The ‘pain of not paying’: Why smart tourism is about more than technology

Macau is a strong tourism destination with clear strengths in walkability, cleanliness, and visitor-friendliness, but its payment infrastructure remains a notable weak spot, according to Kyung Hee University professor Namho Chung.

In this MDT exclusive report, the scholar argues that the challenge is less about technology than about designing tourism systems from the visitor’s point of view – and ensuring tourists can pay, move, and spend without friction.

Namho Chung, a professor at Kyung Hee University in Seoul and director of its Smart Tourism Research Center, said Macau performs well on many of the benchmarks that define a smart tourism city, but still needs to improve the global accessibility of its payment systems.

Using his “Smart Tourism Cities’ Competitiveness Index”, Chung said Macau stands out for attractiveness, accessibility, and overall visitor experience.

“During my trip, I could travel around Macau easily using only Google Maps, and the whole tourism experience was very intuitive from a visitor’s perspective,” he said.

He added that Macau’s cleanliness, traffic discipline, and friendliness also contribute to sustainability and co-partnership, while noting that the city’s payment ecosystem remains less seamless for international visitors than Hong Kong’s.

[Photo: Bloomberg News]

“The biggest inconvenience I experienced in Macau was not that I did not have money, but that I did not have a payment method that I could use,” Chung said. The scholar described this phenomenon as the “pain of not paying,” reasoning that the issue is not just a technical one, but a growing factor in tourism competitiveness.

When visitors face mismatches between the payment methods they know and those accepted locally, he said, these barriers can affect spending, mobility, and satisfaction.

Chung added that Macau does not need to support every payment method, but it should ensure a minimum level of accessibility for major visitor groups. He also pointed to broader frictions, including language barriers, information gaps, and the need to download multiple apps, and said policymakers should focus less on introducing more technologies than on making the whole tourism journey feel effortless.

“A smart tourism city is not a city with the most advanced technologies,” he said. “It is a city where tourists can enjoy such a natural and convenient experience that they hardly notice the technology itself.”

Macau Daily Times (MDT): Based on your Smart Tourism Cities’ Competitiveness Index, how does Macau compare with Hong Kong and leading GBA cities in terms of digital infrastructure and overall visitor experience, including perceived ease and convenience from a tourist perspective?

Namho Chung (NC): My Smart Tourism Cities’ Competitiveness Index (STCCI) evaluates the competitiveness of a city based on five dimensions: attractiveness, accessibility, digitalization readiness, sustainability, and co-partnership.

Based on my personal experience, I think Macau is a highly competitive tourism destination. First, it has a very high level of attractiveness as a tourist destination. Not only its digital accessibility but also its physical accessibility, such as public transportation and walkability, were very good. During my trip, I could travel around Macau easily using only Google Maps, and the whole tourism experience was very intuitive from a visitor’s perspective.

Another impressive aspect was that the city was very clean, local residents were friendly, and traffic rules were well respected. I think these factors are not only important for tourist satisfaction but also indicate that sustainability and co-partnership are functioning well in the city. Personally, I had a somewhat different impression of Macau compared with Hong Kong in these aspects.

Of course, as I will mention later, the global accessibility of the payment system is still an area that could be improved. However, except for this issue, I believe Macau performs very well in most of the key dimensions that define a smart tourism city.

MDT: Your concept of the “pain of not paying” – how did this manifest in Macau in practice, and how does that experience differ from mainland cities such as Shenzhen or Guangzhou, as well as destinations like Korea?

NC: In Korea, credit cards are widely used, and recently, NFC-based mobile payments have also become very common. Cash is being used less and less, and some public transportation systems even operate without accepting cash.

The biggest inconvenience I experienced in Macau was not that I did not have money, but that I did not have a payment method that I could use. For example, some vending machines did not accept international credit cards or cash, while some shops accepted only cash. This is exactly what I call the “pain of not paying.”

The important point is that this is not only a Macau issue. In most countries, payment infrastructure is designed mainly for local residents. Therefore, local people do not experience any inconvenience, but tourists often experience a mismatch between the payment methods they are familiar with and the payment methods available at the destination. I believe this mismatch in payment infrastructure is becoming a new factor influencing tourism competitiveness because it affects tourists’ spending, mobility, and overall travel experience.

MDT: Despite its global tourism positioning, Macau continues to experience payment frictions. In your view, are these challenges primarily structural, regulatory, or market-driven?

NC: I think this issue is not mainly about regulation or the market itself. Rather, I believe there has been relatively little attention paid to the payment experience from the tourist’s perspective. As I mentioned earlier, local residents rarely experience inconvenience with the current payment system, so it is not easy for them to recognize the payment barriers that tourists may face.

In the past, payment methods were mainly limited to cash and credit cards. Today, however, there are many different options, including contactless cards, mobile wallets, and QR-code payments. It is not realistic to support every payment method used by tourists from around the world. Therefore, I think the priority is not to provide every possible payment option, but to ensure a minimum level of payment accessibility so that major international tourist groups can make payments without inconvenience.

MDT: Why has Macau lagged behind Hong Kong in developing more globally interoperable payment systems? Is it tied to there being less content available or digestible for an international audience?

NC: I cannot confidently explain the policy background behind this difference. However, from a tourist’s perspective, I had no major difficulty using international credit cards in Hong Kong, while in Macau I experienced some places where the available payment methods were more limited. Even this small difference can influence how tourists evaluate the overall convenience and accessibility of a destination.

