Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a tourist destination

International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 25 (2021) 100405
Available online 28 July 2021
1878-450X/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a
tourist destination
David Mora a
, Miguel Á. Solano-Sánchez b,*
, Tomás López-Guzmán c
, Salvador Moral-Cuadra d
a
Basque Culinary Center. Paseo Juan Avelino Barriola, 101, 20009 Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
b
Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada, Calle Santander, 1, 52005 Melilla, Spain
c
Department of Applied Economics, University of Córdoba, Calle Adarve, 30, 14001 Córdoba, Spain
d
Department of Financial Economics and Accounting, University of Granada, Calle Santander, 1, 52005 Melilla, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Gastronomy
Tourism
Gastronomic experience
Perceived value
Gastronomic satisfaction
Loyalty
A B S T R A C T
Gastronomy is a fundamental pillar of tourism for visitors to discover the cultural heritage of the place they visit,
thus turning culinary pleasures into determining motivations for the choice of destination and, simultaneously,
an essential variable for the tourist satisfaction conformation of the travelling experience. This research aims to
study the gastronomic experiences of travellers in different destinations. The investigation is based on fieldwork
with 445 replies to a survey, and the results reveal the positive influence of culinary experiences on gastronomic
satisfaction and loyalty to the destination, as well as an influence of gastronomic motivations on the value
perceived and culinary experiences. In summary, gastronomic experiences form the backbone of the motivations
and subsequent satisfaction and loyalty of travellers in a tourist destination.
1. Introduction
Food tourism can be understood as “visitation to primary and secondary
food producers, food festivals, restaurants and/or specific locations for which
food tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of specialist food production
region are the primary motivating factor for travel” (Hall and Sharples,
2003:2). This implies that food tourism is attractive not only for res
taurants, but also for food producers and food factories.
An increasing number of tourists condition their satisfaction with the
destination on the evaluation of the gastronomic experience that they
have had there, especially in places with great historical–cultural sig
nificance. There is a wide range of possibilities that determine the
gastronomic experience, from the purely auxiliary and logistical support
of the trip to becoming a key factor in the tourist experience and even
the determining factor in the choice of destination (López-Guzmán et al.,
2017). On the other hand, a new relationship between gastronomy and
tourism is being recently analysed, represented by exclusive travellers
such as chefs, who seek to discover through their trips new culinary
techniques, products, flavours, and textures to use this learning in their
renowned restaurants, thus turning the gastronomy of the destination
visited into a source of innovation for its culinary developments.
The study of gastronomic tourism goes through the analysis of visitor
behaviour. Research carried out on this subject reveals two important
pieces of evidence (Fields, 2002): First, tourists interested in the
gastronomy of the destination usually have a greater spending capacity.
Second, those who travel for gastronomic reasons tend to be much more
demanding of the quality and authenticity of the local gastronomy
tasted. According to Privitera et al. (2018) gastronomic experiences can
add value to any type of tourist activity and be appealing to a wide range
of potential consumers.
This research seeks to contribute to the academic literature regarding
the gastronomic experiences of foreign travellers. It aims to establish a
model that helps explain the relationships among gastronomic motiva
tions, perceived value, and their impact on satisfaction and loyalty to
wards culinary destinations, and consequently a previous theoretical
framework is developed taking this structure as the basis. The infor
mation attained following this model, can be useful for the tourism in
dustry, especially for public and private institutions devoted to tourism
promotion, as relationship among culinary motivations and loyalty and
recommendation of the destination can be measured.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dmora@bculinary.com (D. Mora), msolano@ugr.es (M.Á. Solano-Sánchez), tomas.lopez@uco.es (T. López-Guzmán), smoral@ugr.es (S. Moral-
Cuadra).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijgfs
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100405
Received 14 April 2021; Received in revised form 12 June 2021; Accepted 27 July 2021

2
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Gastronomic motivations
Following Fields (2002), gastronomic motivations can be grouped
into four different typologies. First, the simple physiological need to feed
exists, which, according to Fields (2002) and López-Guzmán et al.
(2017), is an accessory motivation for the tourist and does not suppose
any special incentive to visit a destination. The second of the motiva
tions (Fields, 2002) has a cultural character: the desire to discover the
destination and its heritage through gastronomy. The third has an
interpersonal nature, and the fourth motivation concentrates on the
need to obtain social status.
Quan and Wang (2004) propose two segments of motivations con
cerning the gastronomy of the destination, differentiating between main
and secondary motivations, unrelated to the culinary experience of the
destination, although without minimising the factor derived from the
local gastronomy within the choice of destination. In this line, studies
referring to investigate the importance of motivations for local
gastronomy in the decision to visit one place or another are highlighted
(Babolian Hendijani, 2016).
Other studies approach the analysis of motivations towards the
destination’s gastronomy according to different dimensions (Kim et al.,
2013; Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2016). Thus, Anderson et al.
(2017) analyse gastronomic motivations through the different experi
ences that tourists can obtain: sensory, cultural, and social. Babolian
Hendijani (2016) points out the following dimensions: heritage, service,
gastronomic environment, variety, availability, sensory, and in
gredients. Kim et al. (2013) categorise the gastronomic dimensions into
five groups: cultural experience, expectations, interpersonal relation
ships, sensory appeal, and health concern.
