Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

The presence of tourists and residents in shared travel photos T

∗
Adel Nikjoo, Hamed Bakhshi
ACECR- Institute for Tourism Research, Iran

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aims to reveal the extent of human presence in travel photos shared in the social media by tourists
Travel photography who traveled to Iran. We unearthed the host-guest interaction that is distinctive in those photos. To do so, we
Tourist behavior investigated 812 random photos shared by 186 tourists on Facebook. We employed quantitative and qualitative
Residents content analysis to categorize and define photos. We found that people are absent in sixty percent of shared
Travel interaction
photos. The biggest share of photos with the presence of humans comprise those featuring tourists and their
Social media
travel companions only, and in which portrait photos have the biggest share. About one third of photos with
human presence include residents only, and the western-dominance and reporting approach is noticeable. Only
in ten percent of all photos can tourists and hosts be seen beside each other, and we categorize these according to
three levels of interaction.

1. Introduction knowledge in this way creates meaningful tourism experiences (Wang,

Photography has long been tied to travel activities and for many it
seems impossible to imagine travel without taking any photos.
Photographing plays various roles in travel, such as proving the pre-
sence of a tourist at a destination (Hillman, 2007) and constructing
travel memories. The emergence of smartphones has made photo-
graphing less formulaic but more social (Larsen, 2008). To shape their
relationships, travelers try to share knowledge and experience through
social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Trip Advisor, and so on
(Munar & Jacobsen, 2014; Zeng & Gerritsen, 2014). Sharing travel
Park, & Fesenmaier, 2012). Thanks to the social media, tourists can be
in more than one place and they not only present themselves at the
travel destinations, but also in their own town and other places they
have friends and relatives (Larsen, 2006). Tourists in this dual position
are both actors and narrators, and they can share their travel experi-
ences immediately as it happens (Bell & Lyall, 2005).
Tourists tend to take different types of photos, ranging from his-
torical sites, modern attractions, nature, culture, and people
(Stepchenkova & Zhan, 2013). For many tourists, locals are merely
objects similar to other tourist attractions, but others try to engage in

∗
Corresponding author. ACECR, Institute for Tourism Research, Ferdowsi University Campus, 1459974111, Iran.
E-mail address: Social@hbakhshi.com (H. Bakhshi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.005
Received 26 April 2018; Received in revised form 6 August 2018; Accepted 7 August 2018
Available online 13 August 2018
0261-5177/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
deeper communication with locals, and taking a photo can serve as a
way to start this communication (Yang, Hu, & Wall, 2017). Cohen, Nir,
and Almagor (1992) argue that it is necessary to study the photo-
grapher–photographee interaction in travel.
Although some researchers have studied different aspects of travel
photography, travel photo-sharing (Hillman, 2007; Lo, McKercher, Lo,
Cheung, & Law, 2011; Prideaux, Lee, & Tsang, 2018), the interaction
between host and tourist (Yang et al., 2017), and the role of photo-
graphy in this interaction (Cohen et al., 1992; Richard, 1979), many
aspects of travel photography remain as yet under-explored. The pe-
netration of social media through which tourists are able to share their
travel photos and experiences provides a good opportunity for in-
vestigating their travel behavior. One of the travel behaviors that can be
investigated through these shared photos is the interaction between
tourists and hosts. In this study, we aimed to analyze human presence in
photos shared via social media. So, we examine the presence of tourists
and hosts in these photos, and then we focus on the relationships be-
tween tourists and hosts which can be identified from the photos.
2. Travel photography
Photography is evidence showing the presence of tourists at desti-
nations. Tourists construct their travel memories and narrate their
stories through travel photos (Hillman, 2007). According to Hall
(1982), photographs are the results of peoples' attempts to make their
surroundings more meaningful even if they fail to express their actual
reality. According to Edensor (2000) tourists with a camera resemble
the directors of theater performances, in which photographed destina-
tions are a “stage” and locals, tourists, and their companions are the
“actors”. This role helps tourists to start a new kind of social relation-
ship with locals, and thereby produce myths and narratives (Stylianou-
Lambert, 2012).
Before taking a photo, something needs to attract the attention of
tourists. Urry started the literature on this specific area in 1990 through
his analysis of the “tourist gaze”. In light of emerging new technologies,
he later developed and refined the concept of the “tourist gaze”. For
instance, while in The Tourist Gaze 2.0 he referred the role of mass
media in shaping tourists' gaze before their travel to the destination
(Urry, 2002), in the latest version he argued that the role of mass media
is decreased by blurring boundaries between tourism and everyday life
(Urry & Larsen, 2011). Larsen (2006) understood the tourist gaze and
tourist photography as intertwined practices. He argues that tourists
interpret, evaluate and make a connection between signs and their re-
ferents, and then take photographs representing those signs. Maoz
(2006) showed that the gaze is not confined to tourists, but locals ex-
perienced a mutual gaze with those tourists.
But what do tourists capture in their photos? Bourdieu (2003) be-
lieves that tourists are not as free as they think when taking travel
photos, and they only take the kinds of photos that they are supposed to
take at tourism destinations. According to Albers and James (1988),
promotional materials generate their effects on tourists' minds and they
cannot escape from these pre-shaped imaginaries. They argued that
tourists complete a hermeneutic circle and they merely take photo-
graphs similar to their imaginaries with their own cameras. In fact, the
camera works as a filter or transparent wall distinguishing known from
unknown and gives a sense of security and control (Stylianou-Lambert,
2012). Schroeder, 2002(p. 72) considers the superficiality of tourist
experiences that leads to creating trivial and clichéd photographs: ‘‘the
ritual act of photography seemed paramount—one must take a picture
when confronted with such an important sight. The camera acts as a
proxy for seeing”. So, the camera is an unsuccessful tool as far as
making travel experiences more fruitful; rather, it is a barrier to gaining
an authentic and pure travel experience (Stylianou-Lambert, 2012).
