,
81-345,Poland
Poland
e
National Marine
f
Malmö Museums,
Fisheries Malmöhusvägen
Research Institute, al. 6, Malmö
Jana 211
Pawła II 18,Gdynia
1, Sweden81-345, Poland
f NaturBornholm, Grønningen 30, Aakirkeby 3720, Denmark
g
Malmö Museums, Malmöhusvägen 6, Malmö 211 18, Sweden
g
NaturBornholm, Grønningen 30, Aakirkeby 3720, Denmark

Abstract
Abstract
With a growing interest in the application of gamification in tourist attractions, there is a growing body of research on various
types aofgrowing
With effects interest
resultinginfrom providing gamified
the application e-guides
of gamification to visitors.
in tourist In this there
attractions, paper,is we take a different
a growing perspective
body of research on the
on various
substantiation of gamification application in museums by investigating whether the mere availability
types of effects resulting from providing gamified e-guides to visitors. In this paper, we take a different perspective on the of gamified e-guides for
mobile devicesofis gamification
substantiation a factor that impacts
applicationthe in
visit intentionbyofinvestigating
museums potential visitors before
whether the they
merepay a visit to of
availability a museum.
gamifiedThe obtained
e-guides for
results
mobile confirm thea positive
devices is impact
factor that impactsof the
theavailability of gamified
visit intention of potentiale-guided
visitorstours on they
before visitors’
pay attitude
a visit totowards the museums
a museum. and
The obtained
their
resultsintention
confirm tothevisit the museum,
positive impact of both unconditional
the availability and in case
of gamified of notours
e-guided personal guide being
on visitors’ available.
attitude Thismuseums
towards the implies that
and
implementation of gamified e-guides can be economically sustainable even if we consider only their
their intention to visit the museum, both unconditional and in case of no personal guide being available. This implies impact on the visit intention
that
of potential visitors,
implementation providede-guides
of gamified the costscanarebekept under reasonable
economically limits.even if we consider only their impact on the visit intention
sustainable
©
of 2021 Thevisitors,
potential Authors.provided
Published thebycosts
ELSEVIER
are kept B.V.
under reasonable limits.
© 2021
This The
is an Authors.
open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
© 2021
This is The
an Authors.
open access Published
article by ELSEVIER
under the CC B.V. license
BY-NC-ND (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
This is an under
open responsibility
access article underof the
the scientific
CC committee
BY-NC-ND of KES
license International
Peer-review
Keywords:
under responsibility
multimedia guides;
of the
economic
scientificofcommittee
sustainability museums;
of (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
KES
visit
International.
intention; gamification in tourism
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of KES International
Keywords: multimedia guides; economic sustainability of museums; visit intention; gamification in tourism

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: jakub.swacha@usz.edu.pl

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: jakub.swacha@usz.edu.pl
1877-0509 © 2021 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 access
© 2021 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published by ELSEVIER license
B.V.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license of KES International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of KES International
1877-0509 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of KES International.
10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.212
 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366 4359
2 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000

