María del Carmen Verduzco Villaseñor*
| José Luis Cornejo Ortega | Rodrigo Espinoza Sánchez
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The objective pursued by this research was to identify the areas of opportunity in the tourist destination as intelligent and influence the quality of life of the local community. The methodology to which it attended started from a documentary review and three instruments were applied to know the reality of the region, one to the local community, another to tourist and another to a government actor. The lines that must be followed were identified so that the tourist destination can be projected as intelligent and the quality of life of the inhabitants is improved. The main implication of this work is the limitation with respect to decision-making to exert a change at the operational level. The main results obtained were the opinions of actors in the area under study: community, tourist and government. It was concluded, based on the results, the main areas of opportunity that the tourist destination must work and develop together in order to project itself as intelligent.
smart destinations, tourism impacts, community well-being, sustainable tourism
Over time, the territories that have been characterized as tourist destinations have done so to grow and generate regional economic development. In our days, the concept of tourist destination has been added the term of territorial intelligence, which is a valuable ally for the development of tourism. According to Perea et al. [1], this concept emerged at the end of the eighties as a way to generate development and combat poverty.
Territorial intelligence is defined as the means that allows managing the development of a region and that is particularly useful for the actors involved (government, society and businessmen) when planning sustainable territorial development [2].
Thus, under this thought, by implementing the concept of territorial intelligence in a tourist destination, the latter can be projected as intelligent, giving way to the concept of smart tourist destination (STD), which consists of managing in an innovative way destinations to adapt to the new social, technological and economic realities, generating benefits in the quality of life of residents [3]. Thus, by projecting a tourist destination as intelligent, there is a direct impact on the quality of life of the local community.
This work was carried out in Puerto Vallarta Metropolitan Zone (PVMZ), a region that is considered a highly relevant tourist destination in Mexico. The PVMZ is made up of two cities which are located in two different federal entities, these are: Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco and Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit [4]. The objective it pursues is to identify the areas of opportunity for the region to project the tourist destination as intelligent and influence the quality of life of the local community, for which it seeks to answer the following research questions: What is the opinion of the tourist of the destination regarding the conditions that project it as intelligent? What is the opinion of the local community regarding the conditions that project the destination as intelligent and how they perceive their quality of life? In addition, what is the government's opinion regarding the conditions that project destiny as intelligent? The study area, can be identified on the following map (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of the Metropolitan Area of Puerto Vallarta
Source: Diario Oficial de la Federación [5]
This work started from a documentary review; three instruments were carried out to evaluate the territorial intelligence and the quality of life in the PVMZ. The first consisted of a survey that was applied to the local community of the region, the second consisted of a survey that was applied to tourists and the third consisted of a semi-structured interview that was applied to a local government actor. Below are the dimensions and indicators that were taken for each of the variables (Tables 1 and 2), as well as the identified conditions that are necessary to project a tourist destination as intelligent (Table 3).
Table 1. Dimensions and indicators of territorial intelligence
|
Territorial Intelligence |
|
|
Dimensión |
Indicators |
|
Sustainable development |
Ecosystem constraints |
|
Needs |
|
|
Resource management |
|
|
Governance |
Coordination |
|
Self government |
|
|
ICT’s |
Method endowment |
|
Infraestructure |
|
|
Technology transfer |
|
|
Innovation |
|
|
Territorial learning |
Long term visión |
|
Strategies |
|
|
Development management |
|
Source: Own elaboration based on Perea et al. [1] and Guzmán [6]
Table 2. Dimensions and indicators of quality of life
|
Quality of Life |
|
|
Dimensión |
Indicators |
|
Relationship with Yourself |
Physical state |
|
Psychological state |
|
|
Spiritual state |
|
|
Personal development |
|
|
Self-determination |
|
|
Level of independence |
|
|
Relationships |
Social interactions |
|
Relevance and participation |
|
|
Relationship with the Community |
Economics factors |
|
Material well-being |
|
|
Relation Region |
Social inclusión |
|
Rights |
|
Source: Own elaboration based on Salas and Garzón [7], Verdugo and Schalock [8], Trujillo et al. [9],Úrzua and Caqueo-Urizar [10]
Table 3. Conditions to project a tourist destination as intelligent
|
Conditions STD |
|
Governance |
|
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) |
|
Inclusion |
|
Stake |
|
Sustainability |
|
Publics politics |
|
Territorial planning |
|
Reductions of impacts |
Source: Own elaboration based on Angelaccio et al. [11], Cárdenas [12], Fabry and Zeghni [13], Flores et al. [14], Foronda et al. [15], Gómez et al. [16], Luque et al. [17], Miedes et al. [18], Perea et al. [1], Pilogallo et al. [19], Plant et al. [20]
The sample surveyed in this study was 384 local inhabitants and 384 tourists, figures that were determined using the simple random sampling formula, data were obtained from the Institute of Statistical and Geographic Information (IIEG) of the total population of Puerto Vallarta and Bahía de Banderas, these being 291,839 people and 187,632 people respectively [21]. In the same way, data was taken from the Tourist Report (REPORTUR) to know the number of tourists who visited the region (2022), being 6,208,700 [22], data taken for the calculation of the sample in this investigation.