Some conventions such as structural factors, visual conventions, and
cultural constructions of destinations, as well as photographic etiquette,
can affect those personal photographs (Stylianou-Lambert, 2012). In
90
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
contrast, some researchers (Gillet, Schmitz, & Mitas, 2016; Larsen,
2008) have viewed travel photography as an active process through
which tourists create original and creative images that have special
meaning for them.
An example of these conventions is the Western dominance per-
spective amongst some tourists. The “violence of the letter” occurs
when a dominant culture encounters another culture and writes about it
or reports it (Spurr, 1993). The dominance of the Westerner over exotic
others is also observed in photographic performances in which locals
are considered as natives, indigenous, and primitive representations of
cultures (Scarles, 2012). In this case, locals are considered as passive
and disempowered pawns whereas tourists are all assumed to be
powerful individuals who act regardless of external factors (Edensor,
2001). To examine this phenomenon, Caton and Santos (2008) studied
photographs taken by students during the “semester on the sea” pro-
gram. Even in the ideal conditions in which students are encouraged to
understand cross-cultural issues and reduce stereotypes, their photo-
graphs nevertheless presented locals as exotic others who were gazed
upon by students through a lens of myth. Cohen (1989) showed that the
remote, primitive, and authentic are considered desirable by all tour-
ists. Perhaps this is why tourists and DMOs (Destination Marketing
Organizations) exclude mundane and unattractive tourists from their
photographic frame in order to escape everyday routines and represent
a sense of myth (Markwell, 1997).
Through emerging social media and digital cameras, the act of
photographing behavior has become more social. The switch from the
analog camera to the digital has made photographing less formulaic but
more individualized (Larsen, 2008). Sharing activities during travel
offers tourists the opportunity to create meaningful travel experiences
(Wang et al., 2012). The camera is also turned into a useful tool for
presenting the “self” (Van House et al., 2004). Tourists spend a lot of
time presenting an ideal image of the self that represents their
achievements and dreams, which they wish to be seen through the
photos they capture in the course of their travels (Stylianou-Lambert,
2012).
One of the most encouraging aspects of photographing is the dif-
ference between tourists (Gillet et al., 2016; Nijland, Hastedt, & Mitas,
2014, p. 22) that leads to the creation of photos with different per-
spectives and personal meanings. Solo travelers, for instance, take
fewer photos than people who travel with their companions (Konijn,
Sluimer, & Mitas, 2016) or backpackers who gaze upon conventional
and superficial behaviors of other tourists especially older ones
(Holloway, Green, & Holloway, 2011). Regarding nationality, tourists
from North and South America, as well as Asians, normally take more
photos in a single day in comparison with Europeans (Konijn et al.,
2016).
3. Tourism interaction
Residents of a destination at first behave in a friendly manner with
tourists, offer their hospitality with no expectation of return, and
sometimes treat tourists as their distinguished guests (Berno, 1999).
This friendly approach is exposed to change with the rapid develop-
ment of tourism and the appearance of negative impacts of other cul-
tures on the destination (Berno, 1999). Gradually, the original psy-
chological and sociocultural communication between host and guest is
replaced with an overt transaction with money in which hosts gain
money through entertaining tourists (Dann & Cohen, 1991). In this kind
of commercialized hospitality, the role of residents has evolved from
host into merchant (Cohen, 1988; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1995). Host-
guest interactions can be categorized into five types; a) presence of
tourists and locals in the destination with no meaningful interaction, b)
seeking information and help by tourists, c) business relationships, d)
mutual understanding by both sides, and e) deep social interactions (Su,
Long, Wall, & Jin, 2016). Thus, the interaction between tourists and
hosts has different aspects and includes emotional expression such as
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
eye contacts, facial expression, a glance, and even taking photographs
(Yang et al., 2017).
Travel photography as the most common behavior of tourists is able
to provide opportunities for tourists and locals to communicate
(Richard, 1979). However, this kind of interaction encapsulates the
relationship in photographer-photographee interaction (Cohen et al.,
1992) that increases inequality. Tourists tend to take their ideal photos
in their own way and target natural portraits of locals without their
awareness (Yang et al., 2017). This attitude in photographing under-
mines the chance of communication, as tourists take their photos and
leave nothing for locals (Yang et al., 2017). Some locals gradually ex-
hibit especially those gestures that MacCannell (1987) called “staged
authenticity” – a fake gesture that is not authentic at all. In this case, in
which locals imitate stereotyped gestures and tourists capture those
superficial photographs, tourists and hosts may never understand each
other and their real cultures (Yang et al., 2017). In contrast, mutual
dialogue between tourists and locals may improve their relationship
and change an “I-It” relationship to “I-You” (Yang et al., 2017). While
the “I-It” relationship reveals the dominance of one culture over an-
other, the “I-You” presents a large world that includes many friendly
cultures offering love, sincerity, and a pure relationship for both sides.