1. Introduction

The ongoing digital revolution is seen as a paradigm shift for museums, and, as observed by Tallon, in order to
retain their relevance, they will need to align their operation with the expectations and behaviors of their digitally
enabled audiences [1]. While the digital environment imposes serious challenges to the traditional models set by
museums [2], at the same time, it opens new opportunities, which, if properly exploited, have already proven to help
museums in attracting and satisfying large numbers of visitors [3]. A very good example of such is the availability of
e-guides (also known as multimedia guides), digital tools operated by visitors themselves as an alternative to human
guides. Introduced already in the 1990s (see e.g. [4]), they became much more feasible to implement with the
proliferation of smartphones, whose capabilities (such as support for multimedia, high-resolution touch screen,
wireless connectivity and automatic positioning) allowed for the development of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD)
e-guides. In this scheme, the e-guide, originally conceived as software running on a dedicated hardware rented at
museum premises, is reduced to the software part, running on the visitor’s own device. This not only reduces both
the investment and running costs, but also makes the system much more scalable (there is no limit of devices to be
rented), damage-resilient (the state of visitors’ devices is in their own best interest) and visitor-friendly (there are no
queues to rental booths). The costs can be diminished even further by using a cloud-based e-guide platform such as
izi.travel [5], so that the museum can focus on the content only as the software is provided by the platform operator.
The availability of BYOD e-guides is especially valuable in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, when in many
museums, the government-imposed restrictions often forbid visitors to form groups that could be guided in person. It
also helps with keeping larger distances between visitors, as they need not to come closer to any plaques with
descriptions as all the information they seek is provided on their own smartphones. The BYOD e-guides are no
longer a rarity in museums: already in 2016, 75% of museums surveyed by AXIELL used mobile devices to engage
with visitors and 34% provided complete BYOD e-guides to their visitors [6]. On the other hand, only as low as 7%
participants of the same survey were satisfied with their solutions and saw no need for development [6].
One of possible directions for e-guide improvement is gamification. This practice of making activities more like
games in order to make them more interesting or enjoyable [7] has been considered to be an important development
in technology for museums already in 2015 [8], however it has not become wide-spread till today: for instance, only
about one-fifth of the museum mobile apps examined in [9] contained any gamified elements.
Gamification supports all four pillars of sustainable development of museums distinguished by Stylianou-
Lambert et al. [10]: cultural, environmental, social and economic. While there is considerable literature on the first
three aspects, almost nothing has been written on the last one. In this paper, we make the first step to address this gap
by investigating if the availability of gamified e-guides alone is a factor that impacts the visit intention of potential
visitors, and thus can contribute to an increase in the expected number of visitors. In order to fulfill this goal, we
perform a survey among museum visitors and use the data gathered this way for interval estimation of the proportion
of those whose visit decision is impacted by the availability of gamified e-guides in the population of potential
museum visitors. We present the research procedure in detail in Section 3 and the obtained results in Section 4.
Before that, we discuss the related work on the impact of gamification on museum sustainability.

2. Related work

The most obvious area of impact of gamification is in the cultural pillar of sustainable development of museums.
First of all, it fosters creativity and innovation, starting with the way the e-guides are developed (which could, in
various forms, involve the visitors themselves [11]), through the technical form the e-guides are implemented in (a
good example of such is the question-and-answer game implemented with the use of chatbots connected to a
messenger app [12]), ending at the rules of play of the gamified e-guide, which may instigate creative activity among
visitors (as is the case of the North Sea Oceanarium app which puts the visitors in the seat of a movie director while
exploring the exhibitions and motivates them to create and publish own content [13]). Secondly, it helps the
museums reach for new audiences, especially the young generation of digital natives, using the virtual environments
they are familiar to [14], but also senior citizens, who can be guided in a way adapted to their specific needs [15].
Thirdly, as the principles of gamification are consistent with those that form the basis of human learning, which
during infancy is grounded fundamentally in play [16], it is very helpful in increasing visitors’ cultural skills and
4360 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000 3

knowledge (as positively verified, for instance, by Tsai and Chiang who examined the gamified and augmented-
reality-based e-guide to Nishi Honganji Temple [17]). Fourthly, a gamification scheme specifically designed for
such a purpose can help with heritage preservation (for an example see [18], describing how visitors using a
gamified app help collect data to be processed later for the assessment of the physical condition of a heritage site).
The gamification’s range of impact in the second, environmental pillar of sustainable development of museums is
mainly due to educational virtues of gamification mentioned before, which can also be used to support the
environmental education. For example, the results obtained in the context of aquarium gamification show that
gamification can not only impart knowledge about marine animals and promote their conservation, but also satisfy a
visitor’s desire to learn and enjoy the aquarium simultaneously [19]). Yet a specially designed gamification scheme
can also address the aspect of energy efficiency (e.g., motivating visitors to use stairs instead of elevators [20]).
Regarding the third, social pillar, the most obvious gamification impact is on engagement. Positive results of
increasing visitor engagement using gamification and mobile devices were reported, among others, by Nelson et al.
who implemented a question-and-answer game themed about content exhibited at the Arizona Science Center and
the Arizona Museum of Natural History [21], Coughlan et al. who developed a web app for mobile devices asking
visitors to create links between artworks in Tate’s collection and locations in the physical world [22], Meija who
gamified a university art gallery guide by letting visitors vote for their favorite artwork every 5 minutes with the top-
ranked works listed on shared screens [23], López-Martínez et al. who implemented an e-guide featuring questions
generated using semantic web technology for a telecommunication museum [24], Foo and Mårtensson who
developed a mobile application guiding wildlife park visitors [25], as well as by two of the authors mentioned earlier
([12,13]). Note however that the designers may direct the gamification’s social impact to other purposes, as is the
case, e.g., with the Acht project, which aims both to enhance the quality of dating initiated through mobile apps and
to widen the visitor profile of museums (the latter belonging to the cultural pillar) by helping potential partners to
meet and get acquainted with one-another on playful dates in museums [26].
As can be seen from the literature review above, in recent years, there has been a constant flow of research
publications on the cultural, environmental and social pillars of sustainable development of museums. Conversely,
the economic impact of applying gamification in a particular museum have so far remained beyond the interest of
research, even though the role of gamification in attracting visitors is acknowledged (see e.g. [27]) and the impact of
using a gamified app on making travel decisions confirmed (see e.g. [28]). This makes the research reported in the
following sections a starting point, which, we hope, will motivate the research community to put more effort in
analyzing the economic consequences of implementing gamification in museums.

