Bubble-wrapped sightseeing mobilities: Hop on–hop off bus experiences in Copenhagen

Introduction

Sightseeing buses have long been an integral aspect of the modern organisation of sightseeing tours and the ‘collective gaze’ (Urry and Larsen, 2011). Such tours are traditionally fixed in time and space. They start at a scheduled time from a specific place and the rhythms are collective, with participants moving together in concert, directed by the movement of the bus and oral guiding (Farías, 2010a, 2010b). Tourists are instructed to disembark when stopping at selected highlights and follow in the guide’s knowledgeable shoes. Such tours are highly ‘pre-formed’ (e.g. performed according to a script, see Larsen, 2005) and other-directed, even though tourists now and then do things against the script (Larsen and Meged, 2013; Tucker, 2007).

A more flexible sightseeing service now infiltrates many cities, including Copenhagen. This is the Hop On–Hop Off bus. The routes predominantly cover ‘must-see attractions’ within inner-city ‘tourist bubbles’ but intermittently take tourists off the most beaten tracks. Running in a circular route it encourages tourists to get on and off at any stop according to their plan, curiosity and pace. Rather than one fixed tour ticket, tourists buy a multi-day ticket that permits infinite rides for a day or two. This gives flexibility and freedom to roam at will while staying safely within a bubble-wrapped environment. Moreover, there is no live guide, as the commentary is pre-recorded and listened to with earphones, so this type of sightseeing is arguably less mediated and scripted (on the role of guides in sightseeing, see Jonasson and Scherle, 2012; Larsen and Meged, 2013). While guided bus tours have been relatively well researched, there are few studies of Hop On–Hop Off touring (but see Farías, 2010a, 2010b; Mueller, 2016; Sigala, 2019), especially on why and how tourists might use them.

In recognizing a relationship between tourist agency, micro-mobility and tourist bubble, this article explores the staging of the Hop On–Hop Off buses, bus-tour and actual embodied performances enacted by tourists on the move. We loosely draw on a performance-inspired terminology (Edensor, 2008; Larsen, 2005; Larsen and Urry, 2011) to explore the co-production of mundane tourist experiences. Following calls for not making moral judgements or belittling sightseeing tourists and understanding the mundane and active dimensions of all tourist practices (Edensor, 2020), we conduct empathetic research with and about them. We show that Hop On–Hop Off practices potentially undermine distinctions within tourism theory between (1) individual tourism and mass tourism, (2) self-directed active mobility (such as walking) and designed passive mobility (such as the sightseeing bus), (3) bubbles and local neighbourhoods and (4) gazing and glancing. In this sense, this study develops a critique of tourist theory where sightseeing practices and bubbles are still all too often associated with recurrent notions of passivity and being other-directed while neglecting moments and practices of self-directed and active movement.

We start by discussing the literature on bus sightseeing and tourist bubbles. Then we discuss our ethnographic method. Drawing on observations and especially interviews, our analysis discusses (1) how the tour is designed and how and why different tourists, (2) dwell, (3) sightsee, (4) ‘gaze’ and ‘glance’ and (5) customise their movement through different practices on these tours. Our findings and arguments will be summated in the conclusion.

Review: Sightseeing buses and ‘bubbles’

Some scholars have dealt with bus sightseeing mobility, however:

Problematically, tourist literature has overwhelmingly focused upon spatially extensive movements rather than the more modest, everyday mobilities that take place in comfortable, familiar surroundings . . . Paying attention to these ordinary routine pleasures further highlights a broader deficiency in the recent upsurge in writing about mobilities (Edensor, 2021: 18).

Yet we now discuss studies on sightseeing buses that have taken ‘ordinary routine pleasures’ and embodied sightseeing seriously. Mobilities scholar Jain (2009) examines the mundane everyday practices that bus commuters perform and how such performances co-produce buses. She also discusses how gazing from the window potentially makes journeys visually exciting. Similarly, Farías (2010a) suggests that sightseeing bus tours delineate ‘a unique geography of routes and stops (p. 387) along the beaten tracks of famous attractions and that the experience is analogous to a movie trailer resulting in a ‘montage of attractions’ (p. 389). This is also the case for Hop On–Hop Off buses (or here: City Circle Shuttle Bus):

Sightseeing bus-tours are not primarily a means of tourist transport. They are not just aimed at the transportation of tourists from one point of the city to the next. Some bus-tours fulfil this function, such as the City Circle Shuttle Bus, but even in this case their main function is the presentation, visualization and experience of the destination and of its most interesting sites, places and spaces (Farías, 2010b: 203).