The presence of locals affects tourists’ behavior, experiences, and
satisfaction (Pizam, Uriely, & Reichel, 2000; Su & Wall, 2010; Yang,
Ryan, & Zhang, 2013). Tourists do not benefit from this interaction
alone, and it also has positive advantages for locals such as enhancing
their sense of pride and the feeling that their culture is respected (Gu &
Ryan, 2012). Such relationships between hosts and tourists are far more
limited in instances of mass tourism (Wall & Mathieson, 2006) and mass
tourists' attitudes toward locals are not comparable with those of
younger travelers and bloggers who report locals in the most positive
terms (Duffy, 2017).
4. Method
This study aims to find out what photos tourists take in the course of
their travels, and how human presence is configured of in those photos.
Furthermore, we tried to understand the role of people and interactions
between host community and guest through shared travel photos. We
carried out a mixture of qualitative and quantitative content analysis to
analyze the data.
As the main aim of this project was to estimate the ratio of human
presence in photos taken by foreign tourists in Iran, we use the quan-
titative sampling approach to assemble a representative sample which
can be generalized to the wider population. To do so, we investigate
812 photos shared on Facebook from 186 tourists who traveled to Iran
in 2015. There are various media that allow people to share their
photos including Flickr, Pinterest, Facebook, and so on. We chose
Facebook because it is the biggest social media platform, and not only
professional travelers but also most ordinary tourists with varying le-
vels of travel experience use this media to share their experiences. To
find international tourists who traveled to Iran in the period between
2012 and 2016, we first searched for major Iranian travel destinations
in order to find Facebook profiles belonging to international tourists
who travel to Iran. Tehran as the capital, and Isfahan as the major
tourism city of Iran, were searched on Facebook for international
tourists profiles. These two cities are considered as the gateways for
international tourist arrivals in Iran. We then used snowball sampling to
find other destinations of which tourists also share photos via Facebook.
As one of the authors who was designated to extract profiles and photos
worked in the tourism industry, utilizing the Facebook search engine
with his account yielded many tourists who were ‘friends’ with the
author or were 'friends with his friends. Therefore, we created a new
Facebook account for extracting profiles so as to reduce the bias in the
sample selection process. As many people make their Facebook account
private, we discarded investigating private profiles. When we were
extracting profiles, we only chose five random photos, and if they
91
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
published fewer than five photos, we used all of their shared photos
from Iran. In order to consider ethical to include in publication's visual
documentation we contacted the profile holders of Facebook photo-
graphs presented in this paper and received permission to use them.
Many of whom we asked to use their photos were curious about the
article, and asked whether which of their photos was used and what is
the content regarding to their photos.
In order to obtain a categorical framework to count human presence
in tourists' photos, we engaged in thematic analysis. As Braun and
Clarke (2006) elaborated, we created six phases to create a meaningful
pattern. After the familiarization with data, we extracted initial codes,
searched for themes among codex, reviewed them, defined and named
themes, fulfilled several cycles between these steps, and then we cre-
ated the final categories. Based on this qualitative content analysis, we
categorized what tourists share in social media from photos they cap-
tured during their travel. We also counted different themes that exist in
photos as well as the quality of human presence using a qualitative
content analysis framework suggested by Neuendorf (2016).
We divided photos into four clusters: photos that included no
people, photos with the presence of tourists only, photos showing hosts
only, and photos with the presence of hosts and tourists together or
interaction photos. The extent of presence of humans in each frame of
the photos was the main criterion to categorize each of “tourist only
photos” and “hosts only photos” into three groups. Portrait photos were
close-up photos from tourists or hosts in which people occupied more
than two thirds of the photo frame. The second group included photos
that reveal the equal importance of the attraction and people. The third
group consists of photos with a focus on the attraction, but in which
tourists or hosts occupy a little space in the frame. We also categorized
interaction photos into three groups on the basis of the levels of in-
teractions in photos. We score photos according to some behaviors such
as smiling, placing a hand on the other's shoulder, the closeness of body
and face together, and symbolic and mutual behavior.
5. Findings
We analyzed a sample of 812 photos from 186 tourists who traveled
to Iran in the 2012–2016 period. Men and women had about equal
share in the selected photos. The majority of photos (65%) were shared
online by younger tourists (those under 40 years old) and the rest were
taken by older tourists. Two thirds of the photos were shared by
European tourists in which Eastern and Western parts of Europe had an
equal share. Tourists from other parts of the world such as America and
Asia comprise the remainder.
Historical monuments were presented in about half of the photos
(46%) shared online to narrate travels to Iran. The tendency to take
monument photos while ignoring human presence seems to be common
in many other countries (Stepchenkova & Zhan, 2013). It is important
to know that the inbound tourism to Iran is mostly dependent upon its
cultural attractions, in particular the 21 UNESCO World Heritage Sites
in 2017 that locate Iran among top 10 countries with the most cultural
attractions (UNESCO, 2017). According to the national data (Ichto,
2017) the biggest share of Iranian tourism arrivals belongs to pilgrims
from Shia Muslim countries like Iraq, Pakistan and Azerbaijan who
travel to Mashhad – a religious city in the northeast of Iran. However,
these pilgrims come to Iran with religious goals, and they are less likely
to share their travel experience online. We only found few international
profiles that narrated religious travel to Iran.
