The use of gamification in environmental interpretation and its effect on customer-based destination brand equity: The moderating role of psychological distance

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 Available online 23 December 2021 2212-571X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The use of gamification in environmental interpretation and its effect on customer-based destination brand equity: The moderating role of psychological distance M. Lina Fern´ andez-Ruano, Dolores M. Frías-Jamilena, Ana I. Polo-Pe˜ na * , Francisco Peco-Torres Dpt. Marketing and Market Research, University of Granada, Campus de Cartuja, s/n, Granada, Spain ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Environmental interpretation Gamification ICT Customer-based destination brand equity Psychological distance ABSTRACT This study seeks to contribute to the literature dealing with the formation of customer-based destination brand equity (CBDBE) using an environmental interpretation strategy. It aims to establish whether (i) participation in an environmental interpretation experience with a gamified design may exert a greater effect on CBDBE than participation in a non-gamified version; (ii) CBDBE is influenced by the tourist’s psychological distance relative to the destination in question; and (iii) psychological distance moderates the effect of environmental interpretation (gamified vs. non-gamified) on CBDBE. A quasi-experiment is designed in which the environmental interpretation is manipulated (gamified vs. non-gamified). The results show that the effect of a gamified environmental interpretation experience on CBDBE is greater than that of a non-gamified version; and that it is greater among participants who perceive the destination to be psychologically near. The study also finds that there is a regulatory construal fit between the use of a gamified design and psychological distance, such that perceived psychological distance exerts a moderating effect on the relationship between interpretation type (gamified vs. non-gamified) and CBDBE. It is identified that, when the destination is perceived to be psychologically distant, the gamified environmental interpretation generates significantly greater CBDBE than the non-gamified version. By contrast, when it is psychologically near, there are no significant differences in CBDBE between a gamified and a non-gamified environmental interpretation experience. These results are relevant both for the literature and for the professional tourism sector, which, by its very nature, operates in an international context. 1. Introduction Fierce competition between tourist destinations requires them to have a competitive advantage in the market (Pike & Page, 2014), and brand equity is considered a key variable to achieve this (Bastos & Levy, 2012). Sound management of brand equity helps secure differentiation in the tourism market, rendering the destination more popular and preferred among tourists, compared to other destinations (Kim & Lee, 2018). The consumer’s perception of a destination’s brand value—hereafter, customer-based brand equity (CBBE) or, if it is applied to tourist destinations, customer-based destination brand equity (CBDBE)—begins when they acquire greater knowledge of the destination and evolves as they hold it in incrementally higher regard in terms of image, quality, perceived value, and loyalty. Increasingly in recent decades, CBDBE is also affected by the destination’s state of conservation (Negrus¸a, Toader, Sofic˘ a, Tutunea, & Rus, 2015). Hence, it is important that destinations invest in reconciling the development of tourist activities with the protection and conservation of the natural resources that form the very basis of those activities (Blancas, Lozano-Oyola, & Gonz´ alez, 2015) and with the long-term development of tourism (Thiel-Ellul & Navarro-Jurado, 2014, pp. 1–26). The need to strike this balance was further underlined recently by Gossling, Scott, and Hall (2020, p.15) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter authors argue that “there is an urgent need not to return to business-as-usual when the crisis [is] over” but instead to focus on delivering “a transformation of * Corresponding author. Dpt. Marketing and Market Research, University of Granada, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Campus Cartuja, s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano), [email protected] (D.M. Frías-Jamilena), [email protected] (A.I. Polo-Pe˜ na), [email protected] (F. Peco- Torres). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100677 Received 4 May 2021; Received in revised form 28 November 2021; Accepted 30 November 2021 Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 2 the global tourism system more aligned to the SDGs [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals]”. Sustainability is therefore a key factor for competitiveness (Pulido Fern´ andez, 2004). The use of environmental interpretation, an environmental education tool (Powell, Vezeau, Stern, Moore, & Wright, 2018), is an effective strategy for building the sustainability of tourist destinations (Ballantyne, Hughes, Lee, Packer, & Sneddon, 2018; Coghlan & Kim, 2012) by encouraging pro-environmental behavior among tourists (Ballantyne et al., 2018). This strategy is also known to generate more satisfying, enjoyable experiences for tourists (Powell & Ham, 2008), leading to positive effects on consumer behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2018). Although the positive effects of environmental interpretation are widely acknowledged, in terms of destination sustainability and different variables of consumer behavior, it is of interest to better understand whether its use improves CBDBE. To be effective, environmental interpretation must take into account factors linked to its design and the characteristics of the target audience (Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2009). First, with regard to the design of environmental interpretation, advances in information and communications technologies (ICTs) offer new possibilities, such as the development of gamification experiences that do not rely on human interaction, yet still retain the interactivity offered by ICTs (Coghlan & Carter, 2020). Furthermore, the implementation of environmental interpretation using ICTs renders it possible to implement diverse designs, from simple multimedia information brochures, for instance, to gamification. The incorporation of a gamified design offers interesting possibilities because gamified services can transform a participatory experience into one that is intrinsically motivating and enjoyable (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, 2017). It is this potential that has led to the growing interest in establishing whether the implementation of an ICT-based environmental interpretation experience with a gamified design has the capacity to generate a more significant experience for the participant and a greater effect on their behavior compared to the use of a non-gamified version. Second, with regard to the characteristics of the public at which the environmental interpretation is targeted, the international nature of the tourists must be considered. In the tourism context, scholars have identified that psychological distance influences variables related to CBDBE such as loyalty (Shin, Chung, Kang, & Koo, 2016, pp. 355–368), meaning that, under identical circumstances, a stimulus that is perceived to be psychologically near leads to better results in terms of consumer behavior than one perceived to be psychologically distant. This points to the need to identify designs for environmental interpretation that are effective—that is, sensitive to tourists’ perceptions of the destination as psychologically near or distant. Hence, it is relevant to examine whether the effectiveness of a gamified environmental interpretation, implemented via ICTs, can be affected by the psychological distance of the tourists. The objective of the present study, then, is to establish whether the use of gamified environmental interpretation, implemented via ICTs, is an appropriate strategy for achieving greater CBDBE and whether this effect may be moderated by the tourist’s psychological distance relative to the destination. The research seeks to understand whether (a) participation in an environmental interpretation experience with a gamified design may exert a greater effect on CBDBE than participation in a non-gamified version, (b) CBDBE is influenced by the tourist’s psychological distance relative to the destination in question, and (c) that psychological distance moderates the effect of environmental interpretation (gamified vs. non-gamified) on CBDBE. The study makes several new contributions to the literature. First, it provides greater knowledge about the effectiveness of the use of environmental interpretation in tourist destinations, and about how its use may contribute to developing a competitive advantage based on CBDBE. Second, it employs the latest ICTs to design a gamified environmental interpretation experience for tourists, taking into account that the gamification element must be designed and implemented by taking full advantage of its ability to generate an experience that feels personal to each participant. Third, the study takes into account a particular characteristic of tourists—namely, their psychological distance from the destination—to a) assess its effect on CBDBE and b) based on regulatory construal fit, assess its influence on the effect of environmental interpretation type (gamified vs. non-gamified) on the achievement of CBDBE. 