3. Methods

A dedicated survey has been developed for the purpose of collecting primary data for this study. Considering the
pandemic situation, the survey has been limited to just three questions as to avoid the need for a prolonged stay of
the respondents in the museum premises. Below, we list its questions (in English, although they were translated to
the languages of local visitors in the respective museums):
Q1: Would the availability of gamified online tours on our museum website positively influence your attitude
towards our museum when you cannot come in person (e.g. due to COVID-19 restrictions)?
Q2: Would the availability of gamified online tours on our website raise your interest in visiting our museum in
person after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted?
Q3: Would the availability of a gamified e-guide app for your smartphone influence your decision about coming to
the museum when personal guided tours are not available (e.g. due to COVID-19 restrictions)?
Answers to each question were measured on the 5-point Likert scale: 1 – “To a negligible extent”, 2 – “To a small
extent”, 3 – “Moderately”, 4 – “To a high degree”, 5 – “It would be the decisive factor”.
The survey has been performed among potential visitors of three popular tourist attractions of the Baltic Sea coast
which developed gamified e-guides (see Fig. 1) in the course of the BalticMuseums: Love IT! project [29]:
Lithuanian Sea Museum in Klaipeda (from now on referred to as LSM), Malmö Museums (MM), and National
Marine Fisheries Research Institute’s Gdynia Aquarium (GA). The three attractions were chosen based on the
highest number of visitors per year among the BalticMuseums: Love IT! project partners: LSM received ca. 700
thousand visitors a year before the pandemic, whereas both MM and GA had ca. 400 thousand visitors.
 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366 4361
4 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000

Fig. 1. Exemplary screens of the respective museums’ gamified e-guides.

4362 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000 5

The survey was originally intended to be administered as a Paper & Pen Personal Interview. However, due to
circumstances, particularly the museums’ internal regulations prohibiting their staff getting into personal contact
with non-employees, only LSM managed to gather some responses (43 questionnaires) in this way. The survey had
therefore to be administered as Computer Assisted Self-Interview using social media channels of the respective
museums. Using this mode of survey, LSM received additional 69 responses, MM received 42 responses and GA
received 398 responses.
In order to properly estimate the proportion of potential visitors whose attitude towards the museum and/or
decision about coming to the museum is impacted by the availability of gamified e-guides, first, the sufficient size of
the sample (n) must be ensured. The following formula [30] has been used for this purpose:

2
𝑢𝑢1−𝛼𝛼 ⋅ 𝑝𝑝0 (1 − 𝑝𝑝0 )
𝑛𝑛 ≥ 2
, (1)
𝑑𝑑 2

where:

𝑢𝑢1−𝛼𝛼 – value of the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution for the significance
2
level 𝑎𝑎; 𝑑𝑑 – maximum error of estimation (precision); 𝑝𝑝0 − order of the proportion; as there were no analyses of
1
this kind performed so far, the order of the proportion is unknown and must be assumed at the level of 𝑝𝑝0 = ,
2
which ensures that the sample size will always be the largest for given values of 𝑑𝑑 and 𝑢𝑢1−𝛼𝛼 .
2