Iran is also a vast land embracing various natural resources and
attractions, not to mention beautiful beaches. However, in light of the
strict Islamic rules, it is not attractive for international tourists to spend
their vacations on beaches with various religious restrictions such as
separate swimming beaches for different genders and the lack of any
alcoholic drinks. Under such conditions, cultural travels to the classic
travel routes of Iran are most encouraged by both Iranian authorities
and international travel agencies. These are some of the factors that
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
Fig. 1. a) A photo of Persepolis taken by a tourist that is very similar to those in media and adverts b) A photo from the same place but with personal meaning c) The
same place but tourist adds some artistic embellishments d) A proof of presence by standing in the frame.
account for the high proportion of photos featuring historical attrac-
tions in Iran in comparison with many other countries.
In addition to photos of historical monuments, about 27% of shared
photos show social and cultural aspects of Iran including folkways and
environmental spaces such as streets, buildings, etc. With the exception
of folkway photos, the absence of humans was prominent in other ca-
tegories such as historical monuments and photos of nature. Some other
studies have also reported that tourists tend to take these sorts of
human-less photos. It seems that many tourists take the photos that
they ‘must take’ (Albers & James, 1988; Bourdieu, 2003) because they
have seen those monuments in travel adverts and this was a reason to
choose the destination. Due to the role of social media, mental clichés
force them to take those photos as soon as they see them (Urry & Larsen,
2011). While many of these photos are mere conventional images that
can found in most media, even in the same perspective, some have
personal meaning for tourists. Some tourists also tend to show their
photographing skill by adding some artistic embellishments to photos
of attractions. In the case of Iran, many of the photos taken by tourists
in Persepolis and Naqsh-e-Jahan square belonged to this category
(Fig. 1).
5.1. Human presence
People were present in more than one third (37.0%) of all photos
shared by tourists. These consist of tourists, hosts, or tourists and hosts
together. About half of the photos (43.2%) which have a human pre-
sence were photos tourists had taken alone or with their friends. About
one third of photos with a human presence (34%) include photos
showing hosts only. Little more than a quarter of all human presence
photos include tourists and hosts together, of which 88% show host-
guest interaction.
Regarding human presence in shared photos, we identify four
groups; absence of humans, tourists only, hosts only, and host-guest
92
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
interaction. We also divide the photos, in terms of types of attraction,
into six groups; historical monuments, modern monuments, nature,
folkways and rituals, services, and environmental spaces. Then, re-
gardless of the share of each of these groups, we compare the role of
humans in different types of photos as seen in Chart 1.
According to chart 1, the most human presence was to be found in
photos of folkways, and the majority of these photos present hosts only.
Conversely, the least human presence is in photos of environmental
spaces in cities and villages. In addition, people were found to be pre-
sent more in nature photos than in monument ones. While the presence
of tourists in monument photos is noticeable, locals can be seen more in
photos of folkways. In the following, we elaborate each kind of human
presence in photos.
Photos with just tourists
Thanks to qualitative content analysis and an inductive approach,
we categorized photos presenting only tourists into three groups;
a) Tourist portrait – in which tourists are the main focus of the photo
and different backgrounds are chosen to make the photo more at-
tractive.
b) Equal importance of tourists and attraction – in which the self and
the attraction are both important and occupied relatively equal
space in the photo.
c) Stamp photos – in which the attraction is the main focus of the
photo but tourists appear in the photo to prove they were present
beside the attraction.
In all photos that present tourists only, the share of photos with
tourist dominance is 40%, photos with equal importance of tourists and
attraction account for 40%, and stamp photos amount to 20%.
Sometimes tourists appear alone in this category. It seems that in all
photos in this group, tourists' presence in the frame is a kind of stamp
authorizing the attraction. In other words, they wish to show their
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
Fig. 2. A selfie photo with an attraction.
friends and relatives that they really were in that place (Hillman, 2007).
When taking these photos, tourists are careful enough to have im-
portant aspects of the attraction in the background. These photos, in-
cluding a tourist alone with an attraction as background, are suitable
photos for setting as a profile picture on the social media page. Thus, in
these photos tourists try to take a series of photos to satisfy their ideal
position and perspective (Stylianou-Lambert, 2012). Fig. 2 shows such
an instance in which a female tourist tries to take a beautiful photo
thanks to the colorful glass of the Nasir ol-Mulk mosque in Shiraz-Iran.
This mosque is always full of tourists and it seems that the young
woman tries to exclude other tourists from her frame. The emergence of
travel social media such as TripAdvisor encourages many tourists to
check these travel advisory webpages looking for information regarding
their future ‘must see’ attractions (Tribe & Mkono, 2017). In this case,
many tourists already know about the kaleidoscope-like glass of the
mosque because they have seen various photos of other tourists in the
same place before. In fact, they go there to have a look at the mosque
and more importantly to take such stereotypical photos.
When tourists publish their travel photos on their social media page,
they try to improve their relationship with others (Munar & Jacobsen,
2014; Zeng & Gerritsen, 2014); it is important to appreciate that by
appearing in social media, tourists are not only demonstrating their
presence at the destinations but they are also engaging with their family
members and friends, and through comments and messages they can
communicate with those friends.
Tourists are not always alone in their travel photos and sometimes
they take photos alongside their friends and family members. Tourists
are able to create more meaningful experiences by taking photos with
their travel companions (Wang et al., 2012). Many tourists then share
their photos with their companions, talk about their mutual experi-
ences, review their memories, and have fun with this activity.
Photos with just hosts
One third of photos which include a human presence were taken
featuring hosts only. We categorized these photos into three groups;
a) Portraits – a close up of host people.
b) Host alongside the attraction – photos focused on host people but
which include attractions too.
c) Attraction alongside host – photos show both attraction and host
with the dominance of the attraction.
