RESEARCH ARTICLE Tourists' space–time behavior in heritage places: Comparing guided and nonguided visitors Nuria Galí | Silvia Aulet Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona, Girona, Spain Correspondence Nuria Galí, Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona, Pl. Ferrater i Mora, 1, 17004 Girona, Spain. Email: nuria.gali@udg.edu Funding information Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (State Secretariat for Research, Development and Innovation) in Spain, Grant/Award Num- ber: CSO2011‐26634 Abstract This paper analyzes guided tourists' space–time behavior in heritage sites and compares the results with the behavior of nonguided tourists. Data from 127 guided visitors from 127 different local tours and 1,242 nonguided tourists visiting the historic town city of Girona (Spain) were gathered from participant observation, GPS tracking, and questionnaires. Findings demonstrate that guided tourists have a more qualitative experience (less walking time, more time spent visiting monuments, more information, and sometimes privileged information) than have nonguided tourists. Despite this, results also suggest that tourists who take guided tours, and those who do not, show a very similar behavior pattern. KEYWORDS GPS, guided tour, guided visitor, heritage town, nonguided visitor, tourist behavior 1 | INTRODUCTION The figure of the tourist guide and the profession of guiding have often been ridiculed, trivialized, and stereotyped (Larsen & Meged, 2013), and as a result, the academic world has paid them less attention than they merit. However, today, professional guiding receives greater recognition; consequently, there are an increasing number of studies on guided tours and tour guides, which are seen as a strategic part of the tourist experience. From the outset, most of this research has focused on the guide as a tour leader, that is to say, guides in charge of managing a group during a trip (e.g., Cetin & Yarcan, 2017; Cohen, Ifergan, & Cohen, 2002; Geva & Goldman, 1991; Mossberg, 1995; Pizam & Jeong, 1996; Quiroga, 1990; Weiler & Davis, 1993). Currently, many studies also center on the role of the guide as a local tour guide (e.g., Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; Io, 2013; Jensen, 2010; Larsen & Meged, 2013; McKerzie & Kerr, 2013; Quinn & Ryan, 2016; Salazar, 2005, 2006, 2012; C. U. I. Wong, 2013). Most studies pay attention to tour guiding profession: roles, performances, narratives, and attributes (e.g., Ap & Wong, 2001; Cetin & Yarcan, 2017; Cohen, 1985; Cohen et al., 2002; Dahles, 2002; Fine & Speer, 1985; Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; Holloway, 1981; Io, 2013; Jensen, 2010; Quinn & Ryan, 2016; Salazar, 2005, 2012; Tsaur & Teng, 2017; Weiler & Davis, 1993; C. U. I. Wong, 2013; Yankovska & Hannam, 2014). However, more recently, articles exploring other aspects of guiding are gradually appearing. These deal with various topics: the stresses and emotions present in the relationship between the guide and the tour operator (e.g., McKerzie & Kerr, 2013); locals doing guided tours in the own city (e.g., Diaz‐Soria, 2017); the phenomenon of zero fare in guiding (e.g., Xu & McGehee, 2017); hassles in the personal life and work of tour guides (e.g., Tsaur & Lin, 2014); sense of humor in guiding (e.g., Pabel & Pearce, 2016); or the impact of attractiveness and seniority on tour guides (e.g., Tsai, Wang, & Tseng, 2016). The majority of studies focusing on the relationship between guides and tourists analyze tourist satisfaction and tourists' perception of the guide and the service provided (e.g., Chan, Hsu, & Baum, 2015; Geva & Goldman, 1991; Mossberg, 1995; Quiroga, 1990; Torres‐Sovero, González, Martin‐López, & Kirkby, 2012; J.‐Y. Wong & Lee, 2012), or visitor's behavioral attitude, the majority of which are based on declared behavioral surveys (Poudel & Nyaupane, 2013; J.‐Y. Wong & Lee, 2012). Received: 3 December 2018 Revised: 31 January 2019 Accepted: 5 February 2019 DOI: 10.1002/jtr.2270 388 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Tourism Res. 2019;21:388–399. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jtr