# Assessing the Value of Information in an Augmented Reality City Experience
## 3 Method
### Procedure  
We implemented a between-subjects design in both experiments. Participants installed the TIY app on their mobile phones. Each session lasted up to 90 min. We collected data through the TIY mobile application, recording user interactions and behaviors. This included tour duration, the accumulation of points of interest visited during the tour, and the geolocation of each action undertaken by the participant. At each point of interest, we collected users' information evaluation through a built-in rating mechanism, ranging from 1 star (lowest satisfaction) to 5 stars (highest satisfaction). This rating system allowed us to quantify participants' subjective reactions to the information presented at each location on a standardized scale.  
**First experiment**: participants were randomly divided into four independent groups: consumers or producers, with or without AR. The consumer groups were tasked with following pre-designed tours, while the producer groups created their own tours. At each point of interest, all participants evaluated their experience using a 1-5-star rating system within the app.  
**Second experiment**: this experiment involved two randomly assigned independent groups of students acting as information producers. The key experimental variable was whether they had access to AR features in their tour creation. The non-AR group used only the basic functionality of the TIY app (text-based tour information), while the AR group had access to additional AR features, such as virtual objects and interactive elements, which they could incorporate into their personalized tours.  
To compare how using AR (versus non-AR) affects participants' perceived value of the tours they produce, we implemented a pre-post questionnaire using a Google Form. Thus, in the second experiment data collected includes all available data as in the first experiment, such as tour duration, number of POIs, and geolocation data of participant actions, as well as a pre-post Google Form questionnaire. The questionnaire measured participants' willingness-to-accept (WTA) and willingness-to-pay (WTP) before and after the production of information (see Table 1 for full details). For example, to assess WTA, participants were asked how much they would charge if they could sell the tour route they had built, including all the information on it. For WTP, participants were asked how much they would be willing to pay for a tour with similar features.  
To provide context for pricing, we introduced a hypothetical market price for a reference point. Participants were informed of this market price and could suggest buying or selling their tour below, equal to, or above this market price. This market price was a fixed value used across all conditions and was not influenced by participants' decisions. This approach allowed us to compare participants' valuations relative to a standard reference point.  
Additionally, after completing the tour, participants answered three knowledge questions (closed-ended questions with one correct answer) about the points of interest in their route, allowing us to assess learning.  
Table 1 describes the variables and corresponding hypotheses for each experiment.