Our data show that 35% of host photos are hosts' portrait and the
photos in which the attraction is dominant are twice the number of
photos with the main focus on hosts. While traveling, more ‘exotic’
people are more suitable for photographing. Tourists seek locals who
are more similar to their preconceived ideas about that society and its
93
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
Fig. 3. An out of date taxi in Shiraz-Iran.
people (Caton & Santos, 2008). While due to the globalization, many
Iranians wear similar cloths to Westerners, tourists nevertheless tend to
take photos of Iranians in different clothing and appearance. Tourists in
fact try to make a connection between their signs and their referents
(Larsen, 2006). According to Stylianou-Lambert (2012), when Western
tourists travel to the East or less developed countries, they think they
are reporters who should make a record of other peoples' lifestyle.
While tourists and their friends in their mother country believe that
Iran is a less developed country, tourists try to publish images similar to
their mental stereotypes. Fig. 3 shows a very old taxi in Shiraz-a big city
near Persepolis. Very few of these taxies exist in Iran now and the
government started rejuvenation of the city's transportation system
many years ago. Similarly, shared photos show other aspects of back-
wardness such as a very old minibus terminal that is used only for
transportation between villages. It seems that if something looks older
it is more favorably received by Western tourists. Not all tourists,
however, take a similar approach, and some share photos different from
the expected image of a destination. Such tourists have, for example,
shared photos showing modern aspects of the country like photos from
the subway that present a modern element of a city, or modern Iranian
buses and roads.
Many Iranian people are satisfied with this tourist reporting ap-
proach and believe that through this electronic word of mouth, more
people in other parts of the world can see the real Iran and understand
real Iranians. However, this approach of Western travelers is a symbol
of Western dominance over other nations. Although Western travelers
take numerous photos in such countries as Iran, when they finally
confront the dilemma of selecting a few of those photos for their social
media page, they are more likely to select those deemed ‘different’ and
‘exotic’, because these photos generate more ‘likes’ and comments,
something that is considered a kind of self-affirmation.
In some cases, tourists take a photo to initiate communication, or at
least this activity is considered as a low level of interaction (Yang et al.,
2017). Some tourists when facing locals and wishing to communicate
with speakers of different languages, have no communicational tools
but their camera, and now thanks to smart phones, this tool is available
for almost all tourists. It is interesting that it is not a one-way activity
and Iranians also take photographs of tourists to show their friends. Iran
is a Muslim country that is governed by an Islamic government. Tour-
ists, as soon as they arrive in Iran, are told to be careful when taking
photos of locals so as to avoid any probable conflict with a society that
is sensitive about women. Even under such conditions, tourists feel freer
to take photos of locals, and it seems locals are afraid that their ob-
jections to the act of photographing may annoy tourists. It seems that
this difference in attitude between guests and the host community
comes back to the sense of power among Western travelers, a sense that
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
Fig. 4. a) A grocery store b) Kids and their mentor in a park c) Pomegranate selling beside a road d) A normal day in Naqsh-e-Jahan square in Isfahan
Caton and Santos (2008) previously noted. Nonetheless, they believe
that this kind of communication is not profound enough to forge a deep
relationship between host and guest communities.
Although normally there is no oppressive intention among tourists
at the moment of taking photos of locals, sometimes, they involuntary
disparage the position of hosts by treating them as a simple object
suitable for photographing, or by equating them to a mere travel at-
traction (Yang et al., 2017). Thus, in this case, there is no difference
between attractions on the one hand, and locals on the other who are
gazed upon by tourists with a powerful tool such as a camera.
If as (Edensor, 2000) noted, we can consider the destination as a
theatre stage, locals normally are passive actors in the play and their
best roles would be smiling and gazing into the camera lens, while
tourists are the directors of the play. They are completely free to decide
which of locals are suitable for their play. Fig. 4 shows some photos of
Iranians shared by Western tourists via their social media.
The majority of photos taken by tourists in which present hosts only
are considered as a kind of narrating of ordinary customs of the local
society. Image a for example shows a small grocery store. The old man
is a passive actor in the photo and is completely neutral to the camera.
It is the same in the image b, and it seems the tourist captures the
moment and finds an ideal subject for narrating in his/her social media.
In images c and d it seems that locals are aware of the act of photo-
graphing; the man is looking at the camera and the girl is checking her
hijab, something that is an involuntary reaction when feeling being
gazed upon for many women in Iran.
While investigating the photos, in many photos of attractions with
the presence of humans, we found that in the majority of them foreign
tourists were ignored and the presence of locals seems to be preferable
for the photo-taker. This is completely in line with Markwell's (1997)
findings. It seems that the presence of locals around attractions serves
to authenticate their photos. We also can equate this behavior with the
attempt to escaping from routines. Nevertheless, it is sometimes diffi-
cult to wait to take an ideal photo and time limitations, for example, do
not allow all tourists to take ideal photos with their favored elements
and absence of unfavorable ones. Apparently, people who travel by
94
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
scheduled tours experience more constraints while trying to take ideal
photos, and therefore they are more prone to take superficial photos
similar to those already available in many media. We found some dif-
ferences between photos taken by younger and older tourists. For in-
stance, photos of folkways were more commonly taken by older tour-
ists.
Photos of interaction between hosts and tourists
We categorized photos which illustrate a kind of interaction in
terms of the extent of interaction and closeness showed in the photo
into these categories:
1. Tourists and hosts stand or sit beside each other.
2. Tourists and hosts present a joint positive emotion, especially a
distinctive mutual smile, putting their hand on the other's shoulder,
and bringing their faces close together.
3. Tourists and hosts present an intentional symbolic mutual behavior
or gesture.
Forty percent of photos with tourism interaction present the least
level of interaction and only show people of two communities simply
standing together. One third of interaction photos (31.7%) show
average levels of host-guest interaction according to our category and
include a smile or levels of touching. Less than 30% of interaction
photos (28.3%) present higher levels of interaction.
The interaction between tourists and hosts that was seen in some
photos leads to a mutual understanding between guest and host com-
munities. It increases the positive attitudes toward tourism among the
host society. According to Stylianou-Lambert (2012), tourists wish to
show themselves off in social media and tell their friends that they are
able to forge a deep communication with a local community. Many of
travelers wish to say “people are people all around the world”. People
in these kinds of photos are generally seen in normal clothing.
At the first level of interactional photos, we can only see tourists and
hosts sitting or standing beside each other. It is important to know that
there is a dearth of literature in this area and it was hard to categorize
the interaction between tourists into different groups. However, we
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
Fig. 5. a) A tourist sitting among a group of soldiers (Photo by Ionut Baragan) b) A group of tourists from Romania and a group of Iranian residents stand together in
a house of traditional sports
tried to categorize interaction between tourists and hosts based on their
behavior in their published photos. While we tried to provide an ap-
propriate category for these photos, it is possible that the interactions
between hosts and tourists might in fact have been greater or fewer in
number than we distinguished from their published photos. Fig. 5
shows two examples of the first level of interaction. The first image
shows a young boy in blue who sat beside some local soldiers. It is
obvious that they do not know each other. Locals are a kind of attrac-
tion for the tourists. Although they do not know each other, it seems
that they feel the presence of the other side and do not have any pro-
blem with that. The soldiers probably know that they are interesting for
the tourist. They try to continue talking together and present a neutral
behavior in front of the camera. The tourist on the other hand seems to
be happy to find an appropriate subject for photography. This subject is
neither a historical monument nor is it a natural attraction, but it is
locals who look interesting for the tourist and draw him to take a photo
beside them. We also place the second image in the first level of in-
teraction. The image shows a group of tourists visiting a house of tra-
ditional sports. They took a memorial photo with the people in charge
of the house after their visit. Although individuals of both groups have a
smile, we consider this photo to be at the lower level of interaction.
While smiling is an important factor in our category, some smiles are
obviously a photographic feature. Although in Figs. 3 and 4 we present
95
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
people in local and specific clothing, the majority of interaction photos
were with Iranian youth in normal clothing. Younger Iranians are more
likely to talk foreign languages and have more chance to communicate
with foreigners. It is interesting that this smiling figure is more common
amongst tourists than Iranian hosts. Three tourists out of five (60%)
have a smiling visage, far greater than the 20% of hosts who are smiling
in such photos.
Some smiles are deeper especially when both parties show a smile or
at least a sense of it. It reveals more interaction when it is combined
with hugging or putting arm around the other's shoulder. Fig. 6 shows
two of these interactions.
After the 1979 revolution in Iran, an Islamic regime has been gov-
erning the country. Communicating with religious people seems inter-
esting to some tourists. The first image shows an interaction between a
young tourist and a religious man in Iran. It seems that the tourist in the
image had a good experience that he wanted to share by posting a
photo on his social media page.
The second image shows a more intimate photo of relationship
between host and guest. It is obvious that this kind of relationship does
not come from a simple interaction and exposes a deeper bond. The
tourist shows her deeper connection to the host by sharing their mutual
photo on her social media page, and this sharing behavior increases the
chance of further communication in future. It seems they are not just
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98

Fig. 6. a) An American tourist sits beside a young clergyman b) Two tourists from New Zealand sat friendly among to a group of young girls from the host
community.

Fig. 7. a) A Canadian tourist and two Iranian girls in a private space b) A group of young tourists from Slovenia have breakfast with locals in the hosts' house.

some people who merely met each other while traveling, but they have
probably found new friends from a different culture. When we con-
tacted the profile owner to ask for her permission, she said “... I am
curious to know which one has interested you. I loved my visit to Iran...
every minute was especial”. And when we showed her the photo, she
responded “Ah yes! My scientific friends”.
Fig. 7 shows two images among our collection that reveal the
highest level of interaction between tourists and the host community. In
the first image, the tourist found this chance to experience a private
gathering or party in Iran. It is not to mention that women in Iran have
to hide their hair in public because of governmental rules, and stepping
into their private life requires a deeper level of communication between
Iranians and a foreigner. When we asked for her permission to use the
photo, she first said “Ok I will be in touch with them [the girls in the
photo] today...“ It was noticeable that she not only was in touch with
those girls yet, but also she knew that there are some considerations
about publishing women photos in Iran as a Muslim society, and it was
the reason she asked us to wait for the girls' permission. She then ex-
plained a bit more about the photo ”...all the girls in the photos are
sisters. This was Western New Year Eve and they decided to have a
surprise celebration for me in my hotel room.”
The second image shows tourists and hosts having their breakfast
together in the host place. Thanks to websites such as Couchsurfing,
tourists and hosts can find each other in any parts of the globe. In this
kind of interaction, travelers experience the lifestyle of locals and it
generates a better understanding between them. They have more time
to talk about their similarities and differences. Travelers have this
chance to place themselves into the context of locals' daily routines and

Chart. 1. Human presence frequency in photos by the content categories.