The significance level was set to 𝑎𝑎 = 0.05 and the maximum error of the estimation was set to 𝑑𝑑 = 0.05, which
gave the minimum size of the sample 𝑛𝑛 = 385. The confidence interval for the proportion is given by the following
formula [30]:

𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚 (1 − ) 𝑚𝑚 (1 − )
𝑃𝑃 ( − 𝑢𝑢1−𝛼𝛼 ⋅ √ 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛 < 𝑝𝑝 < + 𝑢𝑢1−𝛼𝛼 ⋅ √ 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛 ) = 1 − 𝛼𝛼, (2)
𝑛𝑛 2 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛 2 𝑛𝑛

where: 𝑚𝑚 – number of units having given property; in this case, number of respondents that chose the answer to the
respective questions whose associated value is equal to or above the specified expected influence threshold.
Considering the purpose of the reported research, we have set the value of this threshold to 5, which is the most
conservative level possible using a 5-point Likert scale. We chose this value as the most appropriate, assuming that
only the answer “It would be the decisive factor” clearly signals the influence of the e-guide availability on the
visitor’s decision or attitude, whereas answers 1–4 were interpreted as given by respondents who would probably
come (or not come) or change (or not change) their attitude to the museum regardless of the e-guide availability.
The left-hand side of the interval can be interpreted as the lower bound of the estimation range of the proportion
of the visitors influenced by the availability of the gamified e-guides to the total number of visitors (i.e., the most
pessimistic estimate), whereas the right-hand side can be interpreted as the higher bound of the said estimation range
(i.e., the most optimistic estimate).
We decided not to proceed from the estimated change in the expected inflow of visitors to strictly economic data
such as museum income because the relation between these two measures is known (cf. Di Pietro et al.’s definition
of the economic and social sustainability of museums saying that “the possession of sufficient resources to maintain
the existence of an organization, and achieve their goals in the future, ensuring a certain flow of visitors” [31]) but
difficult to assess, as many museums depend on external support (mostly from government or private donors) more
than on ticket sales, however, this support is often warranted by attracting increasing visitor numbers [32].
 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366 4363
6 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000

4. Results

It was found using the 𝜒𝜒 2 independence test with the Cramer’s V correlation coefficient that for all analysed
questions, the relationship between the structure of responses and the place of survey was statistically significant
(see Table 1). This meant that the data collected at different museums could not be combined and, consequently,
only the data from one museum (LSM, with 398 answers which is above the threshold of 385) could be used for
further analysis.

Table 1. Relationship between the structure of responses and the place of survey.

Question 𝜒𝜒 2 Column B (t) p-value Cramer’s 𝑉𝑉

Q1 244.8654 2 0.0000 0.4735
Q2 130.1395 4 0.0000 0.3452
Q3 118.3632 6 0.0000 0.3292

Looking at the obtained results (see Fig. 2), the majority of respondents acknowledged that the availability of
gamified tours would have at least a highly positive effect on their attitude towards the respective museum (Q1,
60%) and the intention to visit the museum when the personal guides are unavailable (Q3, 66%). The share is lower
for the unconditional intention to visit the museum (Q2, 46%, still a satisfactory figure), which can be clearly
attributed to seeing e-guides as substitutes for personal guides.

Responses to Q1 Responses to Q2 Responses to Q3

Fig. 2. Exemplary screens of the respective museums’ gamified e-guides.