For the selection of the inhabitants (479,471inhabitants) and tourists (6,208,700 tourists), simple random sampling was used, resulting in a sample of 384 inhabitants and 384 tourists for the survey with a confidence of 95% and a statistical error of ± 5%, for both cases, where [23]:
$n_{\text {mas }}=\frac{\frac{Z^2 P Q}{E^2}}{1+\frac{1}{N}\left[\frac{Z^2 P Q}{E^2}-1\right]} \approx 384$ Population; 384 Tourists (1)
where, nmas = Sample size for a Simple Random Sampling, Z = 1.96 Confidence, normal value of the abscissa in the normal curve, E = ± 5% Absolute Maximum Statistical Error, P = 50%, Q = 50%, N = ZMPV inhabitants and Tourists.
To assess the reliability or homogeneity of the questions or items, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used when it comes to polychotomous response alternatives, such as Likert-type scales; which can take values between 0 and 1, where: 0 means null reliability and 1 represents total reliability. The greater the linear correlation between items, the greater the Cronbach's alpha.
Cronbach's α coefficient can be calculated:
$\alpha=\frac{n p}{1+p(n-1)}$ (2)
where, n = Númber of items, p = Average of the linear correlations between each one of the items.
The problem at the time of data collection in carrying out the research work focuses on the construction of the instruments to be used for this purpose, so that they allow the collection of valid and reliable information. In this investigation, a Cronbach alpha of 0.88 in the instrument designed for the community, which refers to it with good reliability; while, for the tourist instrument, a coefficient of 0.95 was obtained, which is considered excellent. In terms of research, reliability is of the utmost importance, since it is a measure of precision when measuring certain attributes or characteristics, which is the fundamental objective when applying a survey. By obtaining “good” or “excellent” measurement values, consistent significance is provided, which means that you really question what you want to question to the subject [24].
The analysis of the results obtained through the application of the three instruments developed in this research is shown, first the one applied to the local community of the region, later one applied to tourists and, finally, the interview that was carried out with the person in charge of the training and tourist awareness of the region, an actor that represents the role of the government in this study.
3.1 Instrument 1: Local community
The first instrument developed in this research was applied to the local community of the tourist destination under study.
General data
Figure 2. Personal sex surveyed
Source: Own elaboration
For the first instrument, according to the graph above, it can be seen that of the total number of respondents (384 people) 58%, which corresponds to 224 people, were female; while, 42% (160 people) corresponded to the male (Figure 2).
Figure 3. Municipality people surveyed
Source: Own elaboration
In relation to the previous graph, it can be seen that 60% of all those surveyed are residents of Puerto Vallarta, which represents 231 inhabitants; while, in Bahía de Banderas, 40% were registered, which in numbers those are 153 people (Figure 3).
Dimensions and indicators
The first dimension obtained an average value of 4.47, a figure that is high. This dimension intends to evaluate the relationship that each subject has with himself; it is made up of six indicators: physical state, psychological state, spiritual state, personal development, self-determination and level of independence (Figure 4).
Figure 4. First dimension: Relationship with oneself
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen, the self-determination indicator was the lowest; this indicator refers to how citizens can participate in the political life of their community, a factor in view of the little participation that is allowed to them.
The second dimension obtained an average value of 4.53, a number that is high. This dimension intends to evaluate the interpersonal relationships of the subjects with their peers; it is made up of two indicators: social interactions and relevance and social participation (Figure 5).
The way that section titles and other headings are displayed in these instructions, is meant to be followed in paper.
Figure 5. Second dimension: Interpersonal relationships
Source: Own elaboration
It is observed that, in this dimension, both indicators exceeded an average of four, which is why it is considered a high evaluation.
