1.1 Tourist experience in destination

As ^{Hossany and Gilbert (2014}) point out, tourist destinations are better prepared for success if they recognize the quality of the experience in their offers. The awareness of this fact has promoted a boom in research in this field. The experience of the consumer has been subject of profuse studies since its knowledge provides substantial support to the decision making in the field of marketing; nevertheless, even its conceptualization and measurement are still ambiguous.

In the field of tourism and on a territorial analysis scale, the tourist experience can be expressed in a very simple way as in the definition of ^{Sharpley and Stone (2011}) where it constitutes what the tourist experiences. In a more developed ways it is defined as quoted below:

According to this, it can be affirmed that the tourist experience in destination takes shape in the mind of the tourist through a process of fixation and aggregation of sensory, cognitive, and emotional impressions in a period of trip that goes from planning to recollection. Following ^{Pine and Gilmore (1998}) the experiences can be grouped into four categories: entertainment, educational, esthetic, and escapist; while for ^{Aho (2001}), informative, emotional, practical, and transformative experiences are distinguished.

The traveler experience in destination as a multidimensional construct, has gained the attention of numerous experts who have gradually added variables to be considered as part of it. Thus, to the early proposal of ^{Otto and Ritchie (1996}) that raise the variables: hedonism, involvement, peace of mind, and recognition; others have been added such as: love, joy, positive surprise (^{Hosany & Gilbert, 2010}); involvement, timelessness, happiness, pleasure, relaxation, stimulation, spontaneity, meaningfulness, sense of separation, adventure, personal relevance, novelty, local culture, escaping pressure and intellectual cultivation (^{Kim, Ritchie & McCormick, 2010}); freedom of choice, fantasy, spontaneity, special entertainment, sense of self-realization (Nash & Smith, 1991, cited by Rivera M., 2012); adverse feelings (Kim, 2014); authentic characteristics of the destination and cultural heritage (^{Cetin & Bilgihan, 2015}), among others. However, in this same line, the approach of ^{Pulido and Navarro (2014}) proposes an integrated set of factors and indicators to measure the tourist's experience in the destination, which include social, emotional, sensory, creative, relational, cognitive, and personal factors. The nine factors that measure the tourist experience from the point of view of these authors, can be seen in Table 1.

1.2 Tourist experience measurement in destinations

According to ^{Burns and Holden (1995}), measurement of integral experience in destinations is more complex than at the level of individual services. ^{Carballo et al., (2015}) note that because most experiences in tourism take place in a short period with uninterrupted episodes, it can be difficult to have a true understanding of them. They list some efforts that have been developed to study the tourist experience as: the open-ended journal, mail surveys, and in-depth interviews (Nickerson, 2004); recording tape method on own initiative and in-depth interviews (Lee et al., 1994); the incident technique (Jackson et al., 1996); the analysis of critical moments of truth (Carlzon, 1987); the experience map (Schmitt, 2003); the development of a dramatic script (Harris et al., 2003); among others of a qualitative nature. However, they emphasize the need for new forms of applied research. This is especially necessary in a quantitative approach, where it is observed an important limitation to understand in depth its nature and assessment.

In the last five years, there have been important contributions to the tourism experience research: ^{Prayag, Hosany and Odeh (2013}) studied the relationship between emotional experiences, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in Petra, Jordan based on a survey; ^{Bosangit, Hibbert and McCabe (2015}) studied the tourist experience based on content analysis of travelers' blogs in the United Kingdom. ^{Park and Almeida (2016}) conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with Korean tourists to determine central elements of memorable tourist experience on three temporary travel stations (pre- during and post-trip). ^{Ingram, Caruana and McCabe (2017}) applied the participant consultation in a selection of 16 tourists whose destination varied between domestic, European, and international; also, in its full travel process. Finally, ^{Wearing and Foley (2017}) studied the movement of tourists through the city to understand their experiences from a perspective that claims the low visibility given to the female gender in tourism research.

3.1 Profile of respondent tourist

The profile of foreign tourists shows diversity of nationalities, the most frequent of which are the following: American (25.1%), German (12.7%), Argentine (8.5%), Colombian (8%), British (7.5%) and Canadian (6%). Among profile features that also stand out for higher frequency are: age (about 34,3% of tourist are between 26 and 35 years old), educational level (about 74,1% of them have a university degree), marital status (about 60.9% of them are single), occupation (about 64.7% are in the professional field), travel organization (about 78.1% of tourists have planned their own trips), average daily cost (between USD 16 and 50) and average stay (between 1 and 3 days mostly). A detailed profile is shown in Table 2.