Similarly, Larsen (2001) describes mobile sightseeing as ‘a visually cinematic’ experience of moving landscape images to the travelling yet corporally immobile ‘armchair spectator’ and he puts forward the notion of ‘travel glance’ to capture how people visually consume places in passing (p. 80). This article is somewhat related to Edensor and Holloway’s (2008) discussion of the rhythmic order of a 1-day collective coach tour in Ireland, where tourists are instructed to ‘hop off’ en masse at certain stops and perform collective tourist practices. They also show that such choreographies do not fully predetermine actual experiences. Adding that it is important to have an embodied perspective as peoples’ mobile experiences depend upon their bodily well-being: whether they are sweating or freezing, needing the toilet or feeling pain, thirst or hunger. Similarly, Larsen and Meged (2013) argue that bus tour participants are ‘co-producers’ rather than passive and uncritical consumers as they are portrayed in many critical studies (see Cunin and Rinaudo, 2008). More critically, for Lagerkvist (2013) sightseeing buses represent ‘banality’: ‘the buses themselves – once very modern – are, however, neither spectacular nor nostalgic objects . . . the buses have lost all newfangledness, and modernity, and will not accomplish any shiverings in the heart and soul of the tourist’ (p. 152). The reviewed literature focuses mainly on experiences and not so much on mundane mobility (Binnie et al., 2007). The latter is the focus in Sigala’s (2019) study of Hop On–Hop Off sightseeing buses in a wine district in rural New Zealand. She argues that they fulfil tourists’ need to be transported to remote vineyards and being able to drink wine without worrying about driving. This attention to micro-mobility is highly relevant for our study, but it should be mentioned that Sigala’s article is not based on research with users. Moreover, this reviewed literature highlights in different ways that sightseeing buses secure and traverse what we call bubble-wrapped environments, which leads us to the literature on tourist bubbles.

Methods

This article is qualitative and based on surveys, interviews and participant observations outside and especially inside these buses over 3 months during the autumn of 2019, focusing mainly on the most popular route, the ‘Classic Copenhagen Tour’(CCT). We entered the field by conducting 40 surveys. We interviewed tourists who were either waiting for or leaving the CCT bus. The survey covered questions about their age group, their stay in Copenhagen and if they had previously used this service. The survey was carried out via the SurveyMonkey platform. The template was created in advance and respondents filled in the survey on our phones/tablets or we did it for them based on their answers.

Then we conducted 50 shorter semi-structured interviews with people waiting for or disembarking from the CCT bus route. Our research took place outside the main tourist season when the two alternative routes were running less frequently. These interviews lasted between 5 and 15 minutes and covered why and how people use, understand and value this service. We did not ask for interviews on the bus as this would have been disruptive and awkward for those not interested. We also conducted three in-depth interviews spanning from 30 to 60 minutes with tourists who were particularly interested in our research. These interviews took place in nearby cafés. We interviewed retirees, families with children, young and elderly couples and solo travellers from Asia, South America, North America, Oceania and especially Europe. While some only visited Copenhagen, others were on a Scandinavian or European tour. Most respondents are female, which reflects that we only saw very few solo men or groups of men on the bus as most males were in a couple with a female. The interviews were then anonymised, transcribed and analysed.

Similar to Edensor and Holloway (2008) and Larsen and Meged (2013), we spent fifteen days observing tourists on these tours and how the bus affords opportunities for reverie, listening to music, conversing, getting warm and dry or browsing one’s phone. We sensed how the bus induces a comfortable sense of ‘dwelling-in-motion’ (Sheller and Urry, 2006). We conducted informal interviews with drivers and ticket sellers and an in-depth interview with a Strömma representative about how they discursively and materially stage and guide this experience and the gaze of the participants.

