Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scenic route planning for tourists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tourists visiting unknown destinations become increasingly dependent on mobile city guides to locate tourist services and retrieve informative content about nearby points of interest (POIs). Several mobile guides already support the provision of personalized tour recommendations to assist tourists in making feasible plans and visiting the most interesting POIs within their available time. However, existing tourist tour planners only regard available attractions as sites lacking physical dimensions (i.e., POIs are treated as ‘points’). This restricts the modeling of POIs as attractions that may be entered/exited from a certain location (e.g., the main entrance). Although this is adequate for scheduling visits at museums, galleries, small squares or parks with single entry points, it fails to capture practical properties of typical tourist visiting styles in urban destinations. Tourists commonly appreciate strolling through pedestrian zones, market areas or urban areas of architectural, cultural and scenic value rather than only visiting sites of restricted access or taking the fastest route to move among city landmarks. Herein, we introduce Scenic Athens, a context-aware mobile city guide for Athens (Greece) which provides personalized tour planning services to tourists. Far beyond than just providing navigational aid, Scenic Athens derives near-optimal sequencing of POIs along recommended tours, taking into account a multitude of travel restrictions and POI properties, so as to best utilize time available for sightseeing. Unlike similar tools, our application incorporates scenic (walking) routes (in addition to point POIs), thereby supporting more experiential exploration of tourist destinations. This broader perception of tourist attractions substantially increases the complexity of the entailed optimization problem’s modeling. A user evaluation study validated the recommendation value, usability and perceived utility of the proposed application.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://ctplanner.jp/ctp4/index-e.html.

  2. http://www.citytripplanner.com/.

  3. http://tripbuilder.isti.cnr.it/.

  4. http://ecompass.aegean.gr/.

  5. G is called a windy graph, if G is an undirected graph and there are two costs associated with each edge, representing the cost of traversing it in each possible direction.

  6. http://graphserver.github.io/graphserver/.

  7. The adjustment of profit values of individual POIs/routes also takes into account the average rating score received by other mobile users for this POI/route. Ratings provided by other users are taken into account only when the number of ratings received for a particular POI/route is more than 10 so that statistical validity is guaranteed.

  8. A pdf version of the questionnaire is available from: http://zarcrash.x10.mx/ScenicEvaluationSurvey.pdf.

  9. http://www.mtrip.com/, http://www.citytripplanner.com/.

References

  1. Brilhante IR, Macedo JA, Nardini FM, Perego R, Renso C (2015) On planning sightseeing tours with TripBuilder. Inf Process Manage 51(2):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen R, Katzir L (2008) The generalized maximum coverage problem. Inf Process Lett 108(1):15–22

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Gavalas D, Konstantopoulos C, Mastakas K, Pantziou G (2014) Mobile recommender systems in tourism. J Netw Comput Appl 39:319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gavalas D, Konstantopoulos C, Mastakas K, Pantziou G (2014) A survey on algorithmic approaches for solving tourist trip design problems. J Heuristics 20(3):291–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gavalas D, Kasapakis V, Konstantopoulos C, Pantziou G, Vathis N, Zaroliagis C (2015) The eCOMPASS multimodal tourist tour planner. Expert Syst Appl 42(21):7303–7316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gavalas D, Kasapakis V, Konstantopoulos C, Mastakas K, Pantziou G, Vathis N, Zaroliagis C (2016) Scenic Athens: a personalized scenic route planner for tourists. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE symposium on computers and communications, pp 1151–1156

  7. Gavalas D, Konstantopoulos C, Mastakas K, Pantziou G, Vathis N (2016) Efficient metaheuristics for the mixed team orienteering problem with time windows. Algorithms MDPI 9(1):6

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Haldrup M (2004) Laid-back mobilities: second-home holidays in time and space. Tour Geogr 6(4):434–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu Q, Lim A (2014) An iterative three-component heuristic for the team orienteering problem with time windows. Eur J Oper Res 232(2):276–286

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Kenteris M, Gavalas D, Economou D (2011) Electronic mobile guides: a survey. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15(1):97–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kurata Y, Hara T (2014) CT-Planner4: toward a more user-friendly interactive day-tour planner. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on information and communication technologies in tourism, pp 73–86

  12. Labadi N, Melechovský J, Wolfler Calvo R (2011) Hybridized evolutionary local search algorithm for the team orienteering problem with time windows. J Heuristics 17:729–753

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Laporte G, Martello S (1990) The selective travelling salesman problem. Discret Appl Math 26(2):193–207

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Larsen J (2001) Tourism mobilities and the travel glance: experiences of being on the move. Scand J Hosp Tour 1(2):80–98

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Lourenço HR, Martin OC, Stützle T (2003) Iterated local search. Handbook of metaheuristics. Springer, Berlin, pp 320–353

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. McKean J, Johnson D, Walsh R (1995) Valuing time in travel cost demand analysis: an empirical investigation. Land Econ 71:96–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pu P, Chen L, Hu R (2011) A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on recommender systems, pp 157–164

  18. Ricci F (2010) Mobile recommender systems. Inf Technol Tour 12(3):205–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shoval N, Isaacson M (2007) Tracking tourists in the digital age. Ann Tour Res 34(1):141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Souffriau W, Vansteenwegen P (2010). Tourist trip planning functionalities: state of the art and future. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on current trends in web engineering, pp 474–485

  21. Souffriau W, Vansteenwegen P, Berghe GV, Van Oudheusden D (2011) The planning of cycle trips in the province of East Flanders. Omega 39(2):209–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vansteenwegen P, Souffriau W, Vanden Berghe G, Van Oudheusden DV (2009) Iterated local search for the team orienteering problem with time windows. Comput Oper Res 36:3281–3290

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Vansteenwegen P, Souffriau W, Van Oudheusden D (2011) The orienteering problem: a survey. Eur J Oper Res 209(1):1–10

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Vansteenwegen P, Souffriau W, Vanden Berghe G, Van Oudheusden D (2011) The city trip planner: an expert system for tourists. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):6540–6546

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the EU FP7/2007–2013 Programme under Grant Agreements No. 288094 (eCOMPASS—‘eco-Friendly Urban Multi-Modal Route Planning Services for Mobile Users’) and No. 621133 (HoPE—‘Holistic Personal public Eco-mobility’).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean, Hermoúpolis, Syros, Greece

    Damianos Gavalas

  2. Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece

    Vlasios Kasapakis

  3. Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece

    Charalampos Konstantopoulos

  4. Department of Informatics, Technological Educational Institution of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Grammati Pantziou

  5. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Nikolaos Vathis

  6. Computer Technology Institute and Press `Diophantus’ (CTI), Patras, Greece

    Damianos Gavalas, Vlasios Kasapakis, Charalampos Konstantopoulos, Grammati Pantziou & Nikolaos Vathis

Authors
  1. Damianos Gavalas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vlasios Kasapakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charalampos Konstantopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Grammati Pantziou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaos Vathis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damianos Gavalas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gavalas, D., Kasapakis, V., Konstantopoulos, C. et al. Scenic route planning for tourists. Pers Ubiquit Comput 21, 137–155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0971-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0971-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation