2.1 Implementing a gamified EI program to build competitiveness strategically

Tourism has links with virtually every other economic sector and has profound and far-reaching impacts on all dimensions of sustainable development (^{Costa & Lima, 2018}; ^{Hall, 2019}). However, as noted by ^{Thiel-Ellul and Navarro-Jurado (2014}, p.1), “It is not the development of tourist activity that offers a guarantee of the sustainability of destinations; rather, it is the sustainability of the territory that is the key element for their long-term development.”

EI is among the tools that can help improve destination sustainability-and, consequently, destination competitiveness. Continued advances in ICTs enable interpretative tools to evolve, particularly enhancing participant experience (^{Hofman et al., 2022}). Gamification can be considered a strategy to raise sustainability while enhancing the tourist experience (^{Xu et al., 2017}).

That said, the results delivered by this strategy largely depend on the quality of the gamification design (^{Torres et al., 2022}). The specialised literature on gamification indicates that the mere inclusion of isolated game elements in an EI program is insufficient to positively affect the participants' behaviour (^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}). Instead, studies point to the need to adopt a holistic gamification design that aligns with the scope of the application and the specific objectives to be achieved via the gamification. The literature also emphasises the importance of designing objectives for the gamified experience that are significant (meaningful) for the participant and, thus, motivate them to successfully perform the tasks set by the game while following the rules of the EI program (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}). Reinforcing this understanding, Goal Systems Theory holds that human behaviour is goal-driven and individuals’ goals are represented as cognitive constructs linked to subgoals and means of achievement (^{Kruglanski et al., 2002}). It is also essential to analyse whether the participant feels their gamification experience was motivating and enjoyable.

Based on these factors, it is interesting to advance toward a better understanding of whether taking part in a gamified EI experience influences a tourist's perceived value of that destination. This tourist perspective can provide greater knowledge of (a) the holistic gamification approach implemented through ITCs, (b) the measurement of the participant’s experience of such a holistic gamification approach, and (c) the impact of participation on tourist behaviour (through the ‘destination perceived value’ variable).

2.2 Gamifying an EI program for Tourists: Its effect on destination perceived value

Perceived value is “the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given” (^{Zeithaml, 1988}, p. 14). It has been found that perceived value may help increase destination competitiveness (^{Zhang et al., 2020}), including via the conservation of destination resources, which visitors notice and appreciate (^{Ahn & Kwon, 2020}; ^{Polo-Peña et al., 2013}; ^{Oviedo-García et al., 2017}).

Perceived value can be considered a multidimensional construct, with different authors highlighting different dimensions (^{Polo-Peña et al., 2012}). Most scholars agree that two broad aspects of perceived value can be distinguished: utilitarian factors, such as quality, monetary value, and convenience, and hedonic factors or, in a broader classification, affective factors, which also embrace social factors (^{Polo-Peña et al., 2012}).

Gamification can improve the perception of utilitarian and affective factors (^{Hamari & Koivisto, 2015}a; ^{Torres et al., 2022}). In the tourism context, gamification offers a range of benefits for tourists, including both the sheer hedonic fun and enjoyment of simply participating, coupled with the utilitarian value of the game itself, given that the purpose of gamification is to enhance the basic or core service that is offered to everyone (^{Xu et al., 2017}). Studies on online gamification (^{Hsu et al., 2017}; ^{Hsu & Chen, 2018}) have shown that the experience of using an online interface that includes certain game elements positively influences the dimensions of perceived value.

However, based on the contributions of these two studies in the online field, there is evidence of a gap in the scholarship-specifically, regarding the impact of participation in a gamified experience in terms of destination perceived value. It is interesting to determine whether, among those tourist destinations that use gamification, this approach constitutes a valid strategy for achieving the greater perceived value of the destination while promoting awareness of sustainability among visitors. This understanding may contribute to maximising the competitiveness and sustainability of the destination. Suppose gamification is found to generate the greater perceived value of the destination. In that case, this may be because its use is associated with improving a core service (which can generate a greater functional value), grounded in an intrinsically motivating and enjoyable experience (which can generate the perception of a higher affective value). Therefore, it may be that participating in a gamified EI program geared to enabling visitors to get to know the destination from a sustainability point of view will contribute to generating greater perceived value. On this premise, it is proposed that:

H1: Participation in a gamified EI program significantly and positively affects destination perceived value.

2.3 Gamification: Holistic design and the gameful experience

Gamification dates back to 2008, but it was not until 2011 that the first academic research was published. Researchers at that time were interested in discerning the factors that make games enjoyable and motivating (^{Deterding, 2015}).

The early studies dealing with gamification exclusively adopted a systemic perspective on games. This corresponds with the widely accepted definition of gamification proposed by ^{Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011}, p. 9): “Gamification is the use of game design elements in nongame contexts.” Later, this understanding was criticised by some scholars for its incompleteness, given that it fails to capture how participants perceive the gamified experience (Huotari & ^{Hamari, 2017}).

Some authors thus proposed that the experiential aspects of games should be brought to the fore in scholarly analysis. From this broader perspective, gamification was defined by Huotari and ^{Hamari (2017}, p. 25) as: “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support users’ overall value creation.” As noted earlier, ‘affordance’ denotes the motivational features incorporated into the game that promote the specific desired behaviours among participants. The other key term in this definition is ‘gameful’. An experience is considered gameful when it is enjoyable and intrinsically motivating-essential features when designing gamification and experiencing it as a user (^{Hamari et al., 2014}).

Thus, if the desired effects are to be achieved using gamification, the participant must enjoy a gameful experience. For this, it is necessary to approach the gamification design holistically (that is, to achieve a design that combines the correct game elements that will optimise the experiential dimension for participants). However, previous research examining this approach is scarce (Huotari & ^{Hamari, 2017}), and its effects on consumer behaviour variables have not been proven to date.

Therefore, to demonstrate how participating in a gamified experience impacts consumer behaviour, (a) that experience has to be designed holistically, and (b) the participant’s experience must be measured to determine whether that experience was, indeed, gameful for them.

2.3.1 Creating a gamified EI program for tourists based on a holistic design approach

Previous studies have proposed many gamification experiences involving disparate game elements (badges or points, for instance) to achieve a specific result. This overly simplified design approach, sometimes referred to as “pointification” (^{Seaborn & Fels, 2015}), has met with criticism from some authors (^{Hamari, 2017}; ^{Seaborn & Fels, 2015}).

In response to these criticisms, various methods based on a holistic gamification design have been employed in the scholarship. Such methods include the MDA model (referring to “mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics”) developed by ^{Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek (2004}). In holistic gamification design, a systematic process is followed to identify, evaluate, and visualise the different aspects, including the context, the participants, the objectives, the design of the interface via which the participant is going to participate in the gamification, and the evaluation of the participant’s experience (based on their view of what it was like to participate in the gamification) (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}; ^{Deterding, 2015}; ^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}).

Based on the recommendations of different authors, then, it is proposed that the design of the gamified program be approached following a systematic procedure comprising four stages (see Figure 1):

Stage 1: Analysis of the objective being pursued. Stage 1 should begin with an analysis of the objective that is being pursued (in this case, by the EI program) to ensure that this lends itself to the possibilities offered by gamification (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}) and to check that gamification is an appropriate solution for the underlying problem or need to begin with (^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}).

Stage 2: Analysis of the context and the participant profile. In this stage, questions such as where the gamification is to be used must first be identified and understood, and the target group must be defined and characterised. This analysis also involves the identification of participants’ needs and motivations within the game and the actions and decisions they must take while in the system (^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}). It cannot be effective if the gamification design is not based on a sound understanding of the participants and the context of use (^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}).

Stage 3: Design the interface for the participant to interact with the gamified program. The interface's creative design starts from a list of design ideas (^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}). Best-practice examples and reoccurring elements in gamification approaches are starting points for this idea-generation phase (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}; ^{Burgers et al., 2015}; ^{Xu et al., 2017}). Considering the objective to be achieved by the participants (rather than the objective sought by the designer), the tasks they have to perform and the rules they have to follow need to be established. The objective set for the participants through gamification must be engaging and significant enough for them to feel a genuine interest in achieving it and experience immersion in the game (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}). Thus, through the design, every effort should be made to ensure that participants reflect on the significant aspects of the game’s overall objective and become aware of its importance (^{Zuckerman & Gal-Oz, 2014}). The optimal combination of affordances that will provide a gameful experience that gives participants control and enables them to exercise their own will throughout the game is sought (^{Burgers et al., 2015}). The design of such affordances provides challenges and also tests expertise (^{Xu et al., 2017}), which enables participants to interact and connect with others (^{Xu et al., 2017}), solve problems, overcome adversity, discover something new, be amazed or surprised, and so on (^{Robson et al., 2015}).

Stage 4: Implementation and evaluation of gamification. Many authors agree on the importance of evaluating gamification to test its success (^{Aparicio et al., 2012}; ^{Morschheuser et al., 2017}). The success of a gamification design can be established by verifying that it generates a gameful experience for participants. This is a fundamental step in determining whether participation in a gamified experience can positively influence consumer behaviour variables (Huotari & ^{Hamari, 2017}).

Figure 1-Framework diagram proposed to design an EI program based on a holistic gamified approach. Source: The authors 

2.3.2 The gameful experience from a gamified EI program

When the participant experiences the gamification as enjoyable and intrinsically motivating, it can be deemed a ‘gameful’ experience. However, most authors overlook the gameful experience as a necessary consequence of participation in gamification designed holistically (Huotari & ^{Hamari, 2017}; ^{Koivisto & Hamari, 2019}). Specifically in the tourism field, except for the study by ^{Liu, Wang, Huang & Tang (2019}), which was conducted in the context of festivals, and that of ^{Lee (2019}), which examines the monumental heritage, the previous literature deals solely with the elements that render certain gamification features easier to adopt and use, and how they shape the behaviour of participants. It does not analyse the individual’s experience participating in such a program (specifically, to what extent they considered it gameful). Furthermore, as noted earlier, there is no scholarly agreement regarding the dimensions that fully capture a gameful experience or how to measure it (^{Deterding et al., 2011}; ^{Eppmann et al., 2018}; ^{Huotari & Hamari, 2017}). Given this lack of consensus, there is a need for greater knowledge about the gameful experience (a) due to participating in a gamified program with a holistic design and (b) vis-à-vis the content and dimensions that determine that experience.

Regarding the dimensions of the gameful experience, the contributions of ^{Eppmann et al. (2018}) and ^{Liu et al. (2019}) are helpful. The two studies highlight the importance of participants’ enjoyment via a specific dimension in the scales they develop. Liu et al. (2019) underline the importance of encouraging the participants' intrinsic motivation in a gamification experience.

The most relevant conceptual framework in gamification research is the Self-determination Theory (^{Seaborn & Fels, 2015}). This theory is grounded on the premise that intrinsic motivation derives from three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, understood as the sense of having the freedom to decide whether to carry out a specific action and having a choice about how to go about it (^{Burgers et al., 2015}); competence, referring to the individual’s feeling of having the ability to carry out that action and successfully fulfil the purpose to which it is linked (^{Xu et al., 2017}); and relatedness, referring to the human need to feel connected to other people and recognised and accepted by them (^{Koivisto & Hamari, 2019}). A person’s intrinsic motivation is enhanced when these three psychological needs are met (^{Deci & Ryan, 1985}).

‘Enjoyment’ is defined as a specific emotional state in which the individual derives pleasure and even happiness from experience (^{Merhi, 2016}), independent of any particular outcome they might achieve from taking part in it (^{Holbrook, 1994}). This emotional state is deemed a core feature of game participation (^{Ha et al., 2007}). Expressly from the point of view of gamification, enjoyment is understood as interaction with the elements of the gamification design (^{Hamari & Koivisto, 2015}a) that arises spontaneously among participants as they explore the game’s features and respond creatively to them (^{Hamari & Koivisto, 2015a}). Their enjoyment also motivates participants to show greater perseverance when adopting the behaviours the gamification experience is designed to promote over the longer term (^{Deci & Ryan, 1985}; ^{Wu & Liu, 2007}). Enjoyment has been found to influence consumer behaviour, such as individuals’ responses to product innovations (^{Aroean, 2012}) or new products or experiences (^{Hoffman & Novak, 1996}).

According to the literature and as shown in Figure 1, the satisfaction of basic needs linked to intrinsic motivation and a sense of enjoyment can be achieved through a gamified experience enhanced by specific motivational elements (affordances). For this reason, gamification experiences should be designed holistically, as this contributes to creating a system that can influence the participant’s behaviour by creating a gameful experience for them. It is therefore hypothesised that:

H2: (a) Autonomy, (b) competence, (c) relatedness, and (d) enjoyment are dimensions of the gameful experience derived from a gamified EI program.

In short, gamification can be understood as a process that embraces both the designer’s and the participant’s perspectives to create a holistic design that delivers positive psychological outcomes, including a gameful experience (as shown in the research model represented in Figure 2). Gamification has been found to produce effective results in influencing consumer behaviour, as reflected, for example, in an increase in perceived value.

Figure 2-Proposed research model. Source: The authors 

3.1 Study sample and procedure

Spain was chosen as the site of the empirical study because it is a leading tourist destination on an international scale (^{UNWTO, 2020}). As such, it faces several challenges in achieving long-term destination sustainability and calls to action toward this essential goal (^{Ministerio et al. y Turismo, 2019}).

Our sample comprised British and American adults (aged 18+) who were potential tourists to Spain, with both cohorts known to be important to the country’s tourism industry (^{INE, 2020}). As none of the subjects had ever visited Spain before, this ensured we avoided the possible effect of previous destination experience on the dependent variable. Our approach to building the sample aligned with the procedures followed in other studies performed on an English-speaking public (^{Pike et al., 2021}). For example, we employed an international Internet user panel provided by an external company (in this case, Dynata) to ensure we achieved representativeness in our study sample.

Those potential subjects who confirmed their agreement to participate in the research were given access to a secure intranet containing the survey questions and the gamified EI program in which they had been invited to participate. They were then asked to undertake the following steps (1) to respond to a questionnaire structured around the three primary scales in our study (their preexisting image of Spain, their level of concern for the environment, and subjective norms); (2) to participate in the gamified EI program under controlled time conditions to ensure a minimum length of exposure prior to moving on to the final step; and (3), to answer a second set of questions, this time relating to the scales for gameful experience, ‘perceived value’ (which was the dependent variable), and their sociodemographic profile (based on the variables of age, gender, and employment status.

While our sample size was relatively small, it was sufficient to ensure a sound statistical analysis because all the subjects participated fully in the entire EI program (^{Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2009}). The final sample comprised 158 subjects who had all returned valid questionnaires. The demographic profile of the sample largely coincided with that of the study population (British and American potential tourists) (^{IndexMundi, 2019}; ^{Koema, 2018}) (see Table 1).

3.2 Participation in gamification

A gamified experience was designed holistically, following the staged process outlined in Figure 3. In Stage 1, the objective of the proposed program was analysed to assess whether gamification was compatible with achieving the desired results. In Stage 2, the context of the application and the profile of the participants were analysed. This resulted in an overall design concept for the gamification, featuring content about the destination centred on sustainability. Our approach drew on ^{Wolf, Stricker, and Hagenloh's (2013}) recommendations for the design concept and was based on multimedia files that blended written text, images, and sound.

Figure 3-Structure of the gamified EI program. Source: The authors 

The content primarily focused on information about the destination’s resources and the environmental sustainability guidelines established by ^{White, McCrum, Blackstock, and Scott (2006}). Practical information was included on how to act correctly in each place (following the recommendations of ^{Ballantyne, Packer & Hughes., 2009}).

Stage 3 was concerned with designing the interface via which the subject was to interact with the gamified program (Figure 3). Here, it was essential to respond to the objectives set for the participants and to identify the right combination of affordances to incorporate, as well as the rules of the game and the goals set for the gamified experience. On this basis, the process to be followed by the participant was designed (as per Figure 3), bringing together a combination of affordances aimed at promoting intrinsic motivation and enjoyment in light of previous recommendations made by other authors (see Table 2).

Finally, with the game interface fully designed, Stage 4 involves the delivery of the gamified experience and its evaluation by participants, based on the scale validation for ‘gameful experience’ and the measurement of its effect on perceived value.

3.3 Measurement scales

‘Gameful experience’ was measured on a scale we first validated, covering intrinsic motivation and enjoyment. The scale developed by ^{Lieberoth (2015}) was used to measure intrinsic motivation, while that developed by ^{Van der Heijden (2004}) was used to measure enjoyment. The latter was also previously applied by ^{Hamari and Koivisto (2015}a). Destination perceived value was measured on a scale based on ^{Frías-Jamilena et al. (2017}) (see Appendix).

To check for any variables that may have influenced the proposed effect of participating in a gamified EI program on perceived value, three control variables were applied: ‘preexisting image of Spain as a tourist destination’, ‘environmental concern’, and ‘subjective norms’ (^{Malhotra, 2010}). All three were measured before the subjects were exposed to the gamified EI program (^{Kirk, 2014}). Following the approach of earlier studies (^{Beerli & Martín, 2004}; ^{Frías et al., 2008}), we used a semantic differential scale to measure preexisting destination image. Turning to the environmental concern, the variable was measured on a scale previously used by ^{Chang, Zhang, and Xie (2015}) and ^{Kim and Choi (2005}). Moreover, once again, ^{Hamari and Koivisto's (2015}b) work was used as a benchmark for selecting the ‘subjective norms’ measurement scale (see Appendix). Finally, three variables (gender, age, and employment status) were captured to create the sociodemographic profile of the sample (as per Table 1).

3.4 Data Analysis

It can be seen from Figure 2 that the ‘Experience of participating in a gamified EI program’ comprises the first-order dimensions ‘Autonomy’, ‘Competence’, ‘Relatedness’, and ‘Fun’. ‘Perceived value’ (the dependent variable) ‘, Preexisting destination image’, ‘Environmental concern’, and ‘Subjective norms’ (control variables) are all first-order constructs.