96
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
it helps them to judge locals more positively. This interaction also helps
locals to know and understand foreigners better. In less developed
countries like Iran this interaction with Western tourists can improve
the self-confidence among locals who are in touch with foreign tra-
velers.
At this level of communication, both sides try to know each other
better. Their smiles are more real than those in a commercial commu-
nication between tourists and service providers or local sellers. This is
one of the most important responsibilities of tourism in terms of
drawing cultures closer together and removing borders from the outset,
something that should be encouraged in the future.
6. Conclusion
The advent of the camera and social media has affected many as-
pects of human life such as traveling. It has influenced tourists' gaze and
their behavior in their journeys. This study aims to investigate the
presence of Iranians as locals in photos shared on Facebook by inter-
national tourists who traveled to Iran between 2012 and 2016.
Our data reveals the absence of any humans, either tourists or lo-
cals, in more than 60% of shared photos. Moreover, the most photos
with human presence comprise images of tourists themselves, and 34%
of those photos feature hosts only. This research shows that just a
quarter of photos with a human presence, or 10% of all photos, show
tourists and hosts together and interaction between them.
Tourists tend to take and share photos of themselves and their
companions for various reasons. The photo can serve as a memory of
the travel for them and also can act as proof that they were at the
destination. Sharing photos in social media helps tourists to commu-
nicate with their friends and inform them about their recent activities,
and enables them to manage the presentation of self.
According to our data, tourists when taking photos of locals, espe-
cially portrait photos, prefer to choose people whose appearance seems
more ‘local’ and compatible with their expectation of that society. This
result is completely in line with Markwell's (1997) results. Furthermore,
there is an obvious sense of reporting of local activities in photos shared
by Western tourists who traveled to Iran. It seems that locals are sa-
tisfied with this reporting approach when they have two reactions in
photos: they remain reluctant to be in the sights of the camera, or try to
be more active actors in the frame by smiling or gazing at the camera.
We also found out that there is some demographic deference among
tourists on the basis of their age. We categorized photos in which
tourists and locals were present in a single frame into three groups that
start from just sitting or standing beside each other to taking a photo to
that shows the highest level of interaction with tourists and hosts un-
dertaking mutual activities.
We are aware that our research may have some limitations. We
created some clusters for reporting the role of the human in shared
travel photos on the basis of the extent of the space that they occupied
in photos in comparison with the focus on attractions. Therefore, we
assess the importance of the presence of people in photos on the basis of
its share in those photos. However, there are some other approaches to
uncovering the role and importance of the presence of people in photos,
such as considering elements in the frame to differentiate between
photos or unearthing the focus of photographs. Nonetheless, it was
challenging to identify the precise the focus of photos, and it was for
this reason that we finally considered the occupied space as the main
feature of photos. It was also a challenge to understand the interaction
between guests and the host community through the shared photos. We
decided to define some signs such as shared smiles and mutual behavior
to create levels of interactions in photos. However, it is possible that
both parties smile to the camera merely as a gesture, and MacCannell
(1987) noted just these kind of gestures in his research. The other
limitation comes back to the use of Facebook as our source of data.
Some profiles were private and their shared photos were not accessible,
and we are aware that this is a kind of limitation and probably affected
97
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
our data. However, Facebook is the biggest social network and normal
people use this platform more than other websites to share their stories.
Research on tourists' behavior in social media is in its nascent steps
and it is crucial that researchers pay more attention to these media and
user-generated contents. Future studies can analyze travel photos
shared on Facebook and other social media by travelers from various
regions in the course of their travels to different countries. Other
methods to unearth meaningful deference in shared travel photos can
be employed in further studies. It seems also important to find out how
and why tourists choose some photos from their photo collection to
share on their social media page.
Funding
This project is funded by the department of tourism sociology at
ACECR, Institute for Tourism Research, Mashhad, Iran.
Authors' contribution
Dr. Bakhshi designed the study method and analyzed the data. He
also supervised the project. Adel Nikjoo collected photos and wrote the
manuscript. Both authors are responsible for the present idea, and they
interpreted the data together.
References
Albers, C. P., & James, R. W. (1988). Travel photography: A methodological approach.
Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)
90076-X.
Bell, C., & Lyall, J. (2005). Tourist performers at the crazy house, Dalat, Vietnam.
Continuum, 19(2), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310500084657.
Berno, T. (1999). When a guest is a guest: Cook islanders view tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(3), 656–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00002-X.
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Photography: A middle-brow art. Oxford: Polity Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Caton, K., & Santos, C. A. (2008). Closing the hermeneutic circle? Photographic en-
counters with the other. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2007.03.014.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X.
Cohen, E. (1989). Primitive and remote: Hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism
Research, 16(1), 30–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90029-7.
Cohen, E., Nir, Y., & Almagor, U. (1992). Stranger-local interaction in photography.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.16/0160-7383(92)
90078-4.
Dann, G., & Cohen, E. (1991). Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18,
155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90045-D.
Duffy, A. (2017). ‘The locals are friendly!’An empirical analysis of mobility and mooring
in travel blogs. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), 444–459. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1187192.
Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourist: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research,
27(2), 322–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00082-1.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism: Staging tourism: (Re) producing tourist space
and practice. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/
146879760100100104.
Gillet, S., Schmitz, P., & Mitas, O. (2016). The snap-happy tourist: The effects of photo-
graphing behavior on tourists' happiness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
40(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013491606.
Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2012). Tourism destination evolution: A comparative study of shi cha
hai Beijing hutong businesses' and residents' attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
20(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.610511.
Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of ideology: Return of the repressed in media studies. In
M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woollacott (Eds.). Culture, society and the
media (pp. 56–90). (London: Methuen).
Hillman, W. (2007). Travel authenticated?: postcards, tourist brochures, and travel
photography. Tourism Analysis, 12(3), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.3727/
108354207781626811.
Holloway, D., Green, L., & Holloway, D. (2011). The intratourist gaze: Grey nomads and
‘other tourists’. Tourist Studies, 11(1), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468797611432043.
Ichto (2017). Iran data. Retrieved from: http://www.ichto.ir/Portals/0/pdf/tourist-
statistics/96-1.pdf.
Konijn, E., Sluimer, N., & Mitas, O. (2016). Click to share: Patterns in tourist photography
and sharing. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 525–535. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jtr.2069.
Larsen, J. (2006). Geographies of tourist photography. Geographies of communication: The
spatial turn in media studies. Gothenburg: Nordicom.
A. Nikjoo, H. Bakhshi
Larsen, J. (2008). Practices and flows of digital photography: An ethnographic frame-
work. Mobilities, 3(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100701797398.
Lo, I. S., McKercher, B., Lo, A., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2011). Tourism and online pho-
tography. Tourism Management, 32(4), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2010.06.001.
MacCannell, D. (1987). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schocken
Books.
Maoz, D. (2006). The mutual gaze. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 221–239. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.10.010.
Markwell, K. W. (1997). Dimensions of photography in a nature-based tour. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(1), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(96)
00053-9.
Munar, A. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2014). Motivations for sharing tourism experiences
through social media. Tourism Management, 43, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.01.012.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
Nijland, D., Hastedt, L., & Mitas, O. (2014). Postcard makers and opportunists: Processes
of photographing behaviour. Papers presented at the 14th canadian congress on leisure
research (CCLR)Canada: Halifax -05-2014.
Pizam, A., Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). The intensity of tourist-host social relationship
and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: The case of working tourists in
Israel. Tourism Management, 21(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(99)00085-0.
Prideaux, B., Lee, L. Y. S., & Tsang, N. (2018). A comparison of photo-taking and online-
sharing behaviors of mainland Chinese and Western theme park visitors based on
generation membership. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 24(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1356766716682554.
Richard, M. C. (1979). Photography's role in tourism: Some unexplored relationships.
Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)
90006-9.
Scarles, C. (2012). The photographed other: Interplays of agency in tourist photography
in Cusco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 928–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.annals.2011.11.014.
Schroeder, J. (2002). Visual consumption. New York: Routledge.
Spurr, D. (1993). The rhetoric of empire: Colonial discourse in travel journalism, travel writing,
and imperial administration. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Stepchenkova, S., & Zhan, F. (2013). Visual destination images of Peru: Comparative
content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tourism Management, 36,
590–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.006.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2012). Tourists with cameras: Reproducing or producing? Annals
of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1817–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.
004.
Su, M. M., Long, Y., Wall, G., & Jin, M. (2016). Tourist–community interactions in ethnic
tourism: Tuva villages, Kanas Scenic Area, China. Journal of Tourism and Cultural
Change, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.976228.
Su, M. M., & Wall, G. (2010). Impacts of host-guest interactions on tourists' travel be-
havior and experiences. Tourism, 58(1), 37–50.
Tribe, J., & Mkono, M. (2017). Not such smart tourism? The concept of e-lienation. Annals
of Tourism Research, 66, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.001.
UNESCO, 2017. Iran. Retrieved from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ir.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London,
Newbury Park: SAGE Publications Ltd.
98
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 89–98
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0. London: Sage.
Van House, N., Davis, M., Takhteyev, Y., Good, N., Wilhelm, A., & Finn, M. (2004).
November). From “what?” to “why?” the social uses of personal photos. In: Proc. Of
CSCW 2004.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1995). Tourists and retailers' perceptions of services.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 763–780.
Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. Pearson:
Prentice Hall.
Wang, D., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2012). The role of smartphones in mediating the
touristic experience. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0047287511426341.
Yang, Z., Hu, H., & Wall, G. (2017). From gaze to dialogue: Host–guest relationships in
Lijiang, China, as illustrated by the case of Joseph F. Rock. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 22(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1179658.
Yang, J. J., Ryan, C., & Zhang, L. Y. (2013). Ethnic minority tourism in China – han
perspectives of Tuva figures in a landscape. Tourism Management, 36–45. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.001 2013.
Zeng, B., & Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about social media in tourism? A
review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.
2014.01.001.
Adel Nikjoo is affiliated with the ACECR Institute for
Tourism Research in Mashhad. He undertook some funded
research projects especially in the department of sociology
of tourism. Adel also is a lecturer at the Shandiz Institute of
Higher Education in Mashhad, Iran. He normally teaches
leisure industry, tourist behavior, and tourism economy.
His areas of interest include tourist behavior, tourist moti-
vation, social media, residents' attitude toward tourism,
wellbeing, and destination image. Email: A.nikjoo@
shandiz.ac.ir
Hamed Bakhshi is an Associate Professor, and the head of
the sociology of tourism department at ACECR Institute for
Tourism Research in Mashhad, Iran. He has a PhD in so-
ciology from Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. His areas of
interest are social aspects of tourism including destination
image, tourist behavior, and tourism-related social media.
He has published articles in peer-reviewed journals and has
taught sociology, media and tourism courses since 2008.
Email: social@hbakhshi.com