Applying the obtained numbers to formula (2), we get the following estimates:
• between 0.64% and 3.44% of potential visitors whose attitude towards the museum would be positively
influenced due to the availability of gamified online tours on the museum website (Q1);
• between 0.81% and 3.78% of potential visitors who would intend to visit the museum just because it
provided the gamified e-guides (Q2);
• between 4.38% and 9.39% of potential visitors who would intend to visit the museum because it
provided gamified e-guides if personal guides were unavailable (Q3).
Assuming that the number of potential visitors planning their visit consequently enough to get to GA’s social
media channels is similar to the number of visitors who paid a visit to the museum in the times before the pandemic,
the ranges presented above correspond to between 3.3 and 15.1 thousand more visitors per year coming to try the
gamified e-guides and between 17.5 and 37.6 thousand visitors who would not be lost thanks to the gamified
e-guides if traditionally guided tours were not available.
4364 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000 7

5. Conclusion

As evidenced in the literature, the provision of gamified e-guides to visitors positively contributes to the
sustainability of museums in cultural, environmental and social aspects, yet so far, its economic aspect has not been
investigated on a quantitative basis. In this paper, we focused on this issue, estimating the impact of the availability
of gamified e-guides on potential visitors’ decision to visit the museum, resulting in the increase in the expected
inflow of visitors. The results of our survey (with regard to the survey questions Q2 and Q3) indicate the positive
effect of the e-guide availability on the museum’s economic sustainability and also allow to estimate the scale of this
effect. This has important implications for museums planning to implement such technology in their premises in the
future, showing that (1) other reasons apart, provision of gamified e-guides can also be substantiated in economic
terms, (2) that the economic benefits of the mere availability of such technology are, however, far from game-
changing, therefore, in order to attain a net benefit from such an investment, the e-guide development costs have to
be kept under strict limits. As these limits depend on the expected number of visitors, the only economically viable
option for smaller museums is to use an available cloud-based e-guide platform (such as emused.eu [33]) rather than
plunge into the expensive development of proprietary software.
The obtained results also indicate (by comparing the results with regard to the survey questions Q2 and Q3) that
visitors actually consider e-guides as an alternative to real guides, as in the absence of the latter, the positive effect of
providing the former is much stronger. This is a very valuable insight in the current times of the COVID-19
pandemic and the restrictions on tourist attractions imposed due to it.
The presented research has its limitations. Any survey conducted online is accessible only for digitally fluent
respondents, and thus susceptible to introducing bias by not representing those digitally excluded. Bearing in mind,
first, that the survey was promoted at the Gdynia Aquarium’s Facebook page, and Facebook, with over 2.7 billion
monthly active users [34], can be considered as posing a particularly low technical competence barrier and thus
allowing a wide range of people to take part in the survey; second, that according to an earlier Gdynia Aquarium’s
visitor survey conducted at its premises, already in 2018 about 85% of visitors used mobile apps of some kind [35],
the potential effect of such bias on the presented results can be considered negligible.
While the survey has been carried out in three museums, only data obtained from one of them were numerous
enough to be used for further analysis. Unfortunately, due to the low number of responses from potential visitors of
the other two museums, it would not be justified to compare the results among them and assess to what extent the
results are affected by the profile of respective museums. This defines one direction of our future work: extending
the number of effectively surveyed museums to compare the results obtained therein, the other being the
retrospective verification of how many of the actual visitors (both using and not using e-guides on their tour) were
earlier interested in being guided by a gamified e-guide and whether (and how) the visit affected their opinion in this
matter – this, however, can be done effectively only after the end of the pandemic. Nonetheless, we also hope that
the results presented here will motivate other researchers to investigate the economic consequences of implementing
gamification in various types of museums.

Acknowledgements

This research was realized within the BalticMuseums: Love IT! project and was partially financed by the
European Regional Development Fund within the Interreg South Baltic Programme. The funders had no role in the
design and execution of the study, or in the decision to publish its results.
The authors would like to thank all the respondents who participated in the surveys and the staff of the three
museums who helped to implement the survey.

References

[1] Tallon, Loïc. (2019) Foreword to T. Giannini and J.P. Bowen (eds) Museums and Digital Culture: New Perspectives and Research, Cham,
Switzerland, Springer, pp. VII-VIII.
[2] Grigore, Ana-Maria, Adela Coman, and Andreea Ardelean. (2019) “Rethinking Museums in the Digital Era?,” in Proceedings of the 13th
International Management Conference “Management Strategies For High Performance”, Bucharest, Romania, The Bucharest University of
 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366 4365
8 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000

Economic Studies, pp. 550–562.