Staging

City Sightseeing is one of the global leading companies in Hop On–Hop Off tours, celebrating their twentieth anniversary in 2019 (it also provides boat tours, sightseeing train tours and guided walking tours in some cities). From day one, the business idea has been a uniform service in each city so that tourists would be offered:

[A] brand they could trust and be sure of the same quality and standards in each location. It was from this point that the synonymous red and yellow branding on double-deck open-top buses was created and started to appear around the globe and operating in more than one hundred cities. ¹

City Sightseeing works as a franchise model where it partners with local operators in numerous cities (City Sightseeing Worldwide, 2019). These local partners, such as Strömma, must follow the company’s design guidelines and ticketing and booking system. Strömma operates three Hop On–Hop Off routes in Copenhagen (as well as canal boats) and targets sightseeing tourists, especially those who desire a ‘guiding hand’ to explore the city’s attractions. They write:

The popular Hop On–Hop Off bus passes all major sights of Copenhagen. You decide your own pace and can hop on and off whenever you like on all our stops. Tickets are valid for 48 hours and you can use the bus to get around town. You can take One Line or All Lines to discover all the main sights. No matter which route you choose, you will see the city’s marvelous sights and get a feel for its many charming and unique areas!

Sightseeing tourism is collectively organised around a narrow set of ‘obligatory must-see attractions’ (MacCannell, 2011; Urry and Larsen, 2011), as the tour includes ‘all the main sights’ and ‘charming and unique areas’. The first and most popular route is CCT, which runs daily every 10 or 30 minutes depending on the time of year. CCT covers the most important and obligatory attractions, such as Nyhavn, Amalienborg Palace and the Little Mermaid statue. While the audio guide suggests that the statue is ‘disappointingly unremarkable’, the route is also referred to as ‘The Mermaid Tour’. According to the Strömma representative, ‘the main purpose is to provide our guests with the stories of Copenhagen and all the main sites we pass on the routes. The guests will both get the facts and a feeling of how the Danes live’. The tour has 15 stops and covers pick-up points at hotels, the central station and the cruise ships dock (Langelinie), making it very convenient and easy for tourists to use them compared to public transport, cycling and walking. According to Google Maps, the entire route is 11.2 km long and takes 2 hours and 18 minutes to walk. While this might be doable for many able-bodied tourists, few would enjoy it on a very cold or very hot day or if it is pouring rain – whereas the bus is equipped ‘with a sliding roof so you won’t get wet if it rains!’ ²

While the alternative routes – ‘Urban Green Copenhagen’ and ‘Colorful Copenhagen’ – certainly also include famous sights, they transcend the bubble of inner-city attractions and venture into little and local neighbourhoods (such as Frederiksberg and Vesterbro) or those that attract ‘new urban tourists’ such as the hip Meat Packing District. As the Strömma representative says, this reflects the fact that visitors demand ‘to see more original things than the Little Mermaid and experience other parts of the city than the city centre’. This is why ‘routes are added to spread tourists to other parts of the city, as tourists wish to see more original things’ and ‘not feel like tourists; they like to have a unique experience’. Strömma designs the routes based on current travel trends, customer feedback surveys and dialogue with tourism organisations. The two alternative routes sit well with Wonderful Copenhagen’s strategy of dispersing tourists across the city and perhaps even political calls for restricting tourist buses. Indeed, the Strömma representative argues that they relieve the public transport system and disperse tourists: ‘we remove tourists from the streets and bring them around the city – not only in the city centre’. They believe that this circulation reduces – rather than intensifies – overtourism in the inner city and supports the strategy of making localhoods attractive and reachable.

This also illustrates how Strömma competes with bike rentals and, not least, public transport in terms of price and service. Their 48-hour ticket for all three routes is only marginally more expensive than a similar ticket for all public transport in Copenhagen (195 DKK ³ and 150 DKK ⁴ , respectively). In terms of service, the company has the advantage of driving directly to the attractions and providing information about them, which is not the case for the public transport system in Copenhagen, which gives very little tourist information or signposting. They also try to stage a comfortable dwelling-in-motion experience with convenience features such as USB ports at every seat, Wi-Fi, heating and air-conditioning. Over the winter holiday season, the company decorates the bus with green garlands and Christmas lights, inducing a cosy atmosphere, especially when it gets dark outside. Having discussed the product, we now provide ethnographic insight into practices of doing these sightseeing tours.