2. Literature review 2.1. Environmental interpretation and its effect on CBDBE The measurement of CBBE is based on understanding how marketing initiatives impact on consumers’ acquisition and recall of brand information (Pike, Bianchi, Kerr, & Patti, 2010). According to Keller (1993), CBBE can be conceptualized as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.” In terms of its scope, including CBDBE, the majority of studies hold that CBDBE comprises a number of dimensions that are highly relevant to consumer behavior (Bianchi, Pike, & Lings, 2014). The majority of studies measuring CBBE use the following dimensions: (a) brand awareness; (b) brand quality; (c) brand image; (d) brand value; and (e) brand loyalty (e. g. Kladou & Kehagias, 2014; Pike et al., 2010; Zavattaro, Daspit, & Adams, 2015). This suggests that CBDBE can be considered a consumer behavior variable compatible with the learning potential that can be achieved through environmental interpretation (which also has the scope to influence destination awareness and image). It also indicates that CBDBE is compatible with destination competitiveness, due to its potential to improve the tourist’s experience of the destination and influence its perceived quality, perceived value, and loyalty toward it. However, more recent advances in the specialized literature on CBDBE, have taken a more all-embracing perspective: that of overall brand equity (OBE) (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). These latter works define OBE as “consumers’ different response between a focal brand and an unbranded product when both have the same level of marketing stimuli and product attributes.” The present study takes this more holistic perspective of CBDBE measurement, echoing other recent studies in the tourism field (Frías-Jamilena, Polo-Pe˜ na, & Rodriguez-Molina, 2017). Nevertheless, there are few studies that seek to identify possible antecedents with which to work to improve CBDBE. Among the exceptions are: Ferns and Walls (2012), which proposes a model to examine the effect of enduring travel involvement on CBDBE; Frías Jamilena, Polo Pe˜ na, and Rodríguez Molina (2017), which finds that the level of value created by a tourist as a result of their interactions with different participants at the destination is an antecedent of CBDBE; Frías-Jami- lena, Sabiote-Ortiz, Martín-Santana, and Beerli-Palacio (2018), which demonstrates the effect of Cultural Intelligence on CBDBE; and Can- o-Guervos, Frías-Jamilena, Polo Pe˜ na, and Chica Olmo (2020), which examines the indirect effects that tourists from a nearby geographical location may exert on CBDBE, due to their proximity and shared context. As CBDBE will be affected by the destination’s state of conservation (Negrus¸a et al., 2015), it is important to strike a healthy balance between tourism-related activities and the protection and conservation of the natural resources that serve as the very basis for those activities (Blancas et al., 2015). In this regard, environmental interpretation is one of the most widely-used tools to educate tourists about the environmental conservation of destinations (Ardoin, Wheaton, Bowers, Hunt, & Durham, 2015). It has also been found to improve the tourist experience (Moncada, Aranguren, & Pellegrini, 2016). From these findings of the literature, it can be inferred that environmental interpretation can be an effective strategy for improving CBDBE, given that this variable is linked to learning about the destination (meaning improved destination awareness and image) and to the enhancement of the tourist experience (which is associated with higher perceived destination quality and perceived value, as well as loyalty). According to Ham (1992), environmental interpretation translates M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 3 technically or scientifically complex information into language and ideas that non-experts can readily understand, while enhancing visitor satisfaction. However, various studies on environmental interpretation and its effectiveness call for further research (Coghlan & Carter, 2020), as these types of experiences are complex, involving multiple factors that shape their success or failure (Powell et al., 2009). The present literature review identifies that such influential factors can be broadly grouped into two groups: 1) those related to the design of environmental interpretation experiences and 2) those associated with the characteristics of the participants themselves (Table 1). Among the factors associated with the design of environmental interpretation experiences, the literature highlights the potential of ICTs, which can provide design features that sustain interaction with participants without the need for personnel (Coghlan & Carter, 2020), generate opportunities for implementation in other contexts (ibid.), and enhance the tourist experience (Xu, Buhalis, & Weber, 2017; Xu, Tian, Buhalis, Weber, & Zhang, 2016). Given this potential offered by ICTs, a step further is to harness technology to incorporate a gamification approach into the interpretation design. The participant’s experience of this gamified approach, or its impact on tourist behavior, can then be analyzed. Examining gamification involves building on the contributions of the previous literature, which, in the main, allude only briefly to the inclusion of different games in the interpretation experience (Hughes, Packer, & Ballantyne, 2011); other exceptions include works that associate game literature and interpretation with theoretical frameworks linked to gamification (Coghlan & Carter, 2020). With regard to the individual characteristics of the participants, Table 1 shows that there are variables relating to their particular profile and context that should be taken into account when designing the environmental interpretation experience: previous experience/no previous experience of this type of activity, subjective norms, environmental concern, or sociodemographic variables. The effect of the latter, sociodemographics, on the effectiveness of participation in environmental interpretations has already been analyzed, and, from this starting point, the present study seeks to examine other variables. Considering the international context of touristic activity, it is of interest to select a variable that captures tourists’ perceptions of the psychological distance or nearness of the destination in question. Given the consensus among researchers regarding the importance of psychological distance in individuals’ evaluations and decision-making, and the significant impact it can exert on their behavior (Liberman, Trope, & Wakslak, 2007; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), it is to be expected that psychological distance will also influence the effectiveness of environmental interpretation—meaning that its design needs to be adapted to fit the target audience accordingly. As shown in Table 1, the effectiveness of environmental interpretation experiences on consumer behavior, taking into account their perceived psychological distance from the target audience, has not been analyzed in the literature to date. The present study seeks to address these gaps in the literature by a) designing an environmental interpretation experience that takes advantage of the potential of ICTs to incorporate gamification design features and b) using a factor linked to the characteristics of individual participants, namely psychological distance. 2.2. The use of gamification in environmental interpretation and its effect on CBDBE The concept of ‘gamification’ was first used in 2008 in an online blog post, with the first academic research on the topic being published in 2011. Initially, scholars adopted an exclusively systemic perspective on this concept—an approach that was subsequently criticized by some authors for failing to take into account the participant experience (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, 2017). Researchers are now beginning to consider how to measure the experiential aspect of games as this is essential for identifying whether gamification is effective from the end-user perspective and as a fundamental step in determining the impact of that effectiveness on consumer behavior variables (Huotari & Hamari, 2017) (Table 2). Although the literature demonstrates the need to incorporate the participant’s gameful experience in any empirical analysis of gamification’s impact, more knowledge and understanding of this perspective are required (Huotari & Hamari, 2017). While a gameful experience is considered key to the design and use of gamification features (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014), there is no consensus on its dimensions, nor on how to measure it (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2017). However, the contributions of Eppmann, Bekk, and Klein (2018) and Liu, Wang, Huang, and Tang (2019) are considered to be of particular importance for this question. The respective scales developed by these authors concur that it is important to include a specific dimension to reflect participants’ enjoyment, while Liu et al. (2019) highlight how important it is for gamification to stimulate the intrinsic motivation of participants. According to Self-Determination Theory, which is widely applied in research dealing with gamification (Seaborn & Fels, 2015), intrinsic motivation is determined by three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are satisfied, the subject’s intrinsic motivation improves (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As shown in Table 3, people’s basic needs can be satisfied by participating in a gamified experience supported by a system of affordances. The term ‘affordance’ refers to inherent motivational elements that encourage specific activities among participants. The ‘enjoyment’ element refers to a specific state of happiness or entertainment generated by a pleasant experience (Merhi, 2016), beyond the specific result achieved out of that experience (Holbrook, 1994, pp. 21–71). This feeling should be considered a facet of participation in games (Ha, Yoon, & Choi, 2007). Table 1 Factors that influence the effectiveness of environmental interpretation. Factors linked to the design of environmental interpretation experiences 1) Interaction with staff (Ballantyne et al., 2009; Botha, Saayman, & Kruger, 2016; Coghlan et al., 2011; Coghlan & Kim, 2012; Lee, 2009; Powell et al., 2009; Powell & Ham, 2008; Walker & Moscardo, 2014). 2) Duration (Powell et al., 2009; Wolf et al., 2013). 3) Number of interpretive media used—that is, participation in different activities and extent of exposure to the interpretation (Coghlan et al., 2011; Coghlan & Kim, 2012; Kim, 2012; Powell et al., 2009; Weiler & Smith, 2009). 4) Use of ICTs to implement the interpretation (Coghlan & Carter, 2020; Davies, 2014; Hughes et al., 2011; Wolf et al., 2013). Factors linked to the characteristics of the participants 1) Previous experience of this type of activity, directly linked to environmental sustainability (Coghlan et al., 2011; Kim, 2012; Weiler & Smith, 2009). 2) Subjective norms (Bamberg, 2002; Kim, Airey, & Szivas, 2011). 3) Concern for environmental issues (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2009). 4) Socio-demographic factors, such as age (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cheung & Fok, 2014; Kim, 2012), gender (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Kim, 2012; Powell et al., 2009), country of origin (native or foreign) (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Botha et al., 2016; Kim, 2012; Weiler & Smith, 2009), occupation (Cheung & Fok, 2014), salary level (Cheung & Fok, 2014) or educational level (Kim, 2012; Powell et al., 2009). Source: The authors M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 4 In the context of gamification, enjoyment is understood as spontaneity in users’ interaction with the gamification system (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015a). In other words, enjoyment refers to users’ exploratory and creative behavior when interacting with the system (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015a). The generation of enjoyment helps the participant persevere with the longer-term behaviors promoted by the gamification experience (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Wu & Liu, 2007). Enjoyment also influences how consumers respond to a product innovation (Aroean, 2012), and it also increases people’s interest in making discoveries, such as exploring new ideas or products (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Gamification can be considered a valid approach to apply in different contexts (Table 3), as recognized by the literature, which points to spheres including education and learning, health and physical fitness, and crowdsourcing. The tourism and marketing fields, for instance, can be deemed emerging areas that require further research in this regard (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). In the tourism context, the literature attributes benefits to the use of gamification before, during, and after the trip (Xu et al., 2017). Participation in gamification has been found to generate: a gameful (motivating and enjoyment) experience (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, 2017); a better tourist experience (Xu et al., 2016, 2017); a more positive affective and behavioral response to the brand or tourist destination on the part of the participant (Hamari & Koivisto, 2014; Xu et al., 2017); a higher level of satisfaction; and increased loyalty and commitment to the destination (Abou-Shouk & Solliman, 2021; Xu et al., 2016, 2017). In the field of sustainable tourism specifically, studies including those of Souza, Marques, and Veríssimo (2020) and Negrus¸a et al. (2015) analyze the techniques and applications that must be taken into account when gamification is used to address a conservation problem in destinations specializing in sustainable tourism. In light of these considerations from the literature, it is of value to contribute empirical evidence of the possible superior effect of gamification on a key variable of consumer behavior—namely, CBDBE—compared to the effect of a non-gamified tourist environmental interpretation experience. It is also relevant to capture the participant’s perspective when measuring the gameful experience. Based on the literature review, it is anticipated that a gamified environmental interpretation experience will achieve better results in terms of CBDBE than a non-gamified experience. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1. A gamified environmental interpretation experience will have a significantly greater positive effect on CBDBE than a non-gamified environmental interpretation experience. 2.3. The effect of psychological distance on CBDBE The term ‘psychological distance’ was first used by Lewin (1951) (cited in Van Boven, Kane, McGraw, & Dale, 2010) and later defined by Trope and Liberman (2010) as the “subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now”. Psychological distance is defined according to the individual’s perception of how near or distant an object, place, or event—in short, a given stimulus—is from their direct experience. It takes into account temporal distance (when that stimulus arises), spatial distance (where it arises), social distance (in relation to whom it arises) and hypothetical distance (the likelihood that it will arise). Even if the stimulus conveys equivalent information to different people, the individual will represent it as psychologically near or distant depending on the perceived distance from his or her direct experience (Miao & Mattila, 2013). Trope and Liberman (2010) contend that psychological distance comprises the aforementioned dimensions—spatial, temporal, social and hypothetical—and that these are interrelated. This means that what influences one dimension can also influence the rest (Spence, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2012). The main theoretical basis for the concept of psychological distance is construal level theory, which holds that psychological distance is linked to a level of construction or mental conceptualization of Table 2 Evolution of scholarly study of gamification. Timeframe Main milestones Characteristics 2008 First appearance of the term Described in a blog as: “taking game mechanics and applying them to other web properties to increase Engagement” (Terril, cited in Huotari & Hamari, 2012). From 2010 Use of gamification in firms Attracts and retains customers and motivates workers. Success stories include Nike, Samsung, Foursquare and Pepsi (Hsu et al., 2017). From 2011 onward First academic studies published Researchers show interest in games, aiming to unravel what makes them so enjoyable and motivating (Deterding, 2015). Main definitions and perspectives from which gamification is explored A broader definition is developed: “The use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011). Considers gamification from a systemic perspective. “Gamification refers to a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user’’ overall value creation” (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, 2017). Considers gamification from a participant experience perspective. The primary spheres of application of gamification proposed by the literature are education and learning, health and physical fitness, and crowdsourcing. Less prominent areas include: social behavior and networking, business and management, ecological/environmental behavior, e-commerce, marketing and consumer behavior, entertainment, transport, culture, and tourism (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Source: The authors Table 3 Basic psychological needs of motivation, and affordances designed to satisfy those needs via a gamified experience. Basic psychological needs Meaning Affordances with the capacity to influence the satisfaction of a need Examples of affordances incorporated into gamified experiences to influence the satisfaction of basic psychological needs Autonomy A feeling of being able to choose whether to perform a task or not and of choosing how to do it (Burgers, Eden, Van Engelenburg, & Buningh, 2015). Affordances that give control to the user, enabling them to exercise their own will ( Burgers et al., 2015). Profiles, avatars, privacy control, configurable interface, notification control, alternative activities, noncontrolling instructions, levels, narrative. Competence Feeling of having the ability to perform the task and achieve the objectives (Xu et al., 2017). Affordances of challenge and expertise (Xu et al., 2017). Positive feedback, progressive information, levels, leaderboards, points, challenges, intuitive control, status and badges. Relatedness Desire to feel connected to other people with a sense of recognition and acceptance ( Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Affordances that enable interaction and connection with other individuals (Xu et al., 2017). Groups, messages, blogs, chat, connection to social networks, collaboration tasks, gifts to other users. Source: The authors M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 5 perceived reality (Liberman & Trope, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Thus, psychological distance regulates how the individual perceives the stimulus, such that it will seem safe or uncertain, familiar or strange, similar or different—in short, near or distant. And this perceived distance will fundamentally influence their decisions and behavior (Tan & Chang, 2015). In general terms, the literature demonstrates that the lesser the perceived psychological distance, the greater the effectiveness of marketing actions. Psychological proximity has been found to improve a consumer’s confidence and purchase intention (Darke, Brady, Benedicktus, & Wilson, 2016) as well as brand attitude, preference, and use (Lii, Wu, & Ding, 2013). In the tourism sphere, psychological distance is considered a key factor in tourist destination visit intention (Shin et al., 2016, pp. 355–368), attitude (Kim, Kim, Kim, & Magnini, 2016), loyalty (Tan & Chang, 2015), and customer experience (Miao & Mattila, 2013), among other aspects. The present study aims to contribute to the extant literature by providing empirical evidence on the effect of psychological distance on one of the primary variables of consumer behavior, CBDBE—a variable of significant interest, given both its relevance and its complexity. In light of the literature review, it is anticipated that the effect of an environmental interpretation strategy on CBDBE will differ according to the psychological distance perceived by the consumer relative to the interpretation experience (the stimulus). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2. CBDBE will be significantly greater when the consumer perceives the stimulus to be psychologically near than when they perceive it as psychologically distant. 