Lastly, the literature also divides motivations into push and pull
factors, being push factor the decision to travel itself, as pull explains the
reasons for the travel (Zoltan and Masiero, 2012). In this sense, Daries
et al. (2021) estate that High-Quality restaurants act as prominent pull
factor in tourism industry, measuring the last with the push factors that
the tourists previously had.
2.2. Perceived gastronomic value and gastronomic experience
2.2.1. Perceived value
The development of an attractive gastronomic proposal in a certain
destination implies the possibility of an enhancing effect of tourism that
can achieve a notable impact on other activities and sectors. Likewise,
this impetus allows tourist activities to diversify, thus reducing season
ality in some tourist destinations. However, to achieve this develop
ment, an appropriate public–private policy is needed, where different
culinary processes are promoted to reach sustainable development of
gastronomic tourism. One possible way to attain this is by combining
some gastronomic experiences with others, such as wine tourism or
oleotourism, thus allowing the visit to that place to turn into a unique
and differentiated experience (Haven-Tang and Jones, 2005).
In this line of culinary tourism development, Jiménez-Beltrán et al.
(2016), in their work on gastronomy in the city of Córdoba, point out
that traditional cuisine is an indispensable element for both the orga
nisation of the attractions of that destination itself and the transfer of the
cultural heritage of the place for the visitor. Therefore, it is essential to
develop culinary processes based on tradition and innovation that al
lows the preservation of culinary tradition and, at the same time,
innovation with new gastronomic proposals (Getz et al., 2014).
2.2.2. Gastronomic experience
Regarding gastronomic experiences, the word “taste” is the most
valued (Taar, 2014). Taste and smell are the emotional elements that set
a better gastronomic experience and, consequently, greater diner satis
faction (Desmet and Schifferstein, 2008). In similar terms, Quan and
Wang (2014) define gastronomic experiences as knowing new in
gredients and/or learning new ways of cooking ingredients or
consuming food. Finally, Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen (2017) state
that gastronomic experiences are unique and, in general, quite
subjective.
However, other elements are also fundamental in these experiences.
Thus, Taar (2014) relates them to three dimensions: First, the appear
ance of the food where aspects such as plating, colour, or texture are
valued; second, the situational factors where the establishment atmo
sphere is valued, the possibility of interacting with the restaurateurs
about each of the dishes, as well as the location or distribution of the
tables; and third, the individual factors where aspects such as cognitive
elements, the diner’s sensations, or the time spent enjoying food are
presented.
The gastronomic experience is also relevant during travel, when the
tourist approaches a certain restaurant to consume the local gastronomy
of that destination, with the visit to that culinary establishment even
being the main motivation for the trip. Sometimes, gastronomy becomes
part of the transmission of the culture of a place. Thus, according to
Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen (2017), the search for gastronomic ex
periences can be intensive or extensive. It has an intensive nature when
the visitor is exposed to the same experience throughout their trip, while
it is extensive when the traveller seeks a variety of different gastronomic
experiences in that place. In the same line, works as Agyeiwaah et al.
(2019) and Berbel-Pineda et al. (2019) revealed the influence of
gastronomic motivations on the gastronomic perceived value and the
gastronomic experience respectively, thus forming the motivations as
key elements in the value chain for the perceived value for the tourist.
According to the literature review, the research hypotheses to be
tested are the following:
H1. : Gastronomic motivations positively influence the perceived
gastronomic value of the tourist.
H2. : Gastronomic motivations positively influence the gastronomic
experience of the tourist.
2.3. Gastronomic satisfaction
The competitiveness currently generated between different tourist
destinations determines the need to add cultural and authenticity as
pects compared to the traditional standardisation of this sector. Thus,
local gastronomy is established as an important ally in the development
of unique and unforgettable experiences (Haven-Tang and Jones, 2005).
Babolian Hendijani (2016) reaches an interesting conclusion in
asserting that tourist satisfaction with the destination’s gastronomy is
conditioned by the cultural richness from which these culinary processes
come and the natural and healthy character of the products used in their
processing, usually from local producers. In any case, gastronomic
satisfaction is also influenced by the taste, often derived from elabora
tions of ancestral recipes that are an integral part of the cultural heritage
of the inhabitants of the destination, representing unique and different
experiences that the traveller can enjoy in his/her place of origin. Thus,
gastronomic experiences become a determining factor of traveller
satisfaction (Babolian Hendijani, 2016).
In essence, local gastronomy can be a determining factor in the
conformation of tourist satisfaction with the destination (Björk and
Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2016; López-Guzmán et al., 2017), relating con
structs of the first magnitude such as motivation, experience, or satis
faction. All the above are endorsed in studies such as by Lu and Chi
(2018), where the positive influence of perceived value on satisfaction is
revealed, giving validity and reinforcement to what was previously
mentioned by Kim et al. (2013). The gastronomic experience, for its
part, is formed as a key element for the valuation of a destination (Kivela
and Crotts, 2005), becoming an influencing variable on the gastronomic
satisfaction of a destination (Berbel-Pineda et al., 2019). However, other
studies have not shown a positive influence of gastronomic experiences
D. Mora et al.

3
on gastronomic satisfaction (Nield et al., 2000).
H3. : The perceived gastronomic value of the tourist positively in
fluences their gastronomic satisfaction.
H4. : The gastronomic experience of the tourist positively influences
their gastronomic satisfaction.