Dwelling

On weekdays, the bus leaves from busy Copenhagen Central Station at 9:30 a.m. to start the first loop where tourists mingle with local commuters. The bus arrives and upon entering one steps into a tourist space fully devoid of locals. This is a tourism space by definition. After being greeted by the driver, receiving the map showing all the stops and having their tickets checked, most head up to the upper deck where the roof is on at this time of the year. A middle-aged lady looks at the map, trying to figure out which stop comes next while chatting with her travel partner about the plan for the day. A young couple eats breakfast croissants while observing the street life below. A mother is helping her son to plug in the headset. The engine starts, the tour begins. It is raining outside and the wind seems to be picking up. (Field notes)

Bubbles, such as resorts and shopping malls, manipulate the ‘weather’ and indoor climates to ensure optimal embodied dwelling conditions. So do micro-mobilities such as cars and buses (Jain, 2009; Urry, 2006). Our fieldwork took place during the transition from autumn to winter, with interviews conducted in the rain and faced by a cold wind. Inside the bus, the heat and sliding roof are ‘on’, protecting us from the fierce wind and low temperature. Interviewees say that the idea of being warm and dry inside, and not having to walk outside in such inclement weather, made them choose this tour. During the summer months, the open roof would have offered sensations of being warmed by the sun and cooled by the wind, and the lower deck an air-conditioned breeze.

During our research period, there was ample free space and couples, groups and family members could sit together, stretch and rest their, perhaps, tired legs and charge their mobiles. In addition to the pleasures of sightseeing (see later) and being transported, this indoor climate, cast against the harsh weather, explained why we observed and learned in the interviews that many tend to stay long before hopping off (if at all) before the circle was completed. Some of those that did hop off, only did it once the bus stayed for a 5-minute break at the Little Mermaid.

This dwelling potentially indicates that the bus is the desired destination and perhaps the subject of consumption. Yet, our interviewees seldom express excitement about or affection for the bus and its design features beyond the affective pleasures of being warm and dry; they comment on the sites they visit while driving and everything that happens outside it. The bus itself is not part of the experience economy, as it does not steal attention from the surrounding city. The banality of the bus exudes little meaning for the overall tourist experience. A South Korean couple (mid-50s) laughingly says, ‘it is fine, I guess. It is a bus’. It is a predictable tool for convenient sightseeing and transportation; a departure and evolution from London’s double-decker bus. The bus lacks the originality, newness and excitement factor there once was (Lagerkvist, 2013). Generally, tourists are more willing and excited to talk about the function, reliability, trustworthiness and ease of the service. When asked about how they felt during their tour, one woman from Brazil (mid-40s), accompanied by two others says: ‘I trust them because I know that they are going to take us where we want to go’. Another tourist states: ‘I was not there for the seats, I was there to see’ (American woman, early-50s). A German couple (early-40s) associate this service with McDonald’s. They say: ‘It is not that I am enthusiastic about this. It is just like you get what, what you pay for; it is like a McDonald’s, let’s face it’. Both: ‘You get what you expect’. Some also mention that this ‘convenience’ can only be enjoyed if one accepts that one is engulfed by the bubble and isolated from the local public: ‘when you sit [in] a place like that, then you are just a tourist because the locals do not ride them, so you sit amongst all other sorts of tourists from all other sorts of countries, each with their own little camera’ (Danish couple, late-50s).

Our Strömma informant also affirms that they do not intend to make the bus place-like, only a comfortable space. Hence, it is the places outside the bus, and not the bus itself, that excite tourists. The Hop On–Hop Off bus functions as a means of trustworthy transport through new and culturally unfamiliar places. It runs in a circular route and tourists will never get lost; the bus will return to pick tourists up at various points.

Sightseeing and movement

After departing from the central station, we head to the waterfront Kalvebod Brygge. Several hotels are located there, and the two stops serve as pick-up points for tourists who are staying in the area. The neighbourhood is rather dull, and the ongoing construction does not make for very picturesque scenery. A young American man utters, ‘we are seeing hotel after hotel.’ Like other tourism shuttle buses, this tour is not only about sightseeing, but also about getting tourists on board and coming to the tourists’ accommodation areas. This can be boring, as suggested by the young American’s disapproving tone. The audio narrative also seems to be aware of this dissonance and reassures passengers that ‘the city centre is just a few blocks to the left.’ (Field notes)

Our interviewees appreciate this service as it allows them to embark and disembark as they please within the master rhythm of the pre-scripted tour and schedule. A German couple (mid-30s) says: ‘The good thing is like the name, Hop On–Hop Off. Whenever you want to go there or find it interesting you just hop off, and take a look around and take the next bus. So, if you are not good on foot, you should definitely take the bus’. The quote also draws attention to the fact that, according to our interviewees, this particular sightseeing bus outcompetes self-directed walking, which is slower and requires more physical effort and energy. It also outshines local transport as that service is designed for the needs of locals and not those of tourists. A Danish couple (late-50s) exclaims:

If you choose another form of transportation, maybe the city bus . . . it also might not stop by the attractions themselves, most likely not, but maybe other places where it is easier or more convenient for them to stop. They are not tourist-friendly in the same manner as the red buses are. They are developed to and aimed towards the tourists, in ways that the conventional city buses are not.

The bus is attractive to those who are not ‘good on foot’ nor habitually walk long distances. The bus enables people to move faster, and more easily and comfortably travel longer distances than on foot and be corporeally oblivious to the bad weather. It is no coincidence that the majority of the users are middle-aged (according to our survey and Strömma) and probably used to sedentary travel by car, so common in western societies (Urry, 2006). In one sense, the bus is also designed for brief active bursts of walking as tourists are steps away from the attraction once they hop off the bus. Yet our research also indicates that there are different ways in which people use the service. Some do not plan and spontaneously hop off at any attraction that sparks their interest. Others ride for the full hour-and-a-half loop around the city first, before deciding which attractions to visit afterwards. A Danish couple (late-50s) explains:

You can just take the tour again if that is what you want. The buses do not go insanely fast and they stop at a lot of places, so you have time there as well when people get off and new people get on, to orient yourself on the map and in relation to the general physical environment you are in outside the bus. We stayed on the bus for the first full tour and came all the way around, and along the way selected the places we wanted to come back to and then just ‘hopped off’ when we reached the places we wanted to see.

Moreover, people use the handed-out map differently. Some engage with it to orient themselves spatially, to locate attractions and decide when to hop off. A German couple (mid-30s) says: ‘you have to prepare yourself before you take the tour. Have you been there? Which kind of tour is the best for you? You should check out the map beforehand’. Others do not use the map at all, and passively let the places come to them.

The extent to which people plan, the way they use the map and the audio guide thus shows that this bus offers unique and customizable ways of touring within the tourist bubble. In contrast to the ideas that sightseeing practices are uniform and passive, this also implies that sightseeing is practiced in different ways by diverse (groups of) tourists and that they have the possibility of sightseeing in ways that resonate with them. A Danish couple (late-50s) says:

We have been sitting with the maps provided, and following along the way, to see where we are, and then marking the places we want to come back to. It can be difficult to remember what was out there and differentiate between the sites after having done the full tour and being in the city for the first time. Instead, we just mark the places we want to explore further and then do a second tour and hop off the next time the attraction comes around. But we have not always used the map to get around afterwards, because we were not able to do so only with that map. Besides, we have always used a map that was more detailed with the names of smaller streets and so on. But that is because we also move out of the typical tourist areas.

While bubbles set limits to exploration, notions of tourist agency (MacCannell, 2011) and performativity (Edensor, 2000; Larsen, 2005) suggest that even within tourist bubbles, tourists have some freedom to create experiences and have the agency to do so. While our research with users in many ways testifies to the choreographed nature of this form of sightseeing, it also disavows assumptions that it fully limits the performances and movement of tourists. The above example is representative in highlighting that many combine this collective tour with independent walking, even, at times, into less beaten tracks. Individual walking to places that have caught specific tourists’ attention is part of this practice and while most of this walking is probably on the beaten tracks, they will intermittently traverse areas in non-bubbles where they will share the pavement with locals and might get lost in localhoods. We also observed somewhat culturally dissolute behaviour, with tourists ‘logging off’ (Larsen and Meged, 2013) and speaking loudly on the phone, having a picnic and napping among other practices (see also Larsen and Meged, 2013; Tucker, 2007).