3.2 Confirmation of tourist experience factors

In this stage of the research, 9 factors that define the dimensions of tourist experience, adopted from ^{Pulido and Navarro (2014}), were confirmed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was applied to the correlation matrix. Results show that at least 84.4% of the proposed indicators are agglomerated in the proposed factors, confirming empirically their relevance in the context of Quito to the foreign tourist segment. Thus, of all the items raised by the authors mentioned, only 7 are not matched in the proposed dimensions. The calculated values ​​are presented in Table 3.

3.3 Valuation of factor importance

Importance given by surveyed tourists to factors/dimensions shows different values ​​as can be seen in Table 4, where the mean, mode, and median values are presented. As can be seen, dimension valued with the highest score was multisensory while the lowest score valued was co-creation.

One-way ANOVA test analysis results confirms there are significant statistical differences among importance values. Taking the analysis deeper, the Tukey’s test demonstrates a wide variability in the assessment of importance given to dimensions, noting that there is no statistical difference in just 8 combinations of 64 possible, which are shown in Table 5

Indicators that make up each factor/dimension obtained diverse scores, noting than more than a half of them obtained a median and statistical mode value equal to 4, what represents a high value. Indicators better valued were: singular history of the place, arts and culture, for which the assessment was very high. On the contrary, worst valued indicators were participation of the tourist in the service/product (very low); and party atmosphere, public transportation, concerts, and shows (low). A broader detail is shown in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1 Tourist experience median score 

3.4 Independence analysis of variables

The Chi-Square Test of Independence confirms that gender shows a relationship with: length of stay, travel group, and daily expenditure. In this sense, it is found that the most mentioned length of stay by women was the longest (12 days or more) while the most selected by men is the shortest (1-3 days). In addition, while men and women coincide in selecting more frequently the category of friends as a travel group, the second preference, mostly selected by men, is "alone" and by women, "family". In terms of daily spending, men spend more than women with a daily average between USD 51 and 75 while women spending is between USD 26 and 50.

Age variable is related to: stay, travel group, and daily expenses. Thus, younger people (under 25 years of age) most often choose the longest stay, while older people prefer the shortest stay (1 to 3 days). Likewise, the preferred travel group for people under 35 years of age is "friends", and "couple" for those from 36 years old or more. Regarding daily spending, it can be noted that as age increases the preference for organized tour also increases.

Educational level variable is related to stay and daily expenditure. In this way it is found that people with high school studies stay more days, while people with a higher educational level stay less time (mostly between 1 and 3 days). Also, it is found that the higher levels of education, the greater the expense.

Marital status and stay are dependents variables. In this sense, it is observed that widows stay longer (12 or more days) than single women, and the latter stay longer (3-7 days) than married women.

Also, occupation and daily expenditure are related variables too. It is found that the most frequent spending range for students is from USD 26-50, and for profession als it amounts to USD 51-75, reaching the range of USD 76-100 for retirees.

Nationality is related to several variables: stay, travel group, daily expenditure, and travel mode. Regarding the stay, there are segments of tourist for which affinity for short stays predominates: Canadian, British, Australian, and Swiss; while for other segments such as Americans, Germans, Colombians, Chinese, and Venezuelans long stays are preferred. As for travel group, it is noted that Americans, Germans, and Argentines prefer friends as travel company, while for Venezuelans and Colombians the preference is to travel "as a family"; and finally, tourists from Canada and Australia show a greater preference for traveling as a couple. Regarding the daily spending, people from USA, China, Venezuela, and Colombia appear more frequently in the range between USD 26 and 50, Argentines less than USD 25, unlike German citizens, Australians, Peruvians, and Uruguayans who indicated spending more frequently between USD 51 and 75; finally, the British nationals indicated spending between USD 76 and 100. As for the travel modality, it is noted that Belgian, Canadian, British, and Australian nationals, show greater frequencies of selection in the "organized tour" travel modality. Finally, dependence was confirmed between stay and daily expenditurevariables, noting that the longer the stay the lower the daily expense. Table 6 shows this relationship between variables and the value of significance resulting from Chi-square test.

Results from Spearman correlation coefficient confirms there is a set of variables that show greater influence on valuation of importance of the dimensions under study. These are: gender, age, educational level, marital status, occupation, stay, daily expenditure, and mode of travel.

In this set, the following variables stood out: "age" and "educational level" because they influence the greatest number of dimensions (seven factors/dimensions); followed by "marital status", "daily expenditure", and "travel mode" (five dimensions); and "occupation", and "stay" (four dimensions). Finally, the variable "gender" influences a single dimension. It should be noted that for the dimension "special and unique attributes of the destination" the cited variables do not show dependence.

Expanding the analysis, it is found that the variables that most influence dimension "opportunities for social relations" are: gender, age, educational level, marital status, daily expenditure, and mode of travel. In contrast, for the dimension "value experiences to be counted" the most influential variables are age and length of stay.