2.4. Loyalty
Loyalty to a destination is a fundamental element in marketing
strategies, as it is considered the best estimator of consumer behaviour
(Chen and Chen, 2010). Loyal visitors become an important channel of
information and positive communication for other people (Baker and
Crompton, 2000). Studies on tourist loyalty usually distinguish between
two types of loyalties: behavioural loyalty, linked to the repetition of the
purchase (that is, to visit the destination again), and attitudinal or af
fective loyalty, linked to an attitude of recommending the tourist
destination to other people and of visiting it again in the future (Chen
and Tsai, 2007).
Authors like Kim et al. (2013) establish the predictive role of the
gastronomic experience regarding loyalty. In this sense, Ji et al. (2014)
establish a triangle where the gastronomic experience influences
gastronomic satisfaction and, in turn, loyalty. For their part, Tse and
Crotts (2005) point out the role of influence that the gastronomic
experience exerts on loyalty to the destination, gastronomic in this case,
which is supported and reinforced by studies such as by Alderighi et al.
(2016).
For their part, authors like Chen and Chen (2010) and Chen and
Huang (2019) establish a positive influence of gastronomic satisfaction
on loyalty, where the influence of gastronomic satisfaction on the in
tentions of revisiting a destination is more than evidenced. In similar
terms, researches as Babin et al. (1994) and Ryu et al. (2010) reinforce
the positive influence that perceived gastronomic value generates on
loyalty to a certain gastronomic destination.
H5. : The perceived gastronomic value of the tourist positively in
fluences loyalty.
H6. : The gastronomic experience of the tourist positively influences
loyalty.
H7. : The gastronomic satisfaction of the tourist has a positive influ
ence on their loyalty.
The proposed structural model is presented in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
3.1. Survey design and sample
A quantitative methodology through a structured questionnaire was
developed based on previous research. The data collection, due to the
current scenario, was carried out online, starting the survey collection
period on 29 June 2020. The aim of this research is focused on knowing
the profile and motivations of tourists in relation to gastronomy. A total
of 476 surveys were obtained, although, after an initial reliability test,
31 surveys were filtered, leading to a final sample of 445 surveys. The
discarded questionnaires were those that its fill was left in without
answering a large number of items, thus avoiding any type of bias that
might exist. To check the reliability of the scale, a Cronbach’s alpha test
was performed, obtaining a value of 0.961. Therefore, the reliability of
the data scale was more than optimal. Previously, a pre-test with 25
responses was carried out.
The structure followed in the questionnaire is composed of three
differentiated parts: First, questions related to the main motivation for
travelling, other issues related to gastronomy in the trips, and the will
ingness to visit gastronomy-related destinations are addressed. Second,
questions focused on mediating variables like perceived value, gastro
nomic motivations, gastronomic experiences, satisfaction, and loyalty.
Finally, questions related to the sociodemographic profile are included.
Most of the questionnaire, except for the sociodemographic profile, is
approached through a five-point Likert scale. Thus, the perceived value
is measured through a Likert scale, where 1 represents “Very low” and 5
“Excellent”; questions related to gastronomic motivations and experi
ences are average, considering 1 as “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally
agree”. Finally, questions addressing satisfaction and loyalty were
scored from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5). The rest of
the items were polytomous (reason for the trip, gender, educational
level, family income, etc.) or open-ended (age, municipality, and
country of origin).
3.2. Statistical analysis
For the preliminary data analysis, SPSS v24 was used. For the
development of the structural model based on partial least squares
(PLS), the SmartPLS software v3.2.8 was employed. PLS was applied for
explanatory purposes, as in this research case, it is applicable whenever
one or more constructs are modelled as compounds, focusing the anal
ysis on the study of the coefficient of determination (R2
) of the
Fig. 1. Proposed structural model.
D. Mora et al.

4
dependent variables, its effect sizes (f2
), as well as the statistical infer
ence of the structural relationships or path coefficients (Henseler, 2018).
The model presented is structured in a double analysis of reliability and
validity: First, an analysis of reliability and validity of the measurement
model will be carried out, at both the indicator or item level and the
compound level. The second analysis focuses on the structural model.
4. Analysis and results
4.1. Sociodemographic profile
Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample ob
tained, the profile of the gastronomic tourist refers to that of a woman
(59.9%), aged between 18 and 40 years (60.5%), with a high educa
tional level, making special mention of university training both graduate
(37.5%) and postgraduate (Master or PhD), with a percentage that
represented 35.6% of the total. Concerning the occupational category,
37.4% were students, followed by civil servants (23.7%) and private
employees (20.4%). Finally, in relation to the monthly income level, it
can be mentioned that the gastronomic tourist represents a medium or
medium-high economic level (19.9%) declares monthly income between
€1,501 and €2,500. Also highlight that an 8.5% declare income greater
than €3,500, while 23.6% declare income less than or equal to €1,000.
Table 1 shows the sample’s sociodemographic profile in more detail.
4.2. Preliminary data analysis
The preliminary analysis of the different observable variables rela
tive to each of the constructs present in the model is displayed in Table 2,
which is based on the mean, skewness, and kurtosis.
4.3. Reliability and validity analysis of the measurement model
The analysis of reliability and individual validity of the Mode A
compounds (Table 3) is carried out through the factorial loads, which
must be equal to or greater than 0.707 (Ali et al., 2018). Although loads
below 0.6 are allowed in the initial stages of scale development, they
should never be less than 0.4 (Hair et al., 2010). Regarding the Mode B
compounds present in the model, this analysis at the indicator level is
carried out through the weights and their significance (Diamantopoulos
and Winkholfer, 2001), including the possibility of multicollinearity
problems (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006). These last authors point
out the application of the variance inflation factor (VIF) test to detect
possible multicollinearity if the VIF is greater than 3.3 (Roberts and
Thatcher, 2009).