Gazing and glancing

The position where one sits affects what one tends to look at; the windows frame one’s view. The elevated position at the upper deck provides a completely different viewing experience than walking on the street or sitting on the lower deck. At this elevated position, one has a thrilling almost balcony-like view of the city that you drift pleasantly by in the comfort of the seat. (Field notes)

But tourists would never ‘log off’ for long before they engage in mobile sightseeing. Tourists peer out of the front windows on the top deck of the bus, glancing at the city’s everyday life and attractions. Larsen (2001) has discussed how motorised movement provides a unique visual experience. It is different from the tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen, 2011) that tourists perform on foot and at rest at attractions. As the attractions move past the tourist rather than vice versa, the movement of the bus modifies the experience into a ‘travel glance’ that ‘resembles a (proto)cinematic sensation of mobile landscape images, rather than, as with the tourist gaze, a photographic or picturesque one of a still image’ (Larsen, 2001: 92).

The Hop On–Hop Off bus is somewhat in between both types of visual engagements. The drive through the city is more-than-transport, as the bus affords visual and recorded sensations along the route while offering the possibility of getting off the bus at any attraction and performing the ‘tourist gaze’. It, therefore, alternates between the ‘travel glance’ on the bus and the ‘tourist gaze’ at attractions.

Gazing and glancing are not purely visual experiences. Urry and Larsen (2011) have reworked the tourist gaze, now being embodied, dynamic and multi-sensuous (Scarles, 2009). On the Hop On–Hop Off bus, another important sense is hearing. Tourists can listen to the narrative about the city provided by the audio guide. It intermittently addresses the multi-sensuous nature of tourism. Passengers are instructed to ‘taste the local cuisine’, ‘smell the sea breeze’, ‘feel the warmth of the sun’ and ‘hear the strokes of Hans Christian Andersen’s quill pen’. Our observations and interviews revealed that most tourists appreciate and submit to this designed soundscape for shorter or longer spells. This recorded information sets this bus apart from local transport. Moreover, one’s visual experience echoes the physical terrain that the bus passes. For example, feeling the bumps and sways of the bus as it drives over cobblestones, and hearing the rumble of tires over these same stones. One also sees and hears scratching and scraping on the top deck windows as the bus manoeuvers through the narrow streets and makes contact with tree canopies and bare branches in the autumn and winter. The mobility factor, as well as the physical qualities of the bus, shape the glance. However, the interviewees did not allude much to such kinesthetic sensations; these remained in the background as the interviewees conventionally spoke of visual pleasures and sightseeing concerning gazing and glancing.

The ‘travel glance’ is valuable, as tourists congregate on the upper deck and the front window seats are the first to be occupied, since they afford the best view, being unobstructed, frontal and ‘widescreen’. These tourists, like many others, prefer the view-producing bus to the inconspicuousness of the underground metro: ‘I like the bus. I think it is much better than by metro because you do not see so much’ whereas ‘the bus is much better . . . the experience is better if you go to the second floor/upper deck’ (Brazilian women, early-40s). These tourists, who praise the elevated and commanding view of the bus, are also typical of our interviewees:

You see more things because you are located above things and because you can look out over the edge; you just see more. You can look all the way around when you sit up there . . . It is better than sitting on the bottom deck, in my opinion. (Danish couple, late-50s)

The ‘glance’ is also important as the tourists venerate the bus tour for giving them an initial overview, a sense of orientation of the city that the underground metro does not give. As one said: ‘Typically we do this tour in every city we visit . . . just to get an orientation. Get around, get a feeling of where we want to go, then explore in detail’ (German couple, mid-40s). This ‘overview’ gives them the knowledge to ‘explore in detail’ places that they decide to walk to.

There are established expectations and ideas about what one is supposed to see when sightseeing and how to gaze (Urry and Larsen, 2011), and it has to be time-efficient. As discussed, tourist bubbles provide mediated experiences which are highly controlled and staged. Repeat visitors also trust them. This is also the case with this bus. As a Danish couple (late-50s) proclaims:

Well, mainly just wanting to see the city from another perspective than the one you get by sightseeing on foot. You know that someone has taken the time to select some of the sights that you usually want to see as a tourist, and then you at least get to see that – the most important sights.