In the case of dimension "partake in design, execution and/or diffusion of tourism services and activities", a single influential variable is revealed, i.e. educational level. Instead, for dimension "sensations and emotions during the trip" the influential variables are numerous: age, educational level, marital status, occupation, stay, daily expenditure, and mode of travel.

Dimension "activities and opportunities for entertainment" is mostly influenced by age, educational level, marital status, occupation, and daily expenditure; while dimension "opportunities for personal growth" is strongly influenced by age, educational level, marital status, daily expenditure, and mode of travel. Dimension "opportunities for social relations", is influenced by all the variables. Dimension "quality of services" is influenced by all variables except gender. Finally, dimension "practice of personal values" is influenced by age, educational level, and mode of travel. The detail of this analysis and the calculated values ​​are shown in Table 7

On the other hand, the same analysis applied to indicators of tourism experience in Quito confirms the influence of the variables: nationality, educational level, marital status, stay, travel group, and daily expenditure. In detail, daily expenditure is influential in 80% of the indicators, while educational level is in 60%, stay in 56%, marital status in 51%, nationality in 47%, and travel group in 9% of all indicators.

Study shows that travel group constitution influences "partake of tourists in provision, creation, diffusion and/or consumption of tourist services and products", as well as "entertainment based on nature and outdoors"; and "affective needs covered". The calculated values ​​of the Spearman coefficient can be seen in Table 8.

Similarly, it is found that daily expenditure is influential on the assessment given by tourists to co-creation; entertainment (obtained based on nature and outdoors, party atmosphere, shows and concerts, and art and culture); personal development (based on learning and education, needs for self-fulfillment, and emotional intelligence); social interaction; rational quality (appreciated in terms of affordable prices, comfort, ease of finding places, public transportation, service attributes, and professionalism in customer service); as well as in the practice of values ​​such as discipline, integrity and reciprocity. Values ​​of Spearman coefficient are shown in Tables 9 through 13 below.

The variable "stay" influences aspects such as: sports and recreational activities, fun, party atmosphere, and arts and culture within the entertainment factor; expand horizons, needs for affection, self-fulfillment and emotional intelligence, within the factor of personal development; social interaction; and, accessible prices, comfort, ease of finding places, practical public transport, and professionalism in customer service, within the rational quality factor. The detail of the calculated values ​​for the Spearman coefficient can be seen in Tables 14 to 16.

In addition, study shows that depending on tourist nationality, motive that drives them to tell their experiences differs between prestige, pride, status, honor, respect, and self-realization. Likewise, educational level influences these reasons except self-realization, where no association between variables was found. The marital status of tourists, basically seems to influence four of the motivations studied: prestige, pride, honor, and respect. The calculated values ​​ of the Spearman coefficient can be seen in Table 17.

Finally, the correlation analysis between the total set of indicators and the indicator "satisfaction sensation", shows that the uniqueness attributes of destination constitute influential elements at the level of: unique resources, history and singularity of the place, particular climate, unique tourist products, quality of the unique environment and idiosyncrasy of the local people. Results also confirm that co-creation influences the sense of satisfaction as long as tourist had partaken on provision, creation, diffusion and/or consumption of services and products; and, have had the possibility of adapting product to their preferences in real time.

Finally, it is also found that aspects of entertainment such as sports and recreational activities, nature and outdoors, fun, need for affection, and self-realization, cultural enrichment, and emotional intelligence, influence the feeling of satisfaction; as well as the affordable prices in the rational quality factor. The calculated values ​​for the Spearman coefficient are shown below in Table 18.

3.5 Importance-performance assessment of tourist experience in Quito

The evaluation of tourists’ experience in Quito through the matrix of importance- performance, shows that the dimensions uniqueness, multisensory, rational quality, and personal development are located in the first quadrant, which explains that the experience of tourists from these dimensions is equivalent to the importance given by them. In other words, it is considered that in these dimensions, Quito has offered the tourist what he has expected.

Likewise, the dimensions of relational development and responsibility are in the second quadrant, which translates as weak aspects of tourists’ experience in the sense that they are perceived below their expectations. Accordingly, opportunities for relational development and practice of values ​​linked to responsibility in Quito have not been enough to be up to the importance they have in the perspective of the tourist who visits the city.

The dimensions of entertainment and co-creation are positioned in the third quadrant, which indicates that these variables are not considered by tourists as very important and at the same time, they have not been highly achieved in Quito either.

Finally, in the fourth quadrant is motivation as a dimension related to the desire to achieve experiences worthy of being communicated to friends and family. This is explained as an aspect to which tourists give little importance but which, nevertheless, has been perceived with a high valuation in the city. Figure 2 below shows the importance-performance matrix.

Figure 2 Tourist experience in Quito: Importance-performance analysis matrix