Determining factors of a city’s tourism attractiveness

DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS – A.-MORA, J.-PINEDA, R. PERIÁÑEZ, E. SUÁREZ: 9-23 9 DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS ARTURO CALVO-MORA PhD, Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, Spain [email protected] JUAN MANUEL BERBEL-PINEDA PhD, Department of Business Administration, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain [email protected] RAFAEL PERIÁÑEZ PhD, Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, Spain rafacr[email protected] EVA MARÍA SUÁREZ The Andalusian Institute of Technology (IAT), Seville, Spain [email protected] Submitted: 09.08.2011 Accepted: 10.11.2011 ABSTRACT The primary aim of this work is to identify actions that can improve the tourist attractiveness of a city, specifically Seville, and secondly, to test the Concept Mapping methodology when it is applied to the conceptualization of complex constructs associated with tourism management. This methodology combines qualitative information provided by experts and quantitative information obtained from multivariate statistical techniques. The results of the work suggest, in addition to the validity and suitability of the methodology, that the attractiveness of a tourist destination could be improved by the implementation of a set of publicprivate plans linked to its tourism positioning, residents‟ awareness, the best use of the cultural and social wealth and the rich heritage, as well as the improvement of the infrastructure and the public and private management of tourism. KEYWORDS Tourist Attractiveness, Tourist Destination, Tourism Management, Concept Mapping, Pattern Matching. RESUMO O primeiro objetivo deste trabalho é identificar ações que possam melhorar o atrativo turístico de uma cidade, ou mais concretamente da cidade de Sevilha, e em segundo lugar, avaliar a metodologia Concept Mapping quando se aplica na concetualizacão de construtos complexos como os associados à gestão turística. Esta metodologia combina informação qualitativa proporcionada por peritos e quantitativa obtida através de técnicas estatísticas multivariadas. Os resultados do trabalho sugerem, para além da validade e fiabilidade da metodologia, que o atrativo turístico de um destino pode ser melhorado através da implantação de um conjunto de planos de âmbito público e privado e que se encontram relacionados com o posicionamento turístico, a conciencialização dos residentes, o aproveitamento da riqueza cultural, patrimonial e social, assim como a melhoria tanto das infraestruturas como da gestão pública e privada do turismo PALAVRAS-CHAVE Atrativo Turístico, Destino Turístico, Gestão Turística, Concept Mapping, Pattern Matching. TOURISM & MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Nº 7, (2011) INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH EDITION, ISSN: 1646-2408 10 1. INTRODUCTION1 The efficient management of a tourist destination means a need, a challenge, and an opportunity for public and private bodies. Having an attractive tourist destination brings benefits for both residents (higher employment and better quality of life, for example) and visitors. As Tang & Rochananond (1990) point out, it is impossible to achieve this objective without a plan with a clear focus on improvement. The plans should include diverse actions that cover public infrastructure, tourist services, the breadth of choice, the use of natural and sociocultural resources, or the welcome and attention given to the tourist by the local residents (Tang & Rochananond, 1990; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Shoval & Raveh, 2004; Mazanec et al., 2007, Cracolici & Nijkamp, 2008; Berbel-Pineda & Ramirez-Hurtado, 2011). Faced with the reality of growing competition between cities, this work attempts to identify actions intended to improve the attractiveness of a tourist destination (ATD), and for the city of Seville in particular. In order to achieve this, we use Concept Mapping (CM) methodology. This work can also be used as a tool for tourism agencies to improve their understanding of the economic and sociological elements which affect competition in the sector and, therefore, to optimize the plans that they could develop in order to achieve this. On the other hand, it can also be used as the starting point for the conceptualization of the ATD construct and of its constituent elements. To fulfil these objectives, we first analyze the concept and the determinants of ATD, followed by a description of the CM methodology, and the principal results and conclusions reached in the study. In the final section, the work describes the process followed to test the validity of the conceptual model and the results arising from it. 1 This work is financed by the Andalucían Regional Government and is a joint effort between the Andalucían Institute of Technology and the University of Seville, with the collaboration of the City of Seville Tourism Association. 2. ATTRACTIVENESS OF A TOURIST DESTINATION (ATD) The ATD is intimately linked to the image it presents; it determines its competitive positioning and competitive factors (Enright & Newton, 2004; Mazanec et al., 2007; Berbel-Pineda & Ramirez- Hurtado, 2011), and at the same time, goes some way to explaining why a visitor chooses it (Baloglu & McClear, 1999). Moreover, as confirmed by Bigné et al. (2001), image and ATD affect the tourist‟s perception of quality and satisfaction as well as their willingness to return and to recommend the destination. The problem, however, lies in the difficulty in putting forward an adequate conceptualization of the ATD construct (Tang & Rochananond, 1990; Kim, 1998). Even the idea of “destination” is vague. It is commonly used to define administrative or geographical districts, or uniform blocks of facilities, resources and services that are available to the customer (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). However, other elements are often overlooked which, whether they have a long reach (the taxation system, different levels of legislation, etc.), or a shorter reach (the characteristics of the “sub-destinations” that comprise it, for example), have a significant effect. If we look at the whole ATD structure, many more elements come into play, which makes the conceptualization even more complicated. We must not forget that “attractiveness” as such is not an objective concept, but rather is the result of a somewhat generalized market attribution, which includes clear elements of subjectivity (Kim, 1998). But, furthermore, there are close connections with other constructs such as “image”, “competitiveness” or “quality” (Cracolici & Nijkamp, 2008) and it is difficult to distinguish between them when they are applied to a specific tourist destination. When undertaking a detailed analysis of the components, the initial complexity increases even further. It must be remembered that many internal factors (tangible and intangible) are involved in the definition of ATD and that its final configuration is a combination of the actions of numerous public and private agencies, which are not always coordinated (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2008). Finally, it is common to overlook the effect that other DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS – A.-MORA, J.-PINEDA, R. PERIÁÑEZ, E. SUÁREZ: 9-23 11 neighbouring or easily accessible destinations might have on the definition of the ATD. If we accept the potential market has a specific volume, we might be faced with a competitive zero-sum game, since a visitor to one destination ceases to be a visitor to another. In some cases, however, accepting this game of winners and losers, it is true that some destinations exert a centrifugal or centripetal force over others, depending on the case. The investigators‟ awareness of these and other conceptual difficulties seems to have led to a general consensus among investigators that the problem needs to be approached from a systems perspective (Formica & Uysal, 2006). The configuration of the ATD at a given point in time is affected by the interacting elements of the offer, the demand, and the mechanisms –physical or otherwise– that connect them. Each of these three blocks contains elements that cannot be overlooked in the search for a reliable view of the construct. Therefore, with regard to the tourism offer, its composition and attractiveness must be considered in terms of visitor options (Kaur, 1981); demand must include factors such as the effect of the potential client‟s perceptions, changing market trends and tastes, the general socioeconomic situation and, of course, the potential visitor‟s budget, and resources could be segmented to increase their profitability (Dolnicar, 2004). This link between offer and demand (Pike, 2004) contains elements as disparate as promotional and marketing activities; the availability of information about the destination and ease of access to the destination itself; or the effect of other people‟s experiences, either by word of mouth or via modern information networks which are impossible to control. Perhaps this why the majority of studies into the ATD concept prefer to focus their investigations on measuring it through a model, abandoning altogether or only briefly touching on the correct conceptualization of the construct (Formica & Uysal, 2006). We have adopted this systemic vision for our work and avoided creating divisions between the components of the system, whilst accepting that whilst the configuration of certain elements can be changed by