The maintenance of the insignificant weights is due to what is
Table 1
Sociodemographic profile of the sample.
Item % Item %
Gender Occupational category
Man 39.0% Student 37.4%
Woman 59.9% Civil servant 23.7%
Non-binary 1.1% Private employee 20.4%
Educational level Independent worker 7.3%
Primary education 1.1% Self-employed 6.4%
Secondary education 25.8% Unemployed 3.9%
University graduate 37.5% Housework 0.6%
Master/PhD 35.6% Retired 0.3%
Age Monthly income
Less than 18 years old 0.2% Less than 700€ 13.1%
18–30 years old 40.2% 700€ - 1000€ 10.5%
31–40 years old 20.2% 1001€ - 1500€ 16.8%
41–50 years old 26.5% 1501€ - 2500€ 19.9%
51–60 years old 9.9% 2501€ - 3500€ 8.5%
More than 60 years old 2.9% More than 3500€ 11.4%
Non-answered 19.9%
Source: Authors.
Table 2
Preliminary analysis of observable variables.
Code Variable Mean Skew Kurtosis
Gastronomic Perceived Value (GPV) - Composite
Mode A
GPV1 Quality of dishes 4.27 − 1.383 2.203
GPV2 Variety of dishes 4.02 − 0.820 0.507
GPV3 Prices 4.04 − 0.854 0.320
GPV4 Culinary establishment installations 3.70 − 0.497 − 0.064
GPV5 Establishment atmosphere 4.03 − 1.068 1.117
GPV6 Innovation and new flavours in the dishes 3.59 − 0.542 − 0.415
GPV7 Service and hospitality 4.49 − 2.012 4.597
GPV8 Traditional gastronomy 4.24 − 1.055 0.868
Gastronomic Motivations (GM) – Composite
Mode B
GM1 Local gastronomy increases my
knowledge about different culinary
elaborations.
3.94 − 0.953 0.808
GM2 Local gastronomy allows me to discover
other cultural elements of the tourist
destination.
4.24 − 1.335 1.663
GM3 Local gastronomy allows me to know how
the culinary dishes of this place taste.
4.21 − 1.305 1.895
GM4 Local gastronomy allows me to discover
new things.
4.26 − 1.428 1.933
GM5 I travel to have unique gastronomic
experiences.
3.17 − 0.152 − 0.878
GM6 The possibility of enjoying the local
gastronomy in its place of origin is an
important reason for me.
3.72 − 0.755 − 0.066
GM7 Gastronomic experiences relax me. 3.68 − 0.588 − 0.547
GM8 Gastronomic experiences allow me to
enjoy my surroundings slowly.
3.80 − 0.531 − 0.271
GM9 Gastronomic experiences allow me to
forget about everyday life.
3.75 − 0.597 − 0.468
GM10 Local gastronomy contains a lot of fresh
ingredients produced in the same
destination that I visit.
3.88 − 0.637 − 0.222
GM11 Local gastronomy is healthy. 3.70 − 0.404 − 0.481
GM12 Local gastronomy is nutritious. 3.72 − 0.385 − 0.576
GM13 Zero-kilometre gastronomy is sustainable. 3.72 − 0.459 − 0.378
GM14 Local gastronomy allows me to spend a
pleasant time with my friends and/or
family.
4.21 − 1.158 0.987
GM15 Local gastronomy allows me to strengthen
social bonds.
4.01 − 0.907 0.366
GM16 Local gastronomy knowledge allows me
to talk with other people about
gastronomic experiences.
3.97 − 0.989 0.473
GM17 Local gastronomy consumption allows me
to guide other people who may visit that
destination.
4.09 − 1.008 0.607
Gastronomic Experience (GE) – Composite Mode
A
GE1 Authentic culinary experience 3.84 0.739 0.104
GE2 Learn about the culture and traditions of
the destination visited
4.18 − 1.166 1.573
GE3 Good smell 4.08 − 0.979 0.738
GE4 Good visual aspect 4.14 − 1.089 1.354
GE5 Good taste 4.45 − 1.944 4.028
GE6 Fresh ingredients 4.35 − 1.618 2.746
GE7 Different flavours from the food of my
home
4.10 − 1.060 1.021
GE8 Different from what I usually eat 4.14 − 1.140 1.014
Gastronomic Satisfaction (GS) – Composite Mode
A
GS1 Gastronomy is important in my degree of
satisfaction in a destination.
4.01 − 0.934 0.481
GS2 It has been a good decision to taste the
gastronomy of this destination.
4.34 − 1.387 2.007
GS3 My satisfaction level with the gastronomy
of this destination has been high.
4.20 − 1.153 0.953
Loyalty (L) – Composite Mode A
L1 I would recommend visiting a destination
if someone asked me for advice regarding
its gastronomy.
4.25 − 1.272 1.280
L2 4.17 − 1.330 1.673
(continued on next page)
D. Mora et al.

5
indicated by Hair et al. (2014), that is, keeping those non-significant
weights provided that the associated external load is equal to or
greater than 0.5, a condition accomplished in this study.