2.4. The moderating effect of psychological distance on the effectiveness of gamified environmental interpretation in terms of CBDBE The effects of environmental interpretation on consumer behavior variables can be improved if a good match can be achieved between the stimulus and the individual’s mindset (Chou & Lien, 2012). One way to achieve this is by “regulatory construal fit”, which involves producing a correspondence between the individual’s regulatory focus and the level at which they construe information (Lee, Keller, & Sternthal, 2010). According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), any behavior in pursuit of a goal will be regulated by two different focuses: promotion vs. prevention. Each focus has distinct underlying concerns, such that individuals with a promotion focus tend to be concerned with progress, growth and achievements, while those with a prevention focus are more concerned with their protection, their safety, and their responsibilities (Higgins et al., 2001). People who adopt a promotion focus will be highly sensitive to the presence or absence of positive outcomes, while those presenting a prevention focus will be more sensitive to the presence or absence of negative outcomes (Chou & Lien, 2012). According to construal level theory, if the individual perceives the stimulus to be psychologically near, a low-level construal is activated, and if they perceive it to be psychologically distant, requiring a greater cognitive effort, a high-level construal will be activated (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Each level is determined by a series of characteristics (Liberman & Trope, 2014). Thus, individuals who perceive the stimulus to be psychologically near construe it in a specific, detailed and subordinate way (a low-level construal), while those who perceive it as psychologically distant will construe it in abstract, general and superordinate terms (a high-level construal) (Kim et al., 2016; Liberman & Trope, 2014). The activation of high-level construal increases the relevance of the desirability of an outcome; and the activation of low-level construal increases the relevance of the feasibility of the means necessary to achieve that outcome (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Scarpi, 2021). On this premise, regulatory construal fit can be achieved (Lee et al., 2010) when a promotion focus is combined with a high-level construal or a stimulus that is perceived to be psychologically distant, or when a prevention focus meets a low-level construal or a perception of psychological nearness. Numerous studies have explored the connection between construal level theory and regulatory focus theory (Chou & Lien, 2012; Lee et al., 2010). These authors began to link regulatory focus with the construal level, considering the attributes that characterize the stimuli to which individuals are exposed. In the present research, it is hypothesized that environmental interpretation is aligned with a prevention focus and that, therefore, a regulatory construal fit will be produced among individuals with lowlevel construal (stimulus psychologically near). It is also hypothesized that gamification is aligned with a promotion focus, which will produce a regulatory construal fit among individuals with high-level construal (stimulus psychologically distant). These propositions are based on the premise that one of the major differences between the promotion focus and the prevention focus is that latter is concerned with preventing negative outcomes, while the former helps the individual in achieving positive outcomes (Chou & Lien, 2012). Furthermore, individuals with a prevention focus regulate their attitudes and behaviors to attain safety and security, whereas those with a promotion focus regulate their attitudes and behaviors to attain growth and achievement (Lee et al., 2010). Hence, any stimulus or message that emphasizes one of these two aspects can be considered to align with one of the two focuses. A further hypothesis is that the design of a non-gamified environmental interpretation may be particularly associated with a prevention focus because the great majority of environment interpretation experiences emphasize the costs or consequences of failing to take (environmentally-friendly) action as well as the safety of participants (Coghlan, Ruth Fox, Prideaux, & Lück, 2011; Tan & Law, 2016). For example, Wiener, Needham, and Wilkinson (2009) found that the majority of tourism firms that offered an environmental interpretation service in Hawaii focused solely on the personal safety of participants. Conversely, the findings of a number of previous studies point to the possibility that a gamified environmental interpretation experience may be aligned with a promotion focus. Ashraf, Razzaque, and Thongpapanl (2016), for example, found that promotion-focused individuals tend to have a hedonic orientation. In a very recent study, Scarpi (2021) demonstrates that hedonism is related to high-level construal (considering hedonism to refer to fun and enjoyment). Previous research has consistently linked enjoyment—one of the basic effects of the gameful experience—to the promotion focus and high-level construal. The present research extends this analysis by positing that gamification aligns with a promotion focus, not only due to the ‘enjoyment’ aspect but also the fundamental premise of gamification—that its inherent reward system helps fulfill the participant’s need for achievement (Lee & Higgins, 2009). Gamification is an achievement system (Harwood & Garry, 2015) that shows the participant their progress toward the final goal. Some gamification designs include features such as a progress bar to indicate progress even more clearly (Sigala, 2015). In short, the gamified experience enables participants to fulfill their ideals and emphasizes the goals they can achieve; hence, it can be considered to be consistent with the promotion focus. On this basis, the present study takes this association and extends it, associating a gamified environmental interpretation experience with a promotion focus and a non-gamified version with a prevention focus. Therefore, it may be that regulatory construal fit occurs among those individuals who feel psychologically near to the destination and are exposed to a non-gamified environmental interpretation experience, and in those who feel psychologically distant from the destination and are exposed to a gamified interpretation experience. However, to date, the effect of the design-type of the environmental interpretation experience (gamified vs. non-gamified) and of the characteristics of the participants in terms of their psychological distance (near vs. distant) have not been analyzed jointly. A joint examination of the two factors would make it possible to determine whether a regulatory construal fit between them is possible. The literature proposes that regulatory construal fit influences M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 6 consumer behavior variables (Chou & Lien, 2012), generating more positive brand attitude (Chang, Zhang, & Xie, 2015; Lee et al., 2010), greater purchase intention (Chang et al., 2015), willingness to pay a higher price (Mogilner, Aaker, & Pennington, 2008), and improved engagement (Lee et al., 2010). Based on these findings, it is anticipated that, if there is a regulatory construal fit between the design type of the environmental interpretation experience (gamified vs. non-gamified) and the psychological distance of the individual (near vs. distant), this will be reflected in the CBDBE. An environmental interpretation experience with a gamified design is expected to achieve regulatory construal fit among tourists who perceive that stimulus to be psychologically distant. The following hypotheses are therefore proposed: H3. The psychological distance perceived by the participant moderates the effect of environmental interpretation type on CBDBE. H3a. When the participant perceives the stimulus to be psychologically distant, a gamified environmental interpretation experience generates significantly greater CBDBE than a non-gamified environmental interpretation experience. However, in the case of participants who perceive the stimulus to be psychologically near, the premises of regulatory focus theory indicate that they would gravitate toward a prevention focus, which is more typical of a non-gamified environmental interpretation design (that is, aimed at conveying safety information explaining how to fulfill their obligations and emphasizing safety). This implies that, according to these premises developed in the literature, a regulatory fit could occur between tourists who perceive the stimulus to be psychologically near and non-gamified environmental interpretation. That said, a gamified environmental interpretation experience still contains, in essence, the same information and characteristics as the more typical non-gamified environmental interpretation. A gamified version therefore provides the features that participants who perceive a lesser psychological distance—those with a prevention-focused regulatory orientation—most desire, because, as noted above, this design explains how to fulfill their obligations and emphasize safety. Huotari and Hamari (2012, 2017) contend that a gamified offer is a package of services comprising a core service that then incorporates a service enhanced by affordances that deliver a gameful experience for participants, where the enhanced service supports the core service and not the other way around. Thus, the effect on individuals who perceive the stimulus to be psychologically near will not be affected by the type of environmental interpretation (gamified vs. non-gamified) to which they are exposed. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H3b. When the participant perceives the stimulus to be psychologically near, the type of environmental interpretation (gamified vs. nongamified) will generate no significant differences in the CBDBE. Fig. 1 shows the proposed research model, where: participation in a gamified interpretation will generate a greater effect on CBDBE than in a non-gamified version (H1); the participants who perceive the stimulus to be psychologically near will present a higher level of CBDBE than those who perceive it to be psychologically distant (H2); and psychological distance exerts a moderating effect on the relationship between participation in a non-gamified vs. gamified environmental interpretation experience and CBDBE (H3). 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample and procedure Spain was chosen as the tourist destination for the present analysis because, for several decades, it has remained among the top five most popular world destinations in terms of international tourist arrivals (UNWTO, 2020). At the same time, there are several issues that put the sustainability of the Spanish tourism sector—and its profitability—at risk in the long term (de Industria and Turismo, 2019), while the sector also needs to be reoriented to stimulate recovery post-pandemic (Ribes-Noguera, Can´ os-Dar´ os, & Santandreu-Mascarell, 2020). Turning to the methodology, the sample subjects had to meet two conditions to be able to participate in the experiment. They had to be of legal age and never to have visited Spain before, this latter requirement being intended to avoid the possible effect of past experience of the destination on the dependent variable. In line with other studies that deal with more than one nationality, the chosen study population comprised British and American tourists who were potential first-time visitors to Spain (Pike, Pontes, & Kotsi, 2021). Their shared language, English, was the language used in the quasi-experiment on environmental interpretation presented here (both gamified and non-gamified). Furthermore, the United Kingdom and the United States are representative nationalities for Spain (INE, 2020). Participants were selected via an Internet user panel managed by Dynata. This company has approximately 30 offices in over 20 countries, and has a solid track record in such international research, completing 100 million surveys in 2018 alone. Its Internet user panel comprises over 7 million users in the US and UK, aged 18 years or above. Drawing on this information, the company assisted in the process by accurately selecting the target population and achieving sample representativeness for the study. In the case of quasi-experiments, sample size needs to be geared to enable the treatments to be manipulated in an authentic, nonartificial environment (Zikmund, 1998). Hence, a minimum sample size must be determined that will ensure the statistical tools can be used with a good degree of confidence, meaning that it should be based on the number of treatments proposed in the quasi-experiment. Initial contact with the participants was made via an email that contained a website link. Those who chose to click on the link were redirected to a secure intranet containing the questionnaires and the experimental stimulus. From this point on, the procedure comprised three steps. In step 1, before being exposed to the experimental stimulus, the participants were asked to respond to an initial questionnaire to gather information on each individual’s prior image of Spain, level of environmental concern, and subjective norms. In phase 2, each person was randomly assigned to one of the two experimental treatments (gamified vs. non-gamified multimedia environmental interpretation experience). In the third and final step, participants were exposed to the stimulus and controlled the minimal exposure time in both treatments Participants were then asked to respond to the second questionnaire, Fig. 1. Research model proposed. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 7 which covered the dependent variable CBDBE, manipulation checks, psychological distance, and the sociodemographic variables gender, age and employment status. A final sample of 314 valid subjects was thus obtained. The control group comprised individuals exposed to the non-gamified version of the environmental interpretation experience (156 subjects), and the experimental group consisted of individuals exposed to the gamified version (158). As the number of cases per group was very similar, there were assumed to be no problematic issues vis-` a-vis the distribution of the groups (Uriel, 1995). Regarding the demographic characteristics of the sample, 41% of the participants were male and 59% female; 17% were between 18 and 29 years old, 24% between 30 and 44, 38% between 45 and 65, and 21% over 65. Finally, 57% were employed and 43% unemployed. The sample distribution therefore largely coincided with the general profile of British and American tourists (IndexMundi, 2019a, 2019b; Koema, 2018a, 2018b). 3.2. Experiment design A quasi-experiment with a control group and a post-test measure was designed (Zikmund, 1998). This included a treatment variable (environmental interpretation type) and a dependent variable (CBDBE), with a moderating variable (perceived psychological distance). Quasi-experimental designs offer the advantage of external validity, thus enabling the variables to be manipulated in natural settings, which would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible (Zikmund, 1998). Despite their advantages, quasi-experimental designs so present some challenges because it is difficult to rule out variables other than the independent variables as explanations for the evidence identified. However, every effort was made to do so for the differences observed (see control variables listed in section 3.2.2). 3.2.1. Independent variables Type of environmental interpretation. An environmental interpretation experience delivered in an online format was designed, focusing on one of the phases of the tourist stay only: the pre-stay. This experienced featured multimedia content combining audio, text and images, in line with the recommendations of Wolf, Stricker, and Hagenloh (2013). To create the content, environmental sustainability guidelines (White, McCrum, Blackstock, & Scott, 2006) and environmental sustainability indicators (Blancas et al., 2015) were adhered-to. The content included practical information on safety and how to act in each location, in accordance with that indicated by Ballantyne, Packer, and Hughes (2009). Those authors found that tourists are more receptive to site-specific messages that include practical information, rather than more general environmental conservation data. Two alternative environmental interpretation experiences were created: 1) non-gamified (multimedia format only) vs. 2) gamified (multimedia gamification format designed to generate a gameful experience). Care was taken to ensure equivalence between the two versions in the core environmental interpretation service so that they only differed in the design features pertaining to the two formats; other than that distinction, homogeneous information, word-count and images were provided across the two alternatives (Fig. 2). For the non-gamified version, a multimedia tourism leaflet was chosen as the format, as this is among the most widely-used intervention techniques for promoting more sustainable behavior (Froehlich, 2015, pp. 563–596). The leaflet was divided into three sections, one for each of three types of tourism (‘Beaches’, ‘Historical and Cultural Heritage’, and ‘Natural Resources). For the gamified version, this began with a selection of avatars from which the participants could choose. Next, they were shown a map of Spain with icons representing the same three types of tourism. The map was interactive, allowing participants to select the order in which they accessed the three scenarios. By clicking on each one, they were exposed to the corresponding information. They were then able to respond to three questions about what they had read, winning 5 points for every correct answer up to a maximum of 15 points per tourism type and 45 for the whole game. The minimum exposure time for each treatment, including video, was 4 min 8 s (Appendix 2). Perceived psychological distance. As perceived psychological distance was not directly observable, this variable was measured using a survey, given that this is known to be a valid means to capture Fig. 2. Structure of non-gamified vs. gamified environmental interpretation experience. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 8 motivations and perceptions (Hern´ andez-Ortega, 2018). Spatial, social, and temporal distance dimensions were all measured on a 2-item, 7-point Likert scale (Appendix 1), as previously used in the literature (Chang et al., 2015; Nenkov, 2012). The scale was validated, presenting adequate validity and reliability values (composite reliability: 0.74; variance extracted: 0.58). On this basis, the scale was recoded using the mean value of the sum of the scale items. At this point, each group of participants in the gamified vs. the non-gamified version was divided in two, according to the median of the variable obtained. The outcome of this process was as follows: 1) Non-gamified environmental interpretation—psychologically near; 2) Non-gamified environmental interpretation—psychologically distant; 3) Gamified environmental interpretation—psychologically near; and 4) Gamified environmental interpretation—psychologically distant. 3.2.2. Dependent variable and other variables Dependent variable. To measure the dependent variable CBDBE, a 4- item, 7-point Likert scale developed by Yoo and Donthu (2001) was used, this having been applied to the tourism sector in previous studies (Frías Jamilena et al., 2017) (Appendix 1). This overall measure of CBDBE has a high correlation with other scales that measure this concept based on its dimensions (Frías Jamilena et al., 2017). Experimental manipulation check. To ensure that the factor manipulation was performed correctly, measurements were taken to test whether the gamified environmental interpretation successfully delivered a gameful experience. To measure gameful experience, a scale covering both intrinsic motivation and enjoyment was validated. For intrinsic motivation, the 7-point Likert scales developed by Lieberoth (2015) were used to measure three dimensions: 3 items for autonomy, 5 items for competence, and 3 items for relatedness. Enjoyment was measured on the 7-point, 4-item Likert scale developed by Van der Heijden (2004) and later used by Hamari and Koivisto (2015a) (Appendix 1). Control variables. To correctly relate the factors manipulated in the experiment with the dependent variable, the control variables ‘prior destination image’, ‘environmental concern’ and ‘subjective norms’ (Malhotra, 2010) were employed. The three variables were measured before the subjects were exposed to the treatments, as recommended by some authors (Kirk, 1995). Prior destination image was measured using 4 items on a 7-point semantic differential scale, similar to the approach of other studies (Beerli & Martín, 2004; Frías Jamilena et al., 2017). To measure participants’ environmental concern, 5 items were applied to a 7-point Likert scale, again previously used by other authors (Chang et al., 2015; Kim & Choi, 2005). Finally, subjective norms were measured via 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale, once again as per previous studies (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015b) (Appendix 1). Sociodemographic variables. The last part of the questionnaire gathered a series of sociodemographic variables (including gender, age, and employment status), and established the respondent’s level of experience of electronic games. Four intervals were used to measure age, while the employment measure was coded into two categories, employed and not employed. In line with previous studies (Ibanez, Di-Serio, & Delgado-Kloos, 2014; Liu & Shiue, 2014), the level of experience of computer games was measured on the basis of whether the individual had ever played a game on a computer/a tablet/a mobile phone or not, and, if they responded in the affirmative, how long they had been doing so. 4. Analysis of the results To test the hypothesis proposed in this research, a variance analysis (ANOVA) was conducted using CBDBE as the dependent variable and ‘environmental interpretation type’ and ‘psychological distance’ as independent variables. Prior to this, however, the validity and reliability of the scales needed to be validated, and the presence of selection bias in the sample had to be ruled out. 4.1. Scale validation To test the proposed hypotheses, scale validation was performed for CBDBE, gameful experience (as a second-order construct comprising four dimensions (autonomy, competence, relatedness, and enjoyment), and the control variables (prior image, environmental concern, and subjective norms) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). First, the psychometric properties of the proposed model were evaluated. Since the multivariate normality test of the variables included in the proposed model proved significant, the estimation was best conducted using the maximum likelihood method combined with bootstrapping (Yuan & Hayashi, 2003). Given the high degree of convergent validity (determined through the reliability and validity of the variables, see Table 4) and discriminant validity—since the correlation was not greater than 0.80 (Bagozzi, 1994) and the confidence interval of the estimated coefficient did not include the value “1” (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988)—the value of each of these variables could be calculated based on the sum value of its items (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009, pp. 126–7). 