I believe the essence of smart tourism is not advanced technology itself, but helping tourists continue their journey in a seamless way. Payment is only one part of the tourism experience, but if frictions occur during the payment process, they can affect the overall travel experience. Therefore, I think a smart tourism destination should focus not only on introducing more technologies but also on designing services so that tourists can enjoy a seamless experience without additional learning or unnecessary difficulties.

MDT: How do QR-based payment ecosystems – and their associated access barriers – shape tourist behavior in concrete terms, such as spending patterns, mobility, and overall satisfaction? Are certain visitor groups, such as non-Chinese speakers or those without mainland-linked payment accounts, disproportionately affected?

NC: China is one of the countries where QR-code payments have been adopted most successfully, and I think they are a very efficient and convenient payment system. Therefore, I do not think QR-code payment itself is the problem.

However, people in different countries are familiar with different payment methods. In Korea and many Western countries, credit cards and NFC-based mobile wallets are still more commonly used. Therefore, for international tourists, I think it is more important to provide multiple payment options, such as credit cards and mobile wallets, rather than relying only on QR-code payments.

In the end, the goal of smart tourism is not to promote one particular payment method, but to give tourists the freedom to pay in the way they are most familiar with, so they can enjoy a seamless and convenient travel experience.

MDT: What lessons, if any, should Macau draw from Hong Kong’s Octopus system or mainland super-app ecosystems (e.g., Alipay and WeChat Pay)? Do you see these as transferable models?

NC: Basically, I think the first priority is to build a payment system that is most convenient for Macau’s local residents. If systems such as Hong Kong’s Octopus or mainland China’s Alipay and WeChat Pay can be naturally accepted and widely used by local residents, they can certainly serve as good models.

However, Macau is different because it is a global tourism destination. Therefore, in addition to a payment ecosystem designed for local residents, it is also important to provide various payment options that international tourists can use without difficulty. The important point is not to adopt one particular system, but to create a payment environment that is efficient for local residents while providing a seamless experience for tourists.

In the end, the goal of a smart tourism city is to enable tourists to use local infrastructure – such as payment systems, transportation, and restaurants – that was originally built for residents in an easy and convenient way, without unnecessary difficulties.

MDT: How critical is interoperability across platforms, currencies, and jurisdictions in defining a truly competitive smart tourism destination?

NC: In conclusion, I think interoperability is very important. However, achieving perfect interoperability requires considerable cost and investment. Therefore, rather than supporting every possible payment method, I think it is more realistic and effective to analyze the nationality, travel patterns, and consumption behavior of tourists visiting Macau, set priorities, and build a payment environment that matches their needs.

For example, in Korea, as the number of Chinese tourists has increased, more and more stores have started to support Alipay and WeChat Pay. This is an effort to help Chinese tourists make payments in Korea using the payment methods they are already familiar with.

In the end, the goal is not to create a system for everyone, but to continuously improve the payment environment so that major tourist groups can travel seamlessly without inconvenience.

MDT: In your view, does Macau risk losing competitiveness within the GBA if these frictions persist?

NC: In the short term, I do not think these payment frictions will significantly reduce Macau’s tourism competitiveness. However, if they continue over time, they may affect tourists’ overall experience and satisfaction. In the past, payment was considered simply a way to complete a transaction. Today, however, it has become an important part of the tourism experience.

The “pain of not paying” that I proposed refers to the inconvenience and stress that tourists experience when they are unable to make a payment. Such negative experiences can reduce tourist satisfaction and may also lower revisit intention and positive word-of-mouth. Therefore, I believe payment should no longer be viewed simply as a financial service, but should be recognized and managed as an important component of the overall tourist experience.

MDT: Beyond payments, what other overlooked or under-discussed “frictions” in Macau’s tourism experience deserve greater attention?

NC: Payment is only one of many frictions that tourists experience. Other examples include difficulties in finding information, language barriers (such as restaurant menus written only in Chinese characters), unfamiliar local measurement units when purchasing products, and the need to repeatedly install different mobile applications.

In the end, the goal of a smart tourism city is not to introduce more individual technologies, but to enable tourists to enjoy a seamless experience throughout their journey – from information search and transportation to payment and service use. I believe that, in the future, improving the connectivity of these experiences will become more important than introducing individual technologies themselves.

MDT: Finally, if advising policymakers today, what would be your top priorities to improve inclusiveness, accessibility, and overall competitiveness?

NC: If I could give some advice to policymakers, I would like to suggest four priorities.

First, policies should be designed from the perspective of the tourist experience rather than focusing only on technology. The goal of smart tourism is not to introduce more new technologies, but to enable tourists to travel seamlessly without unnecessary inconvenience.

Second, accessibility should be improved so that tourists can easily use local infrastructure originally built for residents, such as payment systems, transportation, and information services.

Third, we should consider not only tourists’ convenience but also co-partnership with local residents. It is very important to continuously manage and communicate with local communities so that residents can comfortably live alongside tourists. This is essential for maintaining long-term tourism competitiveness.

Finally, rather than trying to improve everything at once, policymakers should analyze the nationality and travel patterns of major tourist groups, set clear priorities, and invest accordingly. Data-driven policies will ultimately improve both tourist satisfaction and destination competitiveness.

I believe that a smart tourism city is not a city with the most advanced technologies. It is a city where tourists can enjoy such a natural and convenient experience that they hardly notice the technology itself. That, in my opinion, is true smart tourism.