The reliability and validity at the level of the construct (Table 4) are
tested through the Dijkstra–Henseler rho (rho_A), due to its consistent
reliability measure (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). The Dijkstra–Henseler
rho must present values greater than 0.7 for adequate internal consis
tency to exist (Henseler, 2017). Convergent validity is analysed through
the average variance extracted (AVE), where AVE values equal to or
greater than 0.5 are necessary for the existence of convergent validity
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Finally, convergent validity is analysed through the hetero
trait–monotrait ratio, assuming the existence of convergent validity if
each construct is measuring only and exclusively its compound
(Table 5). Henseler et al. (2016) pointed out that the hetero
trait–monotrait ratio was the measure that best detected the lack of
discriminant validity. Values of this ratio lower than 0.90 would imply
the existence of discriminant validity in the model (Gold et al., 2001).
4.4. Reliability and validity analysis of the structural model
Table 6 shows the associated values of R2
for each of the endogenous
variables present in the model. Next to these values, the amount of
explained variance that each of the exogenous variables provides to its
endogenous variable is detailed.
The results obtained show a substantial predictive power (R2
) (Hair
et al., 2014) of all the endogenous variables of the model, highlighting
gastronomic experience and loyalty, the latter with a value close to 0.7.
It is worth mentioning the gastronomic motivations are responsible
for explaining 42.77% and 61.94% of the variable “gastronomic
perceived value” and “gastronomic experience”, respectively. In the
same line, the gastronomic experience contributes to explain 26.89% of
the variance of the gastronomic satisfaction variable. Finally, gastro
nomic satisfaction contributes to explain 53.32% of the variability of
loyalty.
Related to the latter, the effect size (f2
) (Cohen, 1988) points to the
degree to which a certain exogenous construct contributes to explaining
a certain endogenous construct in terms of R2
(Table 7).
It should be noted (Table 7) how the “gastronomic experience”
variable generates a moderate and significant effect on gastronomic
satisfaction, and causes a large and significant effect on the loyalty
variable, consistent with the results obtained in terms of explained
variance and R2
(Table 6).
To test the degree of significance of the path coefficients, a boot
strapping of 10,000 samples was carried out (Streukens and
Leroi-Werelds, 2016) to obtain statistical significance through the stu
dent’s t-test, as well as the confidence intervals, the latter with a
nonparametric test. The results obtained are presented in Table 8.
5. Discussion
Regarding the statistical inference of the structural paths or path
coefficients, the first of the proposed hypotheses has been supported (β1
= 0.654***; 0.000), in line with previous studies that hypothesised and
established a positive influence of gastronomic motivations on the
Table 2 (continued)
Code Variable Mean Skew Kurtosis
I will encourage my family and friends to
visit certain restaurants.
L3 When I like a restaurant, I try to return to
that destination.
4.00 − 1.038 0.467
L4 I intend to buy the products of the local
gastronomy that I tried during that trip.
3.85 − 0.916 0.253
L5 I will recommend the local gastronomic
products of the destinations I visit.
4.21 − 1.418 1.800
Source: Authors.
Table 3
Reliability and individual validity analysis of the measurement model.
Compounds Factorial loads Sig. Weights Sig. VIF
Gastronomic Perceived Value (GPV) – Mode A
GPV1 0.809 (0.000)
GPV2 0.807 (0.000)
GPV3 0.457 (0.000)
GPV4 0.766 (0.000)
GPV5 0.772 (0.000)
GPV6 0.662 (0.000)
GPV7 0.745 (0.000)
GPV8 0.683 (0.000)
Gastronomic Motivations (GM) – Mode B
GM1 0.738 (0.000) 0.120 (0.020) 2.058
GM2 0.781 (0.000) 0.154 (0.036) 3.305
GM3 0.775 (0.000) 0.198 (0.003) 2.603
GM4 0.709 (0.000) 0.014 (0.434) 2.864
GM5 0.640 (0.000) 0.053 (0.178) 2.116
GM6 0.742 (0.000) 0.180 (0.002) 2.486
GM7 0.689 (0.000) 0.001 (0.492) 3.036
GM8 0.763 (0.000) 0.133 (0.035) 3.242
GM9 0.653 (0.000) -0.058 (0.215) 2.654
GM10 0.753 (0.000) 0.127 (0.018) 2.187
GM11 0.602 (0.000) 0.116 (0.134) 2.683
GM12 0.559 (0.000) 0.003 (0.488) 2.845
GM13 0.523 (0.000) 0.136 (0.320) 2.136
GM14 0.699 (0.000) 0.098 (0.088) 2.392
GM15 0.740 (0.000) 0.133 (0.020) 2.726
GM16 0.684 (0.000) 0.089 (0.066) 1.966
GM17 0.765 (0.000) 0.123 (0.020) 2.568
Gastronomic Experience (GE) - Mode A
GE1 0.730 (0.000)
GE2 0.770 (0.000)
GE3 0.839 (0.000)
GE4 0.811 (0.000)
GE5 0.861 (0.000)
GE6 0.795 (0.000)
GE7 0.741 (0.000)
GE8 0.616 (0.000)
Gastronomic Satisfaction (GS) – Mode A
GS1 0.856 (0.000)
GS2 0.919 (0.000)
GS3 0.913 (0.000)
Loyalty (L) – Mode A
L1 0.881 (0.000)
L2 0.899 (0.000)
L3 0.658 (0.000)
L4 0.706 (0.000)
L5 0.900 (0.000)
Source: Authors.
