An exploration of the potential use of service robots among millennials and Gen Z’s in nature-based tourism destinations
Gijsbert Hoogendoorn et al.
What the paper says
Purpose This paper assesses the future potential of service robots in nature-based tourism in South Africa, including their roles, appearance and potential effect on guest experience and nature-based destinations. Design/methodology/approach Online in-depth interviews with 40 younger respondents (Millennials and Gen Z’s) examined their perceptions of service robots and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Findings We found that interviewees were cautious and unsure about the future function of service robots in nature-based tourism. They were concerned about the effect of robots on employment in the Global South, and whether robots should adopt human or animal forms. Research limitations/implications Our qualitative research focusses on the perceptions of two younger generations, and cannot be generalised to other generations or research contexts. Further research is needed to understand the extent of service robot consequences on tourism destinations. Practical implications Providers should avoid giving the impression that robots are replacing human workers, and should be sensitive to guest attitudes to nature in robot use. Social implications The future use of robots in nature-based tourism could threaten employment. There are also implications for robot design and whether these non-human actors in tourism should mimic animals. Originality/value This is the first paper to examine the role of robots in nature-based tourism, and analyses the delicate relationships between human workers, robots and other non-human actors in the Global South. It examines the attitudes of younger tourists, who will be crucial for future robotic acceptance and redresses the current geographical imbalance in research.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.