The third dimension obtained an average value of 4.24, a figure that is slightly lower than the previous ones. This dimension intends to evaluate the relationship of the individual with his community; it is made up of two indicators: economic factors and material well-being (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Third dimension: Relationship with the community
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen in the previous figure, the indicator of economic factors obtained a relatively low evaluation, in which it was evaluated whether the income allows the individual to live in a good way; given this result, it can be inferred that the income for the population of the region is insufficient.
The fourth dimension obtained an average value of 4.42. This dimension aims to assess the relationship of the individual with the region; it is made up of two indicators: social inclusion and rights (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Fourth dimension: Relationship with the region
Source: Own elaboration
The fifth dimension obtained an average value of 3.39, a low number. This dimension aims to assess the individual's perception of sustainable development in the region; it is made up of three indicators: limitations of the local ecosystem, needs and management of available resources (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Fifth dimension: Sustainable development
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen, the three indicators of this dimension were evaluated with a low score. Regarding the first indicator limitations of the local ecosystem, this evaluated the limitations that the destination has in terms of its environment, which means that the inhabitant does perceive limitations regarding the management of the region in relation to its environment.
On the other hand, the second indicator, needs, emphasizes the needs that exist regarding the conservation of the resources available in the destination and, for its part, the third indicator Management of available resources, mentions the inefficient management in the region regarding their resources and how they do not think about conserving them for a better future.
The sixth dimension obtained an average value of 2.94, the lowest figure in the instrument. This dimension aims to assess the governance of the region; it is made up of two indicators: coordination and self-governance (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Sixth dimension: Governance
Source: Own elaboration
In the first indicator of this dimension, coordination, the coordination between the municipal government and society with respect to the development of tourist activities that do not harm the environment was rated as negative. In the second self-government indicator, the autonomy of the municipal territory, the participation of all actors in decision-making and the implementation of strategies, were rated negatively.
The seventh dimension obtained an average value of 3.34, which is low. This dimension intends to evaluate the individual's perception of ICTs in the region; It is made up of four indicators: provision of methods and tools, infrastructure, technology transfer and innovation (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Seventh dimension: ICTs
Source: Own elaboration
It is observed that the Innovation indicator was the highest. For its part, the infrastructure indicator is the lowest, this factor evaluated the existing infrastructure in the region to maximize the benefits of the available technological tools.
The eighth and last dimension obtained an average value of 3.36, which is low. This dimension aims to evaluate the individual's perception of territorial learning in the region; it is made up of three indicators: long-term vision, strategies and development management (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Eighth dimension: Territorial learning
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen in the previous graph, the highest indicator is Long-term Vision, which evaluated the future vision that the destination has, as well as the actions that are carried out to achieve this vision.
Similarly, the other two indicators were low and in the same result. 3.26. The second indicator, Strategies, evaluated the plans that the municipal government applies for the development of tourism, and the third indicator evaluated the municipal management for the development of tourism in the region.
Below is a graph that summarizes the dimensions of this first instrument (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Concentrate of local community instrument dimensions
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen, the lowest dimension was Governance, followed by the ICT dimension and Territorial Learning.
3.2 Instrument 2: Tourists
The second instrument developed in this research was applied to tourists from the tourist destination under study.
General data
Figure 13. Sex people surveyed
Source: Own elaboration
For the second instrument, according to the graph above, it can be seen that of the total number of respondents (384 people) 53%, which corresponds to 204 people, were female; while 47% (180 people) corresponded to the male sex (Figure 13).
Figure 14. Municipality people surveyed
Source: Own elaboration
In relation to the previous graph, it can be seen that 87% of all those surveyed are tourists who arrived in Puerto Vallarta, which represents 334 tourists; while, in Bahía de Banderas, 13% were registered, which in numbers are 50 tourists (Figure 14).
Figure 15. Reason for visiting the destination
Source: Own elaboration
According to the previous graph, it can be seen that, of all the tourists surveyed, the vast majority (82%) went to the destination to vacation, that is, 316 people. On the other hand, 14% (54 people) came for work and 4% (14 tourists) for academic reasons (Figure 15).
Dimensions and indicators
The first dimension obtained an average value of 3.94. This dimension aims to assess sustainable development in the region from the perspective of the tourist; it is made up of three indicators: limitations of the local ecosystem, needs and management of available resources (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Frist dimension: Sustainable development
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen, the highest indicator is that of needs, followed by that of Management of available resources and, finally, that of Limitations of the local ecosystem, which evaluated the limitations of the environment in the locality.