Table 4
Composite reliability and convergent validity (AVE).
rho_A AVE
Gastronomic Experience 0.897 0.606
Loyalty 0.905 0.665
Gastronomic Motivations 1.000 –
Satisfaction 0.881 0.804
Gastronomic Perceived Value 0.889 0.520
Source: Authors.
Table 5
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Gastronomic Experience
(2) Loyalty 0.666
(3) Satisfaction 0.641 0.896
(4) Gastronomic Perceived Value 0.666 0.483 0.487
Source: Authors.
D. Mora et al.

6
gastronomic perceived value (Agyeiwaah et al., 2019). At present,
gastronomic motivations are considered as a tourist motivation, which
implies a high degree of satisfaction and positive perception of them
(Kim et al., 2013). For its part, the second of the proposed hypotheses,
which hypothesised the positive influence of gastronomic motivations
on the gastronomic experience, has also been supported (β2 = 0.787***;
0.000), giving strength and endorsement to previous studies that also
established a positive relationship between both variables (Berbel-Pi
neda et al., 2019). This gastronomic experience can involve attractions
such as regional cuisine, gastronomic events, or gastronomic circuits
(Gândara et al., 2008).
Hypotheses 3 and 4, which established a positive influence of the
gastronomic perceived value and the gastronomic experience, respec
tively, on gastronomic satisfaction, have also been supported (β3 =
0.166**; 0.003/β4 = 0.471***; 0.000), endorsing not only previous
studies that also established a positive influence (Kim et al., 2013; Lu
and Chi, 2018; Berbel-Pineda et al., 2019) but also the idea that the
value is one of the main drivers of customer satisfaction in all service
sectors (Ji et al., 2014). Other authors failed to demonstrate a positive
influence of gastronomic experiences on gastronomic satisfaction (Nield
et al., 2000).
The hypothesis that established an influence of perceived gastro
nomic value on loyalty (β5 = 0.028NS
; 0.270) has not been supported,
going against a whole series of studies that showed the opposite (Babin
et al., 1994; Ryu et al., 2010). On the other hand, the last two hypotheses
raised have been supported, which established that both gastronomic
experiences and gastronomic satisfaction positively influenced loyalty
(β6 = 0.169**; 0.008/β7 = 0.698***; 0.000). This is in line with previous
studies (Chen and Chen, 2010; Chen and Huang, 2019) that established
a positive influence of satisfaction on loyalty, also demonstrating satis
faction as a predecessor variable of behavioural intentions, that is,
loyalty. Lastly, studies such as by Tse and Crotts (2005) and Alderighi
et al. (2016) validate the results obtained in terms of the direct and
positive relationship between gastronomic experiences and loyalty,
affirming studies that show a triple influence among gastronomic
experience, gastronomic satisfaction, and loyalty (Ji et al., 2014).
6. Conclusions, implications for management, and limitations
Gastronomy is perceived as one of the great opportunities to promote
or consolidate certain tourist destinations, due to the increasing
importance for travellers of the knowledge of everything related to the
culinary culture of the places they visit. Thus, there are already travel
lers who consider going to a specific restaurant or simply getting to
know the cuisine of a geographical area as the main motivation for their
trip.
One of the main contributions of this research is to verify that the
degree of satisfaction towards local gastronomy is conditioned by culi
nary motivations. Visitors point to high satisfaction with their culinary
experience, and the significant appreciation differs depending on the
declared interest in gastronomy. Similarly, the increased interest implies
significantly different perceptions concerning the attributes of local
cuisine, with the traditional gastronomy, prices, and quality of food
valued to a greater extent.
Therefore, it can be stated that there is a synergic relationship be
tween tourism and food production, that reflects in various manners:
first, the existence of local, quality food improves the image and repu
tation of a tourist destination; second, the specialisation of a tourist
destination towards food tourism increases the average expense of vis
itors during their stay; third, the visitors better asses the experience at a
destination if local food and quality service is provided; fourth, tourism
may help rural areas to diversify its economy, gaining income via tourist
expenses throughout the year; and fifth, tourism has also the power to
increase the purchase of local food, not only during the visit to the
destination but, what is more, when visitors return to their residences.
This research provides not only theoretical but also practical impli
cations. It contributes to understanding the different relationships be
tween the variables that compose the model, analysing how through a
correct identification of the motivations (gastronomic or culinary, in this
case), total gastronomic satisfaction of the tourist can be reached, which
would result in their return to the destination or the recommendation of
the destination to friends and/or family. Correct identification of these
motivations, together with a complete gastronomic offer at the
Table 6
Coefficient of determination (R2
) and explained variance.
R2
Coef.
Path
Correlation Expl.
Variance
Gastronomic Perceived Value
(GPV)
0.427
H1: Gastronomic Motivations
(GM)
0.654 0.654 42.77%
Gastronomic Experience (GE) 0.619
H2: Gastronomic Motivations
(GM)
0.787 0.787 61.94%
Gastronomic Satisfaction (GS) 0.344
H3: Gastronomic Perceived
Value (GPV)
0.166 0.450 7.47%
H4: Gastronomic Experience
(GE)
0.471 0.571 26.89%
Loyalty (L) 0.674
H5: Gastronomic Perceived
Value (GPV)
0.028 0.444 1.24%
H6: Gastronomic Experience
(GE)
0.169 0.585 9.88%
H7: Gastronomic Satisfaction
(GS)
0.698 0.807 56.32%
Source: Authors.
Table 7
Effect size.
