| Literature DB >> 32455820 |
Francisco González Santa Cruz1, Salvador Moral-Cuadra2, Juan Choque Tito3, Tomás López-Guzmán2.
Abstract
The continuous dynamism that tourism suffers makes the motivations of tourists change, making them search for new experiences. In this sense, gastronomy is positioned as a key element of union between tourism and culture, thus developing gastronomic tourism. The analysis presented here will address gastronomic motivations and their influence on the value perceived by foreign tourists in Oruro (Bolivia), based on a total sample of 370 and through a covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM). Among the main results, it is worth highlighting the positive influence of gastronomic motivations on the value perceived by tourists. These results are also very useful for public and/or private entities for the creation of new strategies to promote local gastronomy.Entities:
Keywords: Bolivia; CB-SEM; Oruro; foreign tourists; gastronomic motivations; gastronomy; perceived value
Year: 2020 PMID: 32455820 PMCID: PMC7277504 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103618
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Own elaboration from data obtained from pixabay [10]
Figure 2Hypothesis and relational model proposal. IRM: Interpersonal relationship motivations. CEM: Cultural experience motivations. SAM: Sensory appeal motivations. HCM: Health concern motivations. EM: Excitement motivations Source: Own elaboration.
Sociodemographic profile.
| Variable | Percentage | Variable | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Male | 60.7% | <30 years old | 40.8% |
| Female | 39.3% | 30–39 years old | 25.8% |
| 40–49 years old | 17.3% | ||
| 50–59 years old | 8.5% | ||
| 60–69 years old | 6.8% | ||
| >70 years old | 0.8% | ||
|
|
| ||
| Free professional | 33.9% | Alone | 15.1% |
| Businessman/businesswoman | 6.7% | Friends/co-workers | 30.9% |
| Employee | 9.2% | With couple | 21.7% |
| Full time employee | 16.1% | With couple and children | 16.9% |
| Part time employee | 6.7% | Alone with children | 5.1% |
| Self employed | 3.6% | Others | 10.3% |
| Student | 16.9% |
| |
| Resting | 2.2% | Argentina | 32.7% |
| Retired | 1.9% | Chile | 19.2% |
| Housework | 2.8% | Peru | 15.4% |
|
| EE.UU. | 5.9% | |
| Primary School | 4.7% | Brazil | 4.1% |
| High School graduated | 42.4% | Spain | 2.7% |
| College degree | 33.1% | Others | 20.0% |
| Master’s degree/PhD. | 19.8% |
Source: Own elaboration.
Exploratory factor analysis.
| Communality | Factor | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRM | CEM | SAM | HCM | EM | ||
| 0.652 | 0.654 | |||||
| 0.717 | 0.739 | |||||
| 0.642 | 0.688 | |||||
| 0.762 | 0.677 | |||||
| 0.718 | 0.876 | |||||
| 0.741 | 0.772 | |||||
| 0.658 | 0.599 | |||||
| 0.746 | 0.748 | |||||
| 0.690 | 0.821 | |||||
| 0.696 | 0.755 | |||||
| 0.703 | 0.887 | |||||
| 0.621 | 0.794 | |||||
| 0.639 | 0.627 | |||||
| 0.644 | 0.565 | |||||
| 0.708 | 0.773 | |||||
| 0.826 | 0.831 | |||||
| 0.739 | 0.751 | |||||
| 0.801 | 0.820 | |||||
| Autovalues | 4.55 | 3.36 | 2.19 | 1.21 | 1.04 | |
| % Explained variance | 17.21 | 14.35 | 12.61 | 11.34 | 9.89 | |
| % Accumulated explained variance | 17.21 | 31.56 | 44.17 | 55.51 | 65.4 | |
| Cronbach alpha | 0.822 | 0.793 | 0.801 | 0.766 | 0.809 | |
IRM: Interpersonal relationship motivations. CEM: Cultural experience motivations. SAM: Sensory appeal motivations. HCM: Health concern motivations. EM: Excitement motivations Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 3Second order confirmatory factorial analysis. IRM: Interpersonal relationship motivations. CEM: Cultural experience motivations. SAM: Sensory appeal motivations. HCM: Health concern motivations. EM: Excitement motivations Source: Own elaboration.
AFC Goodness of fit indexes.
| χ2/gl | GFI | AGFI | CFI | NFI | TLI | RMSEA (I.C. 90%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 3.73 | 0.971 | 0.968 | 0.962 | 0.953 | 0.972 | 0.052 (0.043–0.068) |
| Subsample 1 | 3.52 | 0.973 | 0.967 | 0.948 | 0.958 | 0.957 | 0.054 (0.046–0.071) |
| Subsample 2 | 3.43 | 0.982 | 0.976 | 0.957 | 0.953 | 0.969 | 0.053 (0.044–0.069) |
Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 4Effect of gastronomic motivations on perceived value. IRM: Interpersonal relationship motivations. CEM: Cultural experience motivations. SAM: Sensory appeal motivations. HCM: Health concern motivations. EM: Excitement motivations Source: Own elaboration.
Goodness of fit indexes (estimated final model).
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| χ2/gl | 3.11 |
| GFI | 0.983 |
| AGFI | 0.968 |
| CFI | 0.961 |
| NFI | 0.957 |
| TLI | 0.973 |
| RMSEA (I.C. 90%) | 0.043 (0.022–0.069) |