The second dimension obtained an average value of 4.06, which gives a high parameter. This dimension aims to assess governance in the region from the perspective of the tourist; it is made up of two indicators: coordination and self-governance (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Second dimension: Governance
Source: Own elaboration
The third dimension obtained an average value of 4.35. This dimension aims to evaluate ICTs in the region from the perspective of the tourist; it is made up of four indicators: provision of methods and tools, infrastructure, technology transfer and innovation (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Third dimension: ICT' s
Source: Own elaboration
In the previous graph it can be seen that the indicator of Provision of methods and tools is the lowest; in it, access to the use of technologies such as government platforms in which information is shared with the public was evaluated. This gives a perspective that there are not enough technological tools available.
The fourth dimension obtained an average value of 4.18, a high figure. This dimension aims to evaluate territorial learning in the region from the perspective of the tourist; it is made up of three indicators: long-term vision, strategies and development management (Figure 19).
Figure 19. Fourth dimension: Territorial learning
Source: Own elaboration
Below is a graph that summarizes the dimensions of this first instrument (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Tourist instrument dimensions concentrate
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen, the lowest dimension was Sustainable Development, followed by the Governance dimension and Territorial Learning.
Likewise, the following graph is presented in which the necessary conditions are concentrated for a destination to be projected as intelligent and how the destination is from the perspective of the tourist (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Necessary conditions to project the tourist destination as intelligent
Source: Own elaboration
It is observed that the condition in which more work should be done is that of Inclusion (3.7), which evaluated the inclusion of society in terms of tourism and the existence of segregated areas. This says that tourists do not perceive that the population is involved in tourist activities, and they perceive segregated areas in the city.
Thus, following this same scheme, a graph is presented in which a comparison of the means of the different sections of the instruments is made (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Comparison of instrument section means
Source: Own elaboration
As can be seen in the previous graph, the section that has the lowest evaluation from the perspective of the community surveyed is the one that measures Territorial Intelligence from the point of view of the local community (3.25); however, this same section evaluated from the point of view of the tourist is higher (4.13). This is represented in greater detail below.
Figure 23. Territorial Intelligence from the perspective of the local community versus tourists
Source: Own elaboration
According to the data, there is a difference between the two points of view of the groups of subjects surveyed (Figure 23). In the dimension in which the greatest difference is marked (1.12 points) is in governance, which indicates that from the tourist's perspective there is greater cooperation between the actors involved, however, from the reality that is lived in the inhabitants of the PVMZ this cooperation is not something palpable and, it indicates a guideline of an area of opportunity for the region.
In the same way, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was performed for samples > 50 cases (tourists 384 cases, local community 384 cases) to verify the normality of the data, this with the aim of validating the application of the non-parametric statistical test. U of Mann-Whitney to compare two sample means (Table 4).
In the normality tests for all the study variables, the p value = 0.000 < 0.05, so the conclusion is reached using the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric statistical test (Table 4).
In the mean comparison analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test for the Smart Tourist Destination questions. It was found that the level of significance p < α in all cases; except in the variable "At first glance, no limitations can be seen in the local environment” (p = 0.484). So the difference between the means is statistically significant and implies that there is a difference between tourists and the local community (Table 5). Following the recommendation of Hawcroft and Milfont [25], to report the standard deviation and the internal consistency of the populations compared, it is observed that the standard deviations of the local community are wider. Therefore, it is concluded that the data is more dispersed, which means that in this group of subjects surveyed there are more varied profiles and with more diverse points of view in relation to the group of tourists surveyed in the study, where their responses had greater consistency in opinions (Table 5).