Endogenous Variable Exogenous Variable/s f2
(Sig.) Effect
Gastronomic Perceived
Value (GPV)
Gastronomic
Motivations (GM)
0.747
(0.000)
Large and
significant
Gastronomic
Experiences (GE)
Gastronomic
Motivations (GM)
1.623
(0.000)
Large and
significant
Gastronomic
Satisfaction (GS)
Gastronomic Perceived
Value (GPV)
0.027
(0.096)
Small and non-
significant
Gastronomic
Experiences (GE)
0.216
(0.004)
Moderate and
significant
Loyalty (L) Gastronomic Perceived
Value (GPV)
0.001
(0.420)
No effect
Gastronomic
Experiences (GE)
0.046
(0.129)
Small and non-
significant
Gastronomic
Satisfaction (GS)
0.981
(0.000)
Large and
significant
Source: Authors.
Table 8
Statistical inference of the path coefficients. Hypothesis contrast.
Hypotheses/Path Path Coeff. t-value (Sig.) Confidence Interval (95%)
5% 95%
H1: GM→GPV 0.654*** 13.767(0.000) 0.559 0.717
H2: GM→GE 0.787*** 26.980(0.000) 0.726 0.824
HE: GPV→GS 0.166** 2.709(0.003) 0.072 0.273
H4: GE→GS 0.471*** 6.704(0.000) 0.350 0.581
H5: GPV→L 0.028NS
0.614(0.270) − 0.049 0.101
H6: GE→L 0.169** 2.399(0.008) 0.064 0.297
H7: GS→L 0.698*** 13.376(0.000) 0.602 0.776
Notes: n = 10,000 subsamples. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS: non-
significant (one tailed t Student). t(0.05; 9999) = 1.645; t(0.001; 9999) =
2.327; t(0.001; 9999) = 3.092. GM: Gastronomic Motivations; GPV: Gastro
nomic Perceived Value; GE: Gastronomic Experience; GS: Gastronomic Satis
faction; L: Loyalty. Source: Authors.
D. Mora et al.

7
destination, would generate an effect of attraction and loyalty of
gastronomic tourists, which implies, for a correct gastronomic offer, the
joint work of both public and private entities.
As limitations of this research, the time span of the fieldwork stands
out. Therefore, it would be necessary to extend the study to all months of
the year to avoid possible temporal biases. On the other hand, a com
plete analysis of the tourism sector in Spain would require a parallel
investigation of the companies in the tourism offer. For this reason, as a
future line of research, it is recommended to carry out an in-depth
investigation regarding the gastronomic offer focused on tourists in
Spain.
Implications for gastronomy
The proposed model highlights a series of variables related to
gastronomy, ranging from the initial motivations that make a tourist
travel for gastronomic reasons to the level of loyalty experienced to
wards a culinary destination. Within this process, a series of variables is
observed that makes it possible to accomplish this loyalty process. Thus,
gastronomic experiences are formed as an angle element for a gastro
nomic destination, since through the consumption of the local
gastronomy of a destination, it is possible to discover nuances and the
proper culture of a place. A positive gastronomic experience will result
in gastronomic satisfaction at the destination and, consequently,
behavioural intentions, repetition, and recommendation, consolidating
the place as a reference in a gastronomic tourist destination.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Investigation: Tomás López-Guzmán and Miguel Ángel Solano-
Sánchez. Visualisation: David Mora Gómez and Salvador Moral-
Cuadra. Writing - original draft: Tomás López-Guzmán. Prepara
tion: Miguel Ángel Solano-Sánchez and David Mora Gómez. Writing -
review & editing: Salvador Moral-Cuadra and Miguel Ángel Solano-
Sánchez. Supervision: Tomás López-Guzmán.
Funding
None.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no potential competing interests.
References
Agyeiwaah, E., Otoo, F.E., Suntikul, W., Huang, W.J., 2019. Understanding culinary
tourist motivation, experience, satisfaction, and loyalty using a structural approach.
J. Trav. Tourism Market. 36 (3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2018.1541775.
Alderighi, M., Bianchi, C., Lorenzini, E., 2016. The impact of local food specialities on the
decision to (re)visit a tourist destination: market-expanding or business-stealing?
Tourism Manag. 57, 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.016.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Ryu, K., 2018. An assessment of
the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality
research. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 30 (1), 514–538. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568.
Anderson, T., Mossberg, L., Therkelsen, A., 2017. Food and tourism synergies:
perspectives on consumption, production and destination development. Scand. J.
Hospit. Tourism 17 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1275290.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656. https://doi.org/
10.1086/209376.
Babolian Hendijani, R., 2016. Effect of food experience on tourist satisfaction: the case of
Indonesia. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 10 (3), 272–282. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2015-0030.
Baker, D.A., Crompton, J.L., 2000. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Ann.
Tourism Res. 27 (3), 785–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00108-5.
Jiménez Beltrán, J., López-Guzmán, T., González Santa-Cruz, F., 2016. Gastronomy and
tourism: profile and motivation of international tourism in the city of Córdoba,
Spain. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 14 (4), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15428052.2016.1160017.
Berbel-Pineda, J.M., Palacios-Florencio, B., Ramírez-Hurtado, J.M., Santos-Roldán, L.,
2019. Gastronomic experience as a factor of motivation in the tourist movements.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 18, 100171. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijgfs.2019.100171.
Björk, P., Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., 2016. Exploring the multi-dimensionality of
travellers’ culinary-gastronomic experiences. Curr. Issues Tourism 19 (12),
1260–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.868412.