The stops are pre-selected and narrated by the audio guide, which starts by welcoming passengers to ‘our Danish homes and hearts’, thus attempting to evoke a friendly and local atmosphere. The influence of the audio narrative is particularly powerful at some of the stops. Near the Little Mermaid, tourists are encouraged to get off the bus and take a picture of the statue, with a possibility of getting back on the same bus within 5 minutes: ‘That was fun, we had like a couple of minutes, we just ran there, took a picture and ran back’ (Swedish women, early-20s). While at this stop the bus waits longer than at the other stops, it is also telling of the rapid speed and schedule that the service must keep up with. It also confirms that a 5-minute window is all you need to see this place and it testifies to the ‘time hurried nature’ of sightseeing tourism (Gutberlet, 2019). In other situations, tourists stay put and linger and gaze much longer before they jump back on the bus.

Different practices

From our data, we identified four main – partly overlapping – ‘users’ in Copenhagen: ‘loyal customers’, ‘convenience seekers’, ‘attraction seekers’ and ‘local seekers’. Tourists cannot be reduced into a specific typology (Prince, 2017) and our interviewees possibly move from one typology into the other during different trips or even during the same bus tour.

Firstly, ‘loyal customers’ are highly familiar with the service and enjoy the experience. We interviewed many for whom this bus is their first choice in every city they visit. They are frequent tourists that have experience from many different western cities: One British couple (mid-30s) explains where they have used these buses: ‘Madrid. . .Where was the last one? Krakow, Munich. Oh, Rome and Stuttgart. . . I have done Dublin as well. . . Probably ten’. An equally well-travelled Canadian woman (mid-40s), explains that she habitually uses them because they are always ‘at hand’ and trustworthy: ‘I think they are just easy to do, and you know where they [the buses] are, and they are all around the world, so you know you are safe and it is reliable’. Despite being frequent tourists and visitors in western cities with good transport infrastructure, they nonetheless sometimes find local transportation confusing, time-consuming and boring, not being tailored to their particular needs and desired destinations.

Secondly, the ‘convenience seekers’ use it because they are informed or expect the service to make their short city break convenient and time-efficient: ‘it was quick, easy and not too expensive and you get to see a lot in no time’ (Scottish women, in their 30s, 50s, 60s). There is no need for planning, figuring out, or danger of wasting time as with public transport. Nor do tourists have to decide what to see as the service guarantees that one will see the established major sights. Convenience seekers often only stay for a few days (sometimes even less), so reducing waiting time and transport time in between attractions is crucial. As one says: ‘I save time. When I am done with one attraction, there is another bus to take me again’ (Kuwaiti man, early-40s). Two British women (late-40s/early-50s) that jumped onto the bus at this hotel say: ‘it is really easy to get out of the hotel in the morning. It hits all the main sites we wanted to see and yeah, just convenience, to fit more into the trip . . . like an overview, tells you what is around’. The bus fulfils a perceived basic need for directing the ‘tourist gaze’ and giving an authoritative sightseeing experience as well as transporting ‘unfit’ tourist bodies to their exact destination. These tourists find public transport less convenient and believe that it requires much more planning and walking: ‘I think the bus is the easiest form of transport to get around the city. . . you can sit and relax and you can take it all in and it is less stressful’ (Irish couple with a child in a stroller). This suggests that the Hop On–Hop Off bus is a parallel service to local transport networks, with the added benefit of acting as a shuttle to and from attractions and tourist accommodation. Another advantage is accessibility. For families with young children, the elderly or those living with a disability, the bus remedies their inability to walk long distances. A British couple (mid-70s) jokingly say: ‘it is good for old people like us, not too much walking’. Some also note that the bus affords shelter from Copenhagen’s inclement winter weather. Notably, some of the conveniences related to saving time, being sheltered from bad weather or offering an overview, are universal to all tourists, regardless of typology.

Thirdly, the ‘attraction seekers’ desire to see the most important sights and fear that they are ‘missing out’ if they are undirected. They typically embark on the Classic Copenhagen sightseeing tour. In contrast to the ‘convenience seekers’, they often plan their itinerary and their expectations are high. For a middle-aged man from South Korea, not visiting Nyhavn would make the trip incomplete: ‘I do not think I want to miss that place. I would not be telling people I have come to Copenhagen if I missed that’. These tourists have an implied purpose to see places that are ‘famous for being famous’ (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 114). However, some ‘attraction seekers’ desire more than just checking items off their tourism wish list and being other-directed, which brings us to the last category.