Table 4. Normality test for the items on a Smart Tourist Destination
|
|
Kolmogorov-Smirnova |
||
|
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
|
|
1. At first glance, there are no limitations in the local environment |
.214 |
768 |
.000 |
|
2. There is adequate management regarding the conservation of natural resources used in tourism activities |
.240 |
768 |
.000 |
|
3. The resources available in the region are used responsibly and with future conservation in mind |
.220 |
768 |
.000 |
|
4. There is excellent coordination between the municipal government and society regarding the development of tourism activities that do not harm the environment |
.233 |
768 |
.000 |
|
5. The territory enjoys freedom and society is actively participating in activities and tourist areas |
.245 |
768 |
.000 |
|
6. I believe that there is adequate access for the use of technologies such as the platforms that the municipal government puts up to share information with the general public |
.218 |
768 |
.000 |
|
7. There is an adequate infrastructure to maximize the technological benefits of the available tools |
.226 |
768 |
.000 |
|
8. It is easy to consult the information on platforms that provide tourist guidance |
.278 |
768 |
.000 |
|
9. There is a high sense of innovation in the region regarding tourism |
.340 |
768 |
.000 |
|
10. A vision of the municipal government traced to the future is perceived since actions are implemented that do not put at risk the natural resources that the region has |
.250 |
768 |
.000 |
|
11. The strategies that the municipal government applies for the development of tourism are adequate |
.241 |
768 |
.000 |
|
12. There is adequate management for the development of tourism in the region and to make tourism an immersive experience |
.246 |
768 |
.000 |
Source: Own elaboration
Table 5. Corporation by group (tourists and local community) of the measurements for the items on a Smart Tourist Destination and p values
|
|
Tourists |
Local Population |
Mann-Whitney U, p-value |
||
|
Asseveration STD |
Half |
DS |
Half |
DS |
|
|
1. At first glance, there are no limitations in the local environment |
3.64 |
.843 |
3.51 |
1.235 |
71671.000 .484 |
|
2. There is adequate management regarding the conservation of natural resources used in tourism activities |
4.24 |
.899 |
3.44 |
1.265 |
46285.500 .000 |
|
3. The resources available in the region are used responsibly and with future conservation in mind |
3.95 |
.971 |
3.22 |
1.337 |
50231.000 .000 |
|
4. There is excellent coordination between the municipal government and society regarding the development of tourism activities that do not harm the environment |
3.76 |
.839 |
2.78 |
1.352 |
41693.000 .000 |
|
5. The territory enjoys freedom and society is actively participating in activities and tourist areas |
4.36 |
.780 |
3.11 |
1.366 |
34464.000 .000 |
|
6. I believe that there is adequate access for the use of technologies such as the platforms that the municipal government puts up to share information with the general public |
4.12 |
1.054 |
3.19 |
1.415 |
45956.500 .000 |
|
7. There is an adequate infrastructure to maximize the technological benefits of the available tools |
4.20 |
.988 |
3.01 |
1.311 |
35235.000 .000 |
|
8. It is easy to consult the information on platforms that provide tourist guidance |
4.52 |
.911 |
3.27 |
1.405 |
34581.500 .000 |
|
9. There is a high sense of innovation in the region regarding tourism |
4.57 |
.858 |
3.90 |
1.185 |
47910.000 .000 |
|
10. A vision of the municipal government traced to the future is perceived since actions are implemented that do not put at risk the natural resources that the region has |
4.09 |
.886 |
3.58 |
1.247 |
56802.500 .000 |
|
11. The strategies that the municipal government applies for the development of tourism are adequate |
4.16 |
.898 |
3.26 |
1.302 |
43366.500 .000 |
|
12. There is adequate management for the development of tourism in the region and to make tourism an immersive experience |
4.28 |
.837 |
3.26 |
1.298 |
39311.500 .000 |
|
N Valid |
384 |
|
384 |
|
Total 768 |
Source: Own elaboration
3.3 Instrument 3: Government
As part of the fieldwork of this research, an interview was also conducted with the person in charge of training and tourist awareness in the region, an instrument through which it was possible to obtain relevant information for the results of this study. In the following, the data obtained from it will be analyzed, contrasting the opinions of the interviewee with those obtained in the two previous instruments, which were carried out, as already mentioned, to the local community and tourists from the region.
In the first question that the interviewee was asked, he referred to the limitations that, from his perspective, he perceives in the local ecosystem; questioning before which he affirmed not perceiving any limitation. However, in the instrument applied to the local community, it was possible to identify that the inhabitants do perceive limitations regarding the management of the region with respect to its environment, a situation that is also notorious from the point of view of the tourist. This provides a red light because, from the government, limitations are not visualized, however, out of vision they are palpable.
Similarly, the second question tried to inquire about the needs currently identified in the destination with respect to sustainability, a question to which he stated that the main need is to establish and put into practice a policy and local strategies for tourism development sustainable. This factor is not clearly perceived by the tourist, on the other hand, in the local community if these needs are visualized in relation to the conservation of the resources available in the region.
The third question posed referred to whether the person questioned considered the management carried out on the available resources of the municipality adequate, to which the subject replied that he is aware that there is a regulation of management and territorial planning of the municipality, but he does not know if it was carried out. To practice in a proper way. Regarding this indicator, the local community expressed the inefficient management of its resources in the region and how they do not think about their conservation for a better future.
Question four sought to find out if, from the interviewee's opinion, there is optimal coordination between all the actors involved in tourism activities to maximize benefits, an approach to which the interviewee considers that coordination between the government, the sector private and society. However, efforts are made to achieve it, an opinion that is supported by both the local community and tourists.