Björk, P., Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., 2017. A destination’s gastronomy as a means for
holiday well-being. Br. Food J. 119 (7), 1578–1591. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-
09-2016-0394.
Chen, C.-F., Chen, F.-S., 2010. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Manag. 31 (1), 29–35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.
Chen, Q., Huang, R., 2019. Understanding the role of local food in sustaining Chinese
destinations. Curr. Issues Tourism 22 (5), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2018.1444020.
Chen, C.F., Tsai, D., 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioural intentions? Tourism Manag. 28, 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2006.07.007.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Daries, N., Marine-Roig, E., Ferrer-Rosell, B., Cristobal-Fransi, E., 2021. Do high-quality
restaurants act as pull factors to a tourist destination? Tourism Anal. 26 (2–3),
195–210. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354221X16079839951466.
Desmet, P.M.A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., 2008. Sources of positive and negative emotions in
food experience. Appetite 50, 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2007.08.003.
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A., 2006. Formative versus reflective indicators in
organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J.
Manag. 17 (4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Market. Res. 38, 269–277. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845.
Dijkstra, T.K., Henseler, J., 2015. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q.
39 (2), 297–316.
Fields, K., 2002. Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: motivational factors. In:
Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G. (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, London,
pp. 36–50.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3151312.
Gândara, J.M.G., Albach, V.M., Vieira, V.B., 2008. A Gestao Responsável de Unidades de
Conservaçao e o Turismo; Uma Analise Comparativa entre Curitiba e Joinville.
resentation: V Seminario de Pesquisa em Turismo de MERCOSUL. Turismo:
inovacoes da Pesquisa na America Latina. Universidade Federal do Parana.
Getz, D., Robinson, R., Anderson, T., Vujicic, S., 2014. Foodies and Food Tourism.
Goodfellow, Oxford.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., Segars, A.H., 2001. Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18 (1), 185–214. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall, Boston.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V., 2014. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur.
Bus. Rev. 26 (2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., 2003. The consumption of experiences or the experience of
consumption? An introduction to the tourism of taste. In: Hall, C.M., Sharples, L.,
Mitchell, R., Macionis, N., Cambourne, B. (Eds.), Food Tourism Around the World.
Routledge, New York, pp. 1–24.
Haven-Tang, C., Jones, E., 2005. Using local food and drink to differentiate tourism
destinations through a sense of place: a story from Wales. Dining at
Monmouthshire’s Great Table. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 4 (4), 69–86. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J385v04n04_07.
Henseler, J., 2017. Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based
structural equation modeling. J. Advert. 46 (1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2017.1281780.
Henseler, J., 2018. Partial least squares path modeling: quo vadis? Qual. Quantity 52 (1),
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. Testing measurement invariance of
composites using partial least squares. Int. Market. Rev. 33 (3), 405–430. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304.
Ji, M., Wong, A.I., Eves, A., Scarles, C., 2014. Food-related personality traits and the
moderating role of novelty-seeking in food satisfaction and travel outcomes. Tourism
Manag. 57, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.003.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A., Scarles, C., 2013. Empirical verification of a conceptual model of
local consumption at a tourist destination. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 33, 484–489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.005.
Kivela, J., Crotts, J., 2005. Gastronomy tourism: a meaningful travel market segment.
Journal of Culinary Science and Technology 4 (2/3) 39–55. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J385v04n02_03.
López-Guzmán, T., Uribe-Lotero, C.P., Pérez-Gálvez, J.C., Ríos-Rivera, I., 2017.
Gastronomic festivals: attitude, motivation and satisfaction of the tourist. Br. Food J.
119 (2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0246.
Lu, L., Chi, C.G., 2018. An examination of the perceived value of organic dining. Int. J.
Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 30 (8), 2826–2844. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-
2017-0267.
D. Mora et al.

8
Nield, K., Kozak, M., LeGrys, G., 2000. The role of food service in tourist satisfaction. Int.
J. Hospit. Manag. 19, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-4319(00)00037-2.
Privitera, D., Nedelcu, A., Nicula, V., 2018. Gastronomic and food tourism as an
economic local resource: case studies from Romania and Italy. GeoJournal of
Tourism and Geosites 21 (1), 143–157.
Quan, S., Wang, N., 2004. Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: an
illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Manag. 25 (3), 297–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00130-4.
Roberts, N., Thatcher, J., 2009. Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs:
tutorial and annotated example. ACM SIGMIS - Data Base 40 (3), 3–39. https://doi.
org/10.1145/1592401.1592405.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Jang, S., 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. Int. J.
Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 22 (3), 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09596111011035981.
Streukens, S., Leroi-Werelds, S., 2016. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: a step-by-step guide
to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur. Manag. J. 34, 618–632. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003.
Taar, J., 2014. The best culinary experience. Factors that create extraordinary eating
episodes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 122, 145–151. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1317.
Tse, P., Crotts, J.C., 2005. Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors’
propensity to experiment across Hong Kong’s culinary traditions. Tourism Manag.
26, 965–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.07.002.
Zoltan, J., Masiero, L., 2012. The relation between push motivation and activity
consumption at the destination within the framework of a destination card. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jdmm.2012.09.002.
D. Mora et al.

Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a tourist destination

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a tourist destination

Similar to Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a tourist destination (20)

More from David Mora

More from David Mora (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gastronomic experiences as a key element in the development of a tourist destination