The method selected to test the research hypotheses was structural equation modelling (SEM), using AMOS v.21 software to validate the measurement scales and test the relationships between variables.

Starting with the estimated model’s psychometric properties, we found that the Chi-square test of multivariate normality was significant. Therefore, we opted to estimate the model with the maximum likelihood method coupled with bootstrapping (^{Yuan & Hayashi, 2003}). The results relating to overall model fit (normed Chi-square, 2.16; RMSEA, 0.08) were acceptable relative to the recommended threshold. The indicators for incremental fit also presented acceptable values: CFI (0.92), IFI (0.92), and TLI (0.91). Overall, the model fit can thus be deemed acceptable.

5.1 Practical implications, limitations, and future research directions

The results of the present study are of value to both public and private entities devoted to improving and advancing tourist destinations by providing enhanced tourist experiences while supporting destination sustainability. These results lead us to propose that destinations should offer gamified EI experiences online and indicate that, as well as contributing to a superior participant experience, this approach prompts potential tourists to assign greater value to the destination. This dual outcome is critical for more mature destinations in their continued efforts to sustain tourist appeal in the medium-long term.

The effectiveness of EI programs is found to be greater when these encourage participant interaction (as has traditionally been achieved thanks to tour guides) (^{Ballantyne et al., 2009}). However, with the arrival of ICT and online environments, the scope for such interaction is now enhanced (^{Hsu et al., 2017}; ^{Paco & Pérez, 2015}), offering new possibilities for gamification-based strategies such as gamified EI programs. This approach enables potential tourists to explore destinations in an interactive, readily accessible, and personalised way.

Our analysis provides interesting insights regarding critical factors in designing gamified EI experiences. Design should not be reduced to merely including disparate game-like elements, focusing solely on systemic features (Huotari & ^{Hamari, 2017}). Instead, the gamification design should be informed by the ultimate objective the experience needs to deliver and the specific context of the application (in this case, to improve the tourist experience and encourage the sustainability of Spain as a tourist destination). On this basis, designers must identify the optimal combination and use of elements and affordances to generate a gameful experience for participants. It is also crucial to assess whether the gamification has achieved the desired results among participants. In the specific case relevant to this study, this means evaluating whether tourists’ participation in the gamified design led them to enjoy an intrinsically motivating experience (measured in autonomy, competence, and relatedness).

Finally, our results demonstrate to destination managers that market-oriented strategies can be adopted and aligned to promote destination sustainability. Offering a gamified EI program in which potential tourists can participate generates an experience that can offer managers opportunities to keep tourists engaged via the destination’s website or social media, enhance visit intention, and encourage visitors to help protect the destination. Thus, gamified EI programs could be integrated into marketing campaigns that, in addition to promoting the destination itself, engage tourists in protecting it and supporting its sustainability through appropriate behaviours in the targeted region.

5.2 Limitations and future research directions

The present study presents a series of limitations that should be borne in mind when interpreting the results and that, in themselves, can help shape potential lines of research for the future. Starting with the empirical aspect of the study, a leading international destination with a mature profile was chosen. However, it would be interesting to replicate the study in different geographical areas to test how gamified EI programs perform in these different contexts in terms of their effectiveness.

Secondly, it would be interesting to analyse new factors that may affect the design of the gamified EI program and its impact on tourist behaviour. Among such factors could be variables related to the international nature of tourism: cultural differences among consumers, for instance, or differences in psychological distance. It would also be valuable to progress toward a better understanding of the effect of participating in gamified EI programs on tourists during and after their stay. Drawing on Cognitive Appraisal Theory (^{Lazarus, 1991}) and Goal System Theory (^{Kruglanski et al., 2002}), future studies could include variables such as agency, goal relevance, and goal congruence (^{Choi & Choi, 2019}; ^{Kim, 2021}; ^{Watson & Spence, 2007}). These variables have attracted interest in gamification (^{Schlager et al., 2016}), particularly for their capacity to generate fun and enjoyment in tourism (^{Choi & Choi, 2019}). Hence, their inclusion could lead to a better understanding of tourists’ experience of gamified EI.

Third, the combination of the ‘new normal’ experienced by the tourism industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to continue making progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals points to particular lines of research that should be considered for the future. For instance, it would be valuable to determine whether the use of gamified EI programs effectively influences the variables of consumer behaviour that are most relevant to achieving sustainable tourism-such as improving perceived safety at the destination or adopting pro-environmental behaviours. It would also be interesting to identify whether specific consumer characteristics, such as the level of information literacy self-efficacy among participants, may influence the impact of gamified EI programs.