[3] Ruiz, Belén, José Luis Pajares, José Luis Utray, and Lourdes Moreno. (2011) “Design for All in Multimedia Guides for Museums.”
Computers in Human Behavior 27 (4): 1408–1415.
[4] Abowd, Gregory D., Christopher G. Atkeson, Jason Hong, Sue Long, Rob Kooper, and Mike Pinkerton. (1997) “Cyberguide: A Mobile
Context-Aware Tour Guide.” Wireless Networks 3 (5): 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019194325861.
[5] Palin, Alex, and Daniela Itro. (2015) “New No-Cost App for Museums and City Tours "Izi.Travel Tourist Audio Guide" from Iziteq Turns
Ordinary Tourists into Extraordinary Travellers,” in EVA 2015 Conference Proceedings. Electronic Imaging & The Visual Arts, St.
Petersburg, Russia, ITMO University, pp. 155–160.
[6] Digital Transformation in the Museum Industry. (2016) https://wwwaxiellcom.cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/2019/04/digital-transformation-
in-the-musuem-industry.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[7] Gamification. (2008) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
[8] Johnson, Larry, Samantha Adams Becker, Victoria Estrada, and Alex Freeman. (2015) “The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition.”
Austin, TX, New Media Consortium.
[9] Miluniec, Agnieszka, and Jakub Swacha. (2020) “Museum Apps Investigated: Availability, Content and Popularity.” E-review of Tourism
Research 17 (5): 764–776.
[10] Stylianou-Lambert, Theopisti, Nikolaos Boukas, and Marina Christodoulou-Yerali. (2014) “Museums and Cultural Sustainability:
Stakeholders, Forces, and Cultural Policies.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 20 (5): 566–587.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.874420.
[11] Fuks, Hugo, Heloisa Moura, Debora Cardador, Katia Vega, Wallace Ugulino, and Marcos Barbato. (2012) “Collaborative Museums: An
Approach to Co-Design,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work; CSCW ’12, New York,
NY, ACM, pp. 681–684. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145307.
[12] Gaia, Giuliano, Stefania Boiano, and Ann Borda. (2019) „Engaging Museum Visitors with AI: The Case of Chatbots”, in Museums and
Digital Culture, Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 309–329.
[13] Vistisen, Peter, Vashanth Selvadurai, and Rameshnath Kala Krishnasamy. (2018) “Applied Gamification in Self-Guided Exhibitions:
Lessons Learned from Theory and Praxis,” in O.E Hansen, T. Jensen, and C. Rosenstand (eds) Gamescope: The potential for gamification in
digital and analogue places, Denmark, Aalborg, Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
[14] Merlin, Lalla. (2017) Gamifying Museums Pt 1. – How Minecraft is Taking Visitor Engagement to the Next Level.
https://blooloop.com/museum/in-depth/minecraft-gamifying-museums. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[15] Rodrigues, João M.F., Joana Lessa, Miguel Gregório, Célia Ramos, and Pedro J.S. Cardoso. (2016) “An Initial Framework for a Museum
Application for Senior Citizens”, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for
Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion – DSAI 2016, Vila Real, Portugal, ACM, pp. 414–421.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3019943.3020002.
[16] Sanchis, Álvaro, Nuria Rodríguez, David Heras, Melani Lleonart. (2017) “User Experience with Mobile Applications for Museums and
Exhibition Spaces”, in N. Ceccarelli, and C. Jiménez-Martínez (eds) 2CO Communicating Complexity. Contributions from the 2017 Tenerife
Conference, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain, Universidad de La Laguna. https://doi.org/10.25145/b.2COcommunicating.2020.021.
[17] Tsai, Tsun-Hung, and Yi-Wei Chiang. (2019) “Research Study on Applying SLAM-Based Augmented Reality Technology for Gamification
History Guided Tour,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Architecture, Construction, Environment and Hydraulics (ICACEH),
IEEE: Xiamen, China, pp. 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACEH48424.2019.9041939.
[18] Toumanidis, Lazaros, Enkeleda Bocaj, Panagiotis Kasnesis, and Charalampos Z. Patrikakis. (2019) “Supporting Cultural Heritage
Preservation Through Game-Based Crowdsourcing,” in A. Kavoura, E. Kefallonitis, and A. Giovanis (eds) Strategic Innovative Marketing
and Tourism, Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 989–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12453-3_114.
[19] Tan, Wee Kheng. (2018) “Gamification in Aquarium Context: Intention to Play Game That Imparts Knowledge and Promotes Marine
Animal Conservation.” Information Technology & People, 31 (6): 1070–1090. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2017-0054.
[20] Kotsopoulos, Dimosthenis, Cleopatra Bardaki, Thanasis G. Papaioannou, Stavros Lounis, George D. Stamoulis, and Katerina Pramatari.
(2019) “Designing a Serious Game to Motivate Energy Savings in a Museum: Opportunities & Challenges,” in Games and Learning
Alliance, Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34350-7_55.
[21] Nelson, Brian C., Catherine D.D. Bowman, Judd D. Bowman, Luis E. Pérez Cortés, Adrianna Adkins, Edgar Escalante, Brooke L. Owen,
Jesse Ha, and Man Su. (2020) “Ask Dr. Discovery: The Impact of a Casual Mobile Game on Visitor Engagement with Science Museum
Content.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (1): 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09696-x.
[22] Coughlan, Tim, Laura Carletti, Gabriella Giannachi, Steve Benford, Derek McAuley, Dominic Price, Cristina Locatelli, Rebecca Sinker, and
John Stack. (2015) “ArtMaps: Interpreting the Spatial Footprints of Artworks,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’15, Seoul, Republic of Korea, ACM, pp. 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702281.
[23] Mejia, Juan. (2013) “Impact of Gamification and Shared Situated Displays on Smartphone Application Engagement.” MSc thesis, Allendale,
MI, Grand Valley State University. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cistechlib/152. Accessed 10 May 2021.
4366 Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 192 (2021) 4358–4366
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2021) 000–000 9

