Integration over intensity: field-experimental evidence on phygital design in heritage tourism

Abstract This study investigates whether increasing digital intensity actually improves heritage tourism experiences, or whether the real value driver is how well technology is integrated with the tour guide. We report a Latin-square quasi-experiment conducted in the Gothic Cathedral Tower of Oviedo (Spain) with 135 paying visitors distributed across nine guided groups. Three guided-visit designs were compared under operational conditions: a traditional format with a guide and on-site video screens (S1), a guide plus non-immersive augmented reality (AR) through tablet overlays (S2), and a guide plus semi-immersive AR media triggered by QR codes (S3). Thirteen experience dimensions—including affective experience, immersion/presence, narrative coherence, authenticity, perceived value, satisfaction, and revisit intention—were assessed using linear mixed models, with Technological interaction and phygital integration serving as manipulation checks. Results show a clearly nonlinear pattern. The semi-immersive AR design (S3) achieves the highest evaluations on most outcomes, the traditional configuration (S1) occupies an intermediate position, and the non-immersive AR scenario (S2) consistently performs worst. This decline in S2 is consistent with its markedly lower scores in usability and integration, indicating that technological intensity without integration can harm the experience. Presence and narrative coherence emerge as plausible mechanisms linking phygital design to satisfaction and perceived authenticity, calling into question the assumption that “more technology” automatically produces “better experiences.” Theoretically, the study provides rare field-based evidence that, in heritage tourism, phygital integration is more critical than digital intensity. For managers and designers, the findings highlight the need to prioritize seamless guide–technology handoffs, narrative alignment, and low cognitive load to foster authentic, heads-up experiences rather than screen-centric ones. Limitations related to the single-site setting and single-item measures point to future research with validated multi-item scales, additional heritage sites, and more diverse visitor segments.