In the fifth question, it was asked if the subject considers that the territory enjoys autonomy and society is actively participating in tourist activities and areas, to which he asserted that he did consider that the destination is autonomous and, in addition, it has the participation of diverse actors to achieve the results. This opinion is in contrast to what was mentioned by the local community, since the inhabitants indicated that the territory is not autonomous and that the participation of the actors involved is deficient.
In the sixth question, it was inquired about the adequate access for the use of technologies such as the platforms that the government puts up to share tourist information, the subject stated that it is not currently adequate and it is an area of opportunity in which must continue to work. The tourist shares this opinion since they considered that there are not enough technological tools available to consult tourist information.
In the seventh question, we sought to know, from the opinion of the interviewee, if there is an adequate and sufficient infrastructure to have optimal access to the tourist offer, before which he affirmed that it is an area of opportunity to maximize benefits, a judgment that is supported by the local community.
In the eighth question, the opinion of the respondent was requested regarding his consideration of whether it is easy for a tourist to consult the information on platforms that provide tourist information, a question to which he responded positively, an assertion supported by the opinion of the tourist.
Question number nine inquired about whether there is a high sense of innovation in the region with reference to tourism, an approach to which he answered negatively, since he indicated that work must continue to achieve it. However, the local community considers that the region does have a high sense of innovation when it comes to tourism.
In the tenth question, it was inquired whether the region has a well-defined long-term vision regarding tourism, to which the interviewee stated that unfortunately no, he considers that only short-term actions are taken. This sentence agrees with the opinion given by the tourists of the destination, however, it contrasts with what was mentioned by the local community, because for them the region does have a well-defined long-term vision.
Question number 11 questioned whether the interviewee considers that the tourism strategies that the government currently implements are adequate, an approach to which he stated that he did not and that work must continue to achieve it.
For his part, in question 12, the respondent was asked if he believed that the management of the current tourism development is adequate and is capable of providing an immersive experience to the tourist, to which he mentioned that he did not and that there is an area opportunity in that sense.
Following this scheme of ideas, the seven questions that continue intended to evaluate the region with respect to the conditions that a tourist destination must have to be considered intelligent (questions 13 to 19).
Question number 13 inquired about the level at which the destination is regarding the use of information and communication technologies so that the tourist finds out about all the available offers, the interviewee stated that the destination is at a level basic, thanks to the lack of integration of the three levels of government to achieve good coordination on this issue.
In question 14, the perspective of the interviewee was sought regarding the participation of society, businesspersons and the government in the development of tourism in the municipality, he mentioned that efforts have been made; however, there is still a lot of work to be done in a joint and coordinated manner.
Question 15 tried to know the position of the subject with reference to the existing territorial planning, before, which he asserted that there are areas of opportunity in the subject since it is not adequate or sufficient for the available tourist offer.
In question 16, the opinion of the interviewee regarding the inclusion of society in tourist activities and areas was questioned. He stated that this inclusion does not exist in an integral way. In the same approach, he was asked if, from his perspective, he considers that there are areas and population that are lagging behind due to destination tourism, before which he affirmed that if there is a lagging because the benefits of a social and regional nature are distant from the macroeconomic results. Resulting from tourism activity and mentioned that, to avoid this situation, economic growth must be reconciled with social growth, that is, tourism as a tool for integration and social reconciliation that generates conditions of well-being for society.
The foregoing is similar to the opinion given by tourists, since they did not perceive the inclusion of society in the tourist activities that the region offers and, in addition, they visualized segregated areas throughout the entire region. This was also reflected in the feelings of the population, since they consider themselves little included in the tourist development of the destination.
In question 17, we sought to know about the opinion on whether the region has a sustainable vision in the use of resources and the treatment of its population, before which he asserted that at a practical level one can speak of a sustainable vision when from an economic point of view, it can be admitted that there is no better incentive in life than a stable and well-paid job, where employment is generated through community entrepreneurship projects with responsible consumption and the implementation of new technologies. The social is related to the creation of a social fabric with empowerment in its territory through a civic culture; and the environment is coherent with the cultural formation and/or system of values, preserving and conserving natural assets.
Question 18 asked if there are currently public policies implemented in the region that facilitate the entry and stay of tourists in the destination and that, in turn, help to plan their stay as much as possible, an approach to which they responded that they were unaware.
Question 19 asked if the interviewee considers that, there is a decrease in the impacts on the ecosystem when carrying out tourist activities in the region, to which he answered negatively.