Lastly, the ‘local seekers’ appreciate that the Hop On–Hop Off service enables authentic and local experiences a little off the beaten tracks, often on foot. As a Danish couple (late-50s) says:

Riding the bus you get kind of an overview of both the attractions you pass but also the city itself geographically, so if you move around in that part of the city where there are some attractions, you can afterwards move a little further out in the other parts of the city yourself, which you find interesting. You can just stroll around and take whichever side streets or alleys you come across.

They seek authentic experiences and occasionally push the boundaries of the tourist bubble. The Hop On–Hop Off bus is unique as it is not only about driving in and through a place and arriving at a few predetermined stops as part of a large group. It affords ‘flexibility’ by encouraging self-directed ‘hopping on’ and ‘hopping off’ according to one’s rhythms, and such tourists appreciate the alternative routes that expand and even venture off the beaten track. However, as our interviews mainly took place at stops at the classical tour and not the alternative routes, our research may underestimate the significance of such practices.

Conclusion

While scholars have dealt with traditional sightseeing bus tours, little is known about the international phenomenon of Hop On–Hop Off sightseeing. Investigating this phenomenon in Copenhagen, we have explored its staging and varied user experiences. We have drawn on the literature on tourist bubbles, yet without adopting the critical and dismissive tone that permeates much of this literature. We have also drawn on performance metaphors to highlight the staged and scripted nature of these tours. However, to disavow assumptions that sightseeing is a uniform, fully choreographed practice, we have identified different practices and motives within an otherwise much-scripted practice. So, this study of mobile sightseeing does challenge long-established tendencies within tourist studies to equate enclaves and sightseeing with bodily passivity. We suggest instead to explore and conceptualise how organised sightseeing mobilities are complex and encompass surprises, detours and active movement as much as pre-programmed passivity and immobility.

Our study shows that buses are bubbles in themselves and fit into a large spatial network bubble of well-established places, attractions and signs. They are exclusively designed for, and used by, tourists and create a familiar micro-environment within a foreign setting. It is a global non-place that operates in many destinations and does not provide a new service unique to a specific place. For some, these buses are a synonym of what is wrong with mass tourism. However, the fact that the service is identical and predictable across space is something that our interviewees appreciate, rather than disparage. This is in part because the bus is just a service and not the desired experience; the familiar bus allows them to circumvent local transport systems to tour and sightsee an unfamiliar and different city in a convenient, effective and individual way. Even though many of our interviewees are experienced and independent city tourists, they nonetheless appreciate this element of organised sightseeing for giving their visit some structure. At other times, they tour in a more independent fashion and bend this service to their particular needs. Thus, tourism theory must not assume that such sightseeing buses are only for inexperienced tourists. More broadly, this suggests that it is unwise to make clear-cut distinctions between inexperienced and experienced as well as organised and independent tourists.

Studies suggest that sightseeing buses are vision machines, and the city is something to be seen, similar to a cinematic reel. While we have also shown the significance of vision and glancing to this service, our findings suggest that it is designed and used as a technology of utilitarian transport as much as a vision machine. The Hop On–Hop Off bus represents a convenient mode of sightseeing and acts as an appendage to local transportation services, running parallel to them. It also empowers those that are not strong on their feet or those that ‘travel in a hurry’. They offer transport to a string of attractions that it would take a keen, fit walker – with plenty of time on their hands – to walk to.

While this bus is a mobile tourism bubble, we have also discussed how it is designed to provide more freedom and flexibility than the usual other-directed sightseeing tour where people cannot (dis)embark according to personal rhythms. Our interviewees like the fact that they can ‘individualise’ their time and movement and customise their experiences. While they share a common interest in seeing famous sights and do not mind moving together with other tourists, they are not a homogenous bunch and not necessarily confined fully within a narrow bubble. This was also evident in the staging of the service section in this article. While these buses operate within tourist bubbles and aggravate problems of inner-city overtourism, Strömma believes that they respond to calls for moving beyond inner-city attractions and seeking local experiences. This enables users to get close to local spaces and it potentially undermines distinctions between old and new forms of urban sightseeing. Whether this expansion of tourist bubbles help to ease the problem of inner-city overcrowding (as claimed by Strömma) or create tensions in local neighbourhoods is an interesting topic to explore in future studies. This can be combined with greater attention to the different stages of the tour and especially those where they get off and explore places – including non-bubbles – on foot and without direct guiding. Finally, the gendered nature of this sightseeing practice is another interesting future research topic.