4.2. Sample selection bias Since, in quasi-experiments, there is no random assignment of subjects to groups, it is imperative to ensure that selection bias does not occur (D’Agostino, 1998). To check for the presence of selection bias in this study, association was analyzed using a series of covariates that, according to the literature, affect environmental interpretation—namely, gender (Ballantyne, Packer, & Falk, 2011; Powell et al., 2009), age (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Cheung & Fok, 2014), and employment status (Cheung & Fok, 2014), together with variables that could affect the results of gamification, primarily, level of experience with electronic games (Ibanez et al., 2014; Liu & Shiue, 2014). Association tests were conducted for the different groups and the covariates (age: χ 2 =7.977; df =9; p-value =0.536; employment: χ 2 =12.038; df =18; p =0.845; gender: χ 2 =0.229; df =3; p-value =0.973; experience of electronic games: χ 2 =27.416; df =21; p-value =0.157). There were no instances of a significant level being reached. These results affirm the absence of subject selection bias and thus avoid the need to verify the results using other, more complex, techniques (Zanutto, Lu, & Hornik, 2005). 4.3. Manipulation check To check that the manipulated factor produced the desired effects, an ANOVA was performed to compare the means for that factor. The results showed that the mean differences for gameful experience were significant (M_gamified =5.01; M_non-gamified =4.73, p-value≤0.05). 4.4. Concomitant variables The effect of the factors on the dependent variable was controlled or Table 4 Composite reliability and average variance extracted of the measurement scales. Variable Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted Gameful experience (second-order construct) 0.76 0.46 Autonomy 0.93 0.83 Competence 0.94 0.77 Relatedness 0.93 0.82 Enjoyment 0.95 0.84 CBDBE 0.88 0.65 Environmental concern 0.93 0.73 Prior image 0.97 0.89 Subjective norms 0.93 0.78 Goodness-of-fit of the model: Global fit of the model: Normed chi-square =1.99, RMSEA =0.08; incremental fit: CFI =0.92, IFI =0.92, TLI =0.92. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 9 using ‘prior destination image’, ‘environmental concern’, and ‘subjective norms’ as covariates. According to Kirk (1995), the use of a covariate is suitable if it fulfills the following criteria: 1) it is related to the dependent variable and 2) it is not related to the independent variables. To verify the first requirement, the Pearson correlation between each of the three aforementioned variables and the dependent variable, CBDBE, was calculated. The results showed a significant correlation in all cases (r image =0.475, p-value ≤0.01; r environmental concern =0.294, p-value ≤ 0.01; and r subjective norms =0.360, p-value ≤0.01), hence all covariates met the first criterion. To check the second criterion, an ANOVA was performed for each covariate, using the covariate as the dependent variable and the four different groups of the quasi-experiment as the independent variables, thus: 1) Non-gamified— psychologically near; 2) Non-gamified— psychologically distant; 3) Gamified— psychologically near; and 4) Gamified— psychologically distant. For all three covariates, the results showed a significant relationship between the groups and the covariate (prior image: F =8.85, p-value ≤0.00; environmental concern: F =8.43, p-value ≤0.00; subjective norms: F =4.75, p-value ≤ 0.00), therefore they did not fulfill the second requirement for being included as covariates. 4.5. Testing the proposed hypotheses Based on these results, it was deemed appropriate to test the proposed hypotheses via an ANOVA, using CBDBE as the dependent variable and ‘environmental interpretation type’ and ‘psychological distance’ as independent variables. The main effect of environmental interpretation type on CBDBE was significant, the mean for the gamified environmental interpretation experience being greater than the non-gamified version (non-gamified M =4.27 vs. gamified M =4.65). The difference between the two means was also significant (F =6.22, p-value ≤0.01) Therefore, H1 finds empirical support H1 (Table 5). The main effect of psychological distance on CBDBE was also significant, the mean for psychologically near being greater than that for psychologically distant (M near =5.02; M distant =3.97); here, too, the difference between the two means was significant (F =54.75, p-value ≤ 0.01) Therefore, individuals who perceived the stimulus to be psychologically near gave higher values to CBDBE than those who perceived it to be psychologically distant. H2 therefore obtains empirical support (Table 5). Finally, in interpreting the main effects, the fact that the interaction between environmental interpretation type and psychological distance is significant (Table 5 and Fig. 3) must be taken into account. H3 proposes that the psychological distance perceived by the participant moderates the effect of environmental interpretation type on CBDBE (p ≤0.05). Tukey’s test was performed, with the results indicating that CBDBE is significantly higher among individuals who perceive psychological distance when exposed to a gamified environmental interpretation experience compared to a non-gamified version (p-value ≤0.01), which provides empirical support to H3a. However, in this case, Tukey’s test showed that, when the participant perceived psychological nearness, a gamified environmental interpretation experience does not generate any significant differences in CBDBE values, compared to a non-gamified version (p =0.99). These findings confirm H3b (Fig. 3). Prior to the ANOVA, the fulfillment of three fundamental conditions was confirmed (Ordaz, Melgar, & Rubio, 2014): 1) independence was fulfilled as this was an inter-subject study; 2) normality was unproblematic since the sample comprised 314 individuals; and 3) homoscedasticity also posed no issue, since the groups were approximately the same size (Uriel, 1995). 5. Discussion of the results and conclusions The primary objective of tourism managers is to maximize the competitiveness of their destinations by implementing branding strategies. One means of achieving this is to improve brand equity (Bastos & Levy, 2012; Pike & Page, 2014). However, in contrast to the past, it is now essential that efforts to achieve greater destination competitiveness be based on strategies that contribute to achieving greater sustainability of the destination and also the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Gossling et al., 2020; Koens et al., 2020). All such strategies must also take into account the current challenging circumstances generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In reorienting strategies in this direction, it is a priority to identify those strategies that can reactivate the sector and boost CBDBE. The present study sought to provide original insights into whether the use of ICT-based environmental interpretation—incorporating a gamified design—is a viable strategy for enhancing CBDBE and whether this effect may be modified by tourist psychological distance. From an academic point of view, the study has provided empirical evidence indicating that (a) participation in a gamified environmental interpretation experience does indeed exert a greater effect on CBDBE than in the case of a non-gamified version (for this, a quasi-experiment using two environmental interpretation formats was created: a non-gamified multimedia leaflet format and a gamified one, which not only included game elements but was also carefully designed to create a gameful experience); (b) CBDBE is influenced by tourists’ perceived psychological distance from the destination (psychological distance was measured considering the spatial, social, and temporal dimensions and dividing the groups according to perceived psychological distance—near vs. distant); and (c) psychological distance from the destination moderates the effect of environmental interpretation type (gamified vs. non-gamified) on CBDBE. This research makes several interesting contributions to the literature on CBDBE. First, the results show that the format of the environmental interpretation design has a significant effect on CBDBE (as also found in previous studies). The literature shows continued interest in better understanding whether gamification can be considered a valid Table 5 Results of ANOVA analyses. Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean squares F P- value Design type of environmental interpretation 11.205 1 11.205 6.22 0.01 Perceived psychological distance 85.58 1 85.58 54.75 0.00 Interpretation type x psychological distance 7.45 1 7.45 4.89 0.02 Fig. 3. Interaction effect of environmental interpretation type and psychological distance on CBDBE. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 16 Gamified environmental interpretation experience. Video (showing guidelines for environmental sustainability) that includes a challenge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPNAppDYGBE. Introductory text about Spain as a tourist destination that includes a challenge and instructions, avatar, map to travel and information panel. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 17 Game containing tourist information and pointers on how to contribute to environmental sustainability. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 18 M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 19 M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 20 Text calling for collaboration in achieving environmental sustainability and offering a gift for having participated. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 21 References Abou-Shouk, M., & Solliman, M. (2021). The impact of gamification adoption intention on brand awareness and loyalty in tourism: The mediating effect of customer engagement. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20(June), 100559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100559 Agapito, D., & Lacerda, A. (2014). Marketing and brand design of destination experiences: The role of ICT. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 2(3), 201–216. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., & Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism’s impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: A review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 838–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2015.1024258 Aroean, L. (2012). Friend or Foe: In enjoying playfulness, do innovative consumers tend to switch brand? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/cb.370 Ashraf, A. R., Razzaque, M. A., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2016). The role of customer regulatory orientation and fit in online shopping across cultural contexts. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 6040–6047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.05.019 Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research: Basic principles. Principles of marketing research, 3(1), 7–385. Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., Lee, J., Packer, J., & Sneddon, J. (2018). Visitors’ values and environmental learning outcomes at wildlife attractions: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 64, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2017.07.015 Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1243–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.540644 Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 30(5), 658–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2008.11.003 Bamberg, S. (2002). Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new environmentally friendly behaviours - results of two field experiments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jevp.2002.0278 Bastos, W., & Levy, S. J. (2012). A history of the concept of branding: Practice and theory. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/17557501211252934 Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010 Bianchi, C., Pike, S., & Lings, I. (2014). Investigating attitudes towards three South American destinations in an emerging long haul market using a model of consumerbased brand equity (CBBE). Tourism Management, 42, 215–223. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.014 Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Gonz´ alez, M. (2015). A European sustainable tourism labels proposal using a composite indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.05.001 Botha, E., Saayman, M., & Kruger, M. (2016). Clustering kruger national park visitors based on interpretation. South African Journal of Business Management, 47(2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v47i2.62 Burgers, C., Eden, A., Van Engelenburg, M. D., & Buningh, S. (2015). How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.038 Cano-Guervos, R., Frías-Jamilena, D. M., Polo Pe˜ na, A. I., & Chica Olmo, J. (2020). Influence of tourist geographical context on customer-based destination brand equity: An empirical analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 107–119. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0047287518815979 Chang, H., Zhang, L., & Xie, G. X. (2015). Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.994731 Cheung, L. T. O., & Fok, L. (2014). Assessing the role of ecotourism training in changing participants’ pro-environmental knowledge, attitude and behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10941665.2013.797003 Chou, H. Y., & Lien, N. H. (2012). The effects of incentive types and appeal regulatory framing in travel advertising. Service Industries Journal, 32(6), 883–897. https://doi. org/10.1080/02642069.2010.545878 Coghlan, A., & Carter, L. (2020). Serious games as interpretive tools in complex natural tourist attractions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42, 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.01.010 Coghlan, A., & Kim, A. K. (2012). Interpretive layering in nature-based tourism: A simple approach for complex attractions. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(3), 173–187. https://doi. org/10.1080/14724049.2012.712135 Coghlan, A., Ruth Fox, K., Prideaux, B., & Lück, M. (2011). Successful interpretation in great barrier reef tourism: Dive in or keep out of it? Tourism in Marine Environments, 7 (3–4), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427311X13195453162813 D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a nonrandomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17(19), 2265–2281. Darke, P. R., Brady, M. K., Benedicktus, R. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2016). Feeling close from Afar: The role of psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers. Journal of Retailing, 92(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jretai.2016.02.001 Davies, J. (2014). On-site digital heritage interpretation: Current uses and future possibilities at World Heritage Sites (pp. 1–90). Durham: Durham University. September. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination. In Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–40). New York, NY: Springer. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human-Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07370024.2014.993471 Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). MindTrek, 2011. Eppmann, R., Bekk, M., & Klein, K. (2018). Gameful experience in gamification: Construction and validation of a gameful experience scale [GAMEX]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.03.002 Ferns, B. H., & Walls, A. (2012). Enduring travel involvement, destination brand equity, and travelers’ visit intentions: A structural model analysis. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdmm.2012.07.002 Frías Jamilena, D. M., Polo Pe˜ na, A. I., & Rodríguez Molina, M.´ A. (2017). The effect of value-creation on consumer-based destination brand equity. Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 1011–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516663650 Frías-Jamilena, D. M., Rodríguez-Molina, M. A., & Casta˜ neda-García, J. A. (2008). Internet vs. travel agencies on pre-visit destination image formation: An information processing view. Tourism Management, 29(1), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2007.02.020 Frías-Jamilena, D. M., Sabiote-Ortiz, C., Martín-Santana, J. D. y, & Beerli-Palacio, A. (2018). The effect of cultural intelligence on consumer-based destination brand equity. Annals of Tourism Research, 72, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2018.05.009 Froehlich, J. (2015). Gamifying green: Gamification and environmental sustainability. The gameful world. Cambridge: MIT Press. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 22 Gossling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. F., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Madrid: Prentice Hall. Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Colorado: North American Press. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2014). Measuring flow in gamification: Dispositional flow scale-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2014.07.048 Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015a). Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2015.04.006 Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015b). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018 Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE Computer Society. Harwood, T., & Garry, T. (2015). An investigation into gamification as a customer engagement experience environment. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6–7), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0045 Ha, L., Yoon, Y., & Choi, M. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access environment. Information & Management, 44(3), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.01.001 Hern´ andez-Ortega, B. (2018). Don’t believe strangers: Online consumer reviews and the role of social psychological distance. Information & Management, 55(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.03.007 Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251841 H¨ ogberg, J., Hamari, J., & W¨ astlund, E. (2019). Gameful experience questionnaire (GAMEFULQUEST): An instrument for measuring the perceived gamefulness of system use. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 29(3), 619–660. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11257-019-09223-w Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. Service Quality: New directions in theory and practice. Newbury Park,CA: Sage. Holmqvist, J., Guest, D., & Gr¨ onroos, C. (2015). The role of psychological distance in value creation. Management Decision, 53(7), 1430–1451. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MD-06-2014-0335 Hsu, C. L., Chen, Y. C., Yang, T. N., & Lin, W. K. (2017). Do website features matter in an online gamification context? Focusing on the mediating roles of user experience and attitude. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tele.2017.01.009 Hughes, K., Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13504622.2010.540644 Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 17–22). Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z Ibanez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2329293 IndexMundi. (2019a). Perfil poblaci´ on Estados Unidos 2019. Retrieved https://www.index mundi.com/es/estados_unidos/poblacion_perfil.html. (Accessed 15 January 2020). IndexMundi. (2019b). Perfil poblaci´ on Reino Unido 2019. Retrieved https://www.inde xmundi.com/es/reino_unido/poblacion_perfil.html. (Accessed 15 January 2020). de Industria, M., & Turismo, C.y (2019). Directrices generales de la Estrategia de Turismo sostenible de Espa˜ na 2030. Retrieved https://turismo.gob.es/es-es/estrategia-turismo -sostenible/Documents/directrices-estrategia-turismo-sostenible.pdf. (Accessed 4 May 2020). INE. (2020). Frontur. Retrieved https://www.ine.es/daco/daco42/frontur/frontur1219. pdf. (Accessed 15 January 2020). IMI, Inventory, I. M. (1994). Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI). The intrinsic motivation inventory, scale description (pp. 1–3). Retrieved 03.05.2018. from https://selfdete rminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. Kim, A. K. J. (2012). Determinants of tourist behaviour in coastal environmental protection. Tourism Geographies, 14(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14616688.2011.597774 Kim, A. K. J., Airey, D., & Szivas, E. (2011). The multiple assessment of interpretation effectiveness: Promoting visitors’ environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362786 Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 592–599. Kim, J., Kim, P. B. C., Kim, J. E., & Magnini, V. P. (2016). Application of construal-level theory to promotional strategies in the hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 55 (3), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514550097 Kim, H. K., & Lee, T. J. (2018). Brand equity of a tourist destination. Sustainability, 10(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020431 Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3 rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kladou, S., & Kehagias, J. (2014). Assessing destination brand equity: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 3(1), 2–10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.11.002 Koema. (2018a). Relaci´ on empleo/poblaci´ on estados unidos. Retrieved https://knoema. es/atlas/Estados-Unidos-de-Am%c3%a9rica/Relaci%c3%b3n-empleopoblaci%c3% b3n. (Accessed 15 January 2020). Koema. (2018b). Relaci´ on empleo/poblaci´ on reino unido. Retrieved https://knoema. es/atlas/Reino-Unido/Relaci%c3%b3n-empleopoblaci%c3%b3n. (Accessed 15 January 2020). Koens, K., Klijs, J., Weber-Sabil, J., Melissen, F., Lalicic, L., Mayer, I., et al. (2020). Serious gaming to stimulate participatory urban tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1819301 Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013 Leclercq, T., Poncin, I., & Hammedi, W. (2020). Opening the black box of gameful experience: Implications for gamification process design. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.07.007 Lee, T. H. (2009). A structural model for examining how destination image and interpretation services affect future visitation behavior: A case study of taiwan’s taomi eco-village. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 727–745. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669580902999204 Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). The persuasive power of regulatory fit. In Social psychology of consumer behavior (Vols. 319–333). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1086/605591 Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.75.1.5 Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001 Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1057-7408(07)70017-7 Lieberoth, A. (2015). Shallow gamification: Testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games and Culture, 10(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1555412014559978 Lii, Y. S., Wu, K. W., & Ding, M. C. (2013). Doing good does good? Sustainable marketing of CSR and consumer evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.294 Liu, H. J., & Shiue, Y. C. (2014). Influence of Facebook game players’ behavior on flow and purchase intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 125–133. https://doi. org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.125 Liu, C. R., Wang, Y. C., Huang, W. S., & Tang, W. C. (2019). Festival gamification: Conceptualization and scale development. Tourism Management, 74, 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.005 Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research. An applied orientation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Merhi, M. I. (2016). Towards a framework for online game adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.072 Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2013). The impact of other customers on customer experiences: A psychological distance perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37 (1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348011425498 Mogilner, C., Aaker, J. L., & Pennington, G. L. (2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1086/521901 Moncada, J. A., Aranguren, J., & Pellegrini, N. (2016). Los senderos transitados: Una mirada al estado del arte de la interpretaci´ on ambiental en Venezuela entre 2000 y 2015. Revista de Investigacion, 40(88), 15–37. Negrus¸a, A. L., Toader, V., Sofic˘ a, A., Tutunea, M. F., & Rus, R. V. (2015). Exploring gamification techniques and applications for sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 7(8), 11160–11189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70811160 Nenkov, G. Y. (2012). It’s all in the mindset: Effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 615–628. Ordaz, J., Melgar, M. C., & Rubio, C. (2014). M´ etodos estadísticos y Econom´ etricos en el empresa y para finanzas. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G., & Patti, C. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity for Australia as a long-haul tourism destination in an emerging market. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331011058590 Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.009 Pike, S., Pontes, N., & Kotsi, F. (2021). Stopover destination attractiveness: A quasiexperimental approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19(March), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100514 Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to proconservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the galapagos M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 23 (2022) 100677 23 islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467–489. https://doi.org/10.2167/ jost797.0 Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802017560 Powell, R. B., Vezeau, S. L., Stern, M. J., Moore, D. W. D., & Wright, B. A. (2018). Does interpretation influence elaboration and environmental behaviors? Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13504622.2017.1339302 Pulido Fern´ andez, J. I. (2004). El medio ambiente en la política turística espa˜ nola. QPE- Revista Electr´ onica, 7(7), 93–114. Ribes-Noguera, P., Can´ os-Dar´ os, L., & Santandreu-Mascarell, C. (2020). Consecuencias del estado de alarma por crisis sanitaria de COVID-19 en el sector turístico espa˜ nol. Working paper. Valencia: Universitat Polit´ ecnica de Val` encia. Scarpi, D. (2021). A construal-level approach to hedonic and utilitarian shopping orientation. Marketing Letters, 32(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002- 021-09558-8 Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006 Shin, S., Chung, N., Kang, D., & Koo, C. (2016). How far, how near psychological distance matters in online travel reviews: A test of construal-level theory. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2016. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. Sigala, M. (2015). The application and impact of gamification funware on trip planning and experiences: The case of TripAdvisor’s funware. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0179-1 Souza, V. S., Marques, S. R., & Veríssimo, M. (2020). How can gamification contribute to achieve SDGs? : Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ecogamification for tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11(2), 255–276. https://doi. org/10.1108/JHTT-05-2019-0081 Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2011.01695.x Tan, W. K., & Chang, Y. G. (2015). Electronic-word-of-mouth performance in different psychological distances and familiarity. Online Information Review, 39(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2014-0255 Tan, E., & Law, R. (2016). mLearning as a softer visitor management approach for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669582.2015.1049610 Thiel-Ellul, D., & Navarro-Jurado, E. (2014). Aproximaci´ on a la sostenibilidad de los destinos turísticos: Indicadores sint´ eticos a trav´ es de m´ etodos multicriterio en destinos del litoral andaluz. VI Congreso Latinoamericano de Investigaci´ on Turística. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1057-7408(07)70013-X.Construal UNWTO. (2020). Panorama del Turismo Internacional, Edici´ on 2019. Retrieved 04.05.2020 from https://www.unwto.org/es/publication/panorama-turismo-internaciona l-2019. Uriel, E. (1995). An´ alisis de datos. Series temporales y an´ alisis multivariante. Madrid: Editorial AC. Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 872–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019262 Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660 Walker, K., & Moscardo, G. (2014). Encouraging sustainability beyond the tourist experience: Ecotourism, interpretation and values. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22 (8), 1175–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.918134 Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2009). Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669580802359319 White, V., McCrum, G., Blackstock, K. L., & Scott, A. (2006). Indicators and sustainable tourism: Literature review (Vol. 15, pp. 1–21). The Macaulay Institute. Wiener, C. S., Needham, M. D., & Wilkinson, P. F. (2009). Hawaii’s real life marine park: Interpretation and impacts of commercial marine tourism in the Hawaiian Islands. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5–6), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500902736855 Wolf, I. D., Stricker, H. K., & Hagenloh, G. (2013). Interpretive media that attract park visitors and enhance their experiences: A comparison of modern and traditional tools using gps tracking and gis technology. Tourism Management Perspectives, 7, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.04.002 Wu, J., & Liu, D. (2007). The effects of trust and enjoyment on intention to play online games. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(2), 128–140. Xu, F., Buhalis, D., & Weber, J. (2017). Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tourism Management, 60, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.020 Xu, F., Tian, F., Buhalis, D., Weber, J., & Zhang, H. (2016). Tourists as mobile gamers: Gamification for tourism marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(8), 1124–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1093999 Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumerbased brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3 Yuan, K. H., & Hayashi, K. (2003). Bootstrap approach to inference and power analysis based on three test statistics for covariance structure models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 000711003321645368 Zanutto, E. L., Lu, B., & Hornik, R. (2005). Using propensity score subclassification for multiple treatment doses to evaluate a National Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 10769986030001059 Zavattaro, S. M., Daspit, J. J., & Adams, F. G. (2015). Assessing managerial methods for evaluating place brand equity: A qualitative investigation. Tourism Management, 47, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.018 Zikmund, W. G. (1998). Essentials of marketing research. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. M.L. Fern´ andez-Ruano et al.