[24] López-Martínez, Alejandro, Álvaro Carrera, and Carlos A. Iglesias. (2020) “Empowering Museum Experiences Applying Gamification
Techniques Based on Linked Data and Smart Objects.” Applied Sciences 2020 10 (16): 5419. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165419.
[25] Foo, Henrik, and Oskar Mårtensson. (2016) “Designing for engagement using gamification in mobile applications.” MSc thesis, Linköping,
Sweden, Linköping University. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:940167. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[26] Akçalı, Atakan, Ido A. Iurgel, and Tonguç Sezen. (2019) “Social App That Combines Dating and Museum Visiting Experiences,” in A.L.
Brooks, E. Brooks, and C. Sylla (eds) International Conference on Arts and Technology, Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 213–218.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06134-0_24.
[27] Negruşa, Adina Letiţia, Valentin Toader, Aurelian Sofică, Mihaela Filofteia Tutunea, and Rozalia Veronica Rus. (2015) “Exploring
Gamification Techniques and Applications for Sustainable Tourism.” Sustainability 7 (8): 11160–11189.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su70811160.
[28] Sigala, Marianna. (2015) “The Application and Impact of Gamification Funware on Trip Planning and Experiences: The Case of
TripAdvisor’s Funware.” Electronic Markets 25 (3): 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0179-1.
[29] BalticMuseums: Love IT! (2020). https://balticmuseums.info. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[30] Aczel, Amir D., and Jayavel Sounderpandian. (2006) “Complete Business Statistics.” Boston, MA, McGraw-Hill.
[31] Di Pietro, Laura, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, Maria Francesca Renzi, and Martina Toni. (2014) “An Audience-Centric Approach for
Museums Sustainability.” Sustainability 6 (9): 5745–5762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095745.
[32] Gilmore, Audrey, and Ruth Rentschler. (2002) “Changes in Museum Management: A Custodial or Marketing Emphasis?” Journal of
Management Development 21: 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210448020.
[33] emused.eu. (2020). https://emused.eu/#tours. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[34] Facebook: number of monthly active users worldwide 2008–2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-
facebook-users-worldwide. Accessed 10 May 2021.
[35] Akwarium Gdyńskie w opinii zwiedzających – potrzeby i oczekiwania. (2018) Toruń – Gdynia: Pracownia Badań Soma.