In question 20, the opinion of the interviewee was requested regarding whether he believed that tourism is a source to acquire new knowledge, skills and learning for the local community, a question to which he responded that it is a bilateral learning process due to the cultural exchange that is experienced when establishing the relationship.
Question 21 questioned whether the interviewee believes that society actively participates in the political decisions that are made in the municipality, to which he answered negatively. Situation that is replicated by the opinion of the local community, since they mentioned that they are not involved in decision-making.
Question 22 questioned whether the interviewee considers that tourism generates an important source of income for the local community and if these allow people who work in the sector to live with dignity. An approach to which he assured that without a doubt tourism is a source important source of income for the destination; however, there is no coherent relationship with the income received by the workers, which is replicated in the opinion of local residents since they pointed out the insufficiency of the income generated by the tourist activity.
Finally, in question 23, it was questioned whether the subject considers that the workplaces offered by tourism are adequate for the population to enjoy their right to decent work, a question to which the interviewee responded positively.
According to the results obtained in this investigation, it can be seen that the local community has a greater perception of self-relationship and interpersonal relationships, factors that are part of the individual's quality of life. However, there are factors that also they determine this concept as their income and the relationship with the community, which are not completely positive and reduce the quality of life of the inhabitants of the region.
On the other hand, it is important to point out that the residents of the area under study do not consider that there is territorial intelligence in it; since, the indicators that characterize this concept (sustainable development, governance, ICTs and territorial learning) were evaluated negatively, governance being the dimension in which there is the greatest area of opportunity.
However, when evaluating this same concept from the point of view of tourists, the biggest area of opportunity for the region is sustainable development, particularly developing the limitations that are considered as a tourist destination and taking advantage of resources in a sustainable way.
While, the necessary conditions to project the tourist destination as intelligent identified in the study (ICT's, participation of the actors, territorial planning, inclusion, sustainable development, public policies and reduction of impacts). The condition in which a greater area of opportunity is the inclusion of society in tourism development, which also includes the fact that the government has developed strategies to combat segregated areas in the region.
Likewise, it was possible to identify the areas that the regional destination must work in order to project itself as an intelligent tourist destination, which are listed below:
• Explore the limitations of the region with respect to its environment.
• Establish sustainable strategies for tourism activity.
• Establish proper resource management in the region.
• Generate a governance framework in which all stakeholders participate.
• Provide technological platforms and infrastructures accessible to tourists and the population.
• Establish tourism innovation strategies.
• Design a long-term vision of the regional destination.
• Betting on culture as a tourist attraction.
• Make tourism companies aware of the importance of their workforce.
Regarding the necessary conditions to project a tourist destination as smart, the following was identified:
• It is necessary to promote the use of ICTs for tourist dissemination; the destination is at a basic level in their use.
• It is essential to generate a cooperative environment between businesspersons, government and society, the destination is at a basic level, we do not work jointly.
• An adequate territorial planning must be designed and adopted that allows the region to grow sustainably; currently the existing one is inefficient.
• A more inclusive tourist activity should be promoted for the local population of the region and seek to combat the segregation generated by tourist areas.
• It is necessary to design a sustainable vision in the use of available resources; the destination is at a basic level in this regard.
• It is essential to design adequate public policies for tourism management; the current ones are not inclusive and lack dissemination.
• It is necessary to raise awareness and design a strategy for the preservation of the environment.
Thus, by implementing these previously described measures, the PVMZ will be projected as a STD and the quality of life of the local community will be improved.
[1] Perea, M.M.J., Navarro, J.E., Luque, G.A.M. (2018). Territorial intelligence: Conceptualization and progress in the state of the question. Possible links with tourist destinations. Cuadernos de Turismo, 41: 535-554. https://doi.org/10.6018/turismo.41.327141
[2] Girardot, J.J. (2009). Evolution of the concept of territorial intelligence within the coordination action of the European network of territorial intelligence. Res-Ricerca e Sviluppo Per le Politiche Sociali, 1(2): 11-29. https://www.territorial-intelligence.eu/.
[3] INVAT-TUR. (2015). Manual Operativo para la Configuración de Destinos Turísticos Inteligentes. Economía Industrial, 395: 61-69. https://www.thinktur.org/media/Manual-de-destinos-turísticos-inteligentes.pdf.
[4] Gauna Ruiz de León, C. (2017). Perception of the problems associated with tourism and the population's interest in participating: The case of Puerto Vallarta [Percepción de la problemática asociada al turismo y el interés por participar de la población: caso Puerto Vallarta]. El Periplo Sustentable, (33): 251-290.
[5] Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2012). CONVENIO de Coordinación para planear y regular conjuntamente el desarrollo urbano y regional sustentable en los municipios conurbados de Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, y Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit, que celebran la Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, los estados. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5268217&fecha=14/09/2012.
[6] Gúzman, P.A.R. (2013). Propuesta de un Modelo de Inteligencia Territorial Proposal of a Model of Territorial Intelligence. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 8: 76-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000300036
[7] Salas, C., Garzón, D. (2013). The concept of quality of life and measurement [La nocion de calidad de vida y su medición]. Revista CES Salud Pública, 4(1): 36-46. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4549356.
[8] Verdugo, M.Á., Schalock, R. (2013). Calidad de Vida. In Discapacidad & Inclusión, pp. 443-461. https://doi.org/10.35563/revan.v4i2.230
[9] Trujillo, S., Tovar, C., Lozano, M. (2004). Formulation of a the oretical model of quality of life from psychology [Formulación de un modelo teórico de la calidad]. Revista Científicas Javeriana, 3(1): 89-98. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/lil-425690.
[10] Úrzua, A., Caqueo-Urizar, A. (2012). Calidad de vida: Una revisión teórica del concepto quality of life: A theoretical review. Terapia Psicologica, 30(1): 61-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082012000100006
[11] Angelaccio, M., Basili, A., Buttarazzi, B. (2013). Using Geo-Business intelligence and social integration for smart tourism cultural heritage platforms. In 2013 workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, pp. 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1109/WETICE.2013.87
[12] Cárdenas, G.E.P. (2016). The smart tourism destination and the territorial intelligence: problems and opportunities [Crecimiento y planeación urbana en Acapulco, Cancún y Puerto Vallarta (México)]. Revista Investigaciones Turísticas, 12: 99-120. https://doi.org/10.14198/inturi2016.12.05
[13] Fabry, N., Zeghni, S. (2013). Attractiveness of territories and territorial intelligence: Indicators. Competitive Intelligence and Decision Problems, 35: 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118586419.ch16
[14] Flores, D., Perogil, J., Miedes, B. (2018). Smart destinations or intelligent territories?: Study of cases in Spain [Destinos turísticos inteligentes o territorios inteligentes? Estudios de casos en España]. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 113: 193-219. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6920014.
[15] Foronda-Robles, C., Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., Fernández-Tabales, A. (2020). Progress and stakes in sustainable tourism: Indicators for smart coastal destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1864386
[16] Gómez, S.B., Gómez, M.C., Quintero, J.B. (2019). Business intelligence applied to ecotourism in Colombia. In 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2019.8760802
[17] Luque, G.A.M., Zayas, F.B., Caro, H.J.L. (2015). The smart tourism destination and the territorial intelligence: problems and opportunities. In Investigaciones Turísticas, 10: 1-25. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5289313&info=resumen&idioma=ENG.
[18] Miedes, U.B., Flores, R.D., Wanner, P. (2020). Managing tourist destinations according to the principles of the social economy: The case of the Les Oiseaux de Passage cooperative platform. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124837
[19] Pilogallo, A., Saganeiti, L., Scorza, F., las Casas, G. (2018). Tourism Attractiveness: Main Components for A Spacial Appraisal of Major Destinations According with Ecosystem Services Approach. Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95174-4
[20] Plant, R., Maurel, P., Barreteau, O., Bertacchini, Y. (2014). The role of territorial intelligence: The case of the Thau territory, southern France. River Basin Management in the Twenty-First Century: Understanding People and Place, 1-501. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17168
[21] IIEG. (2020). Área Metropolitana Interestatal De Puerto Vallarta-Bahía De Banderas. 37. https://iieg.gob.mx/ns/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/%C3%81rea-Metropolitana-Interestatal-de-Puerto-Vallarta.pdf.
[22] REPORTUR. (2023). Puerto Vallarta: record number of tourists by air in 2022 and high occupancy [Puerto Vallarta: récord de turistas por aire en 2022 y alta ocupación]. https://www.reportur.com/mexico/2023/01/11/puerto-vallarta-record-de-turistas-por-aire-en-2022-y-alta-ocupacion/.
[23] Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. Inc. John Wiley & Sons, Ed.
[24] Rodríguez, R.J., Reguant, Á.M. (2020). Calcular la fiabilidad de un cuestionario o escala mediante el SPSS: el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. REIRE Revista d Innovación i Recerca En Educación, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2020.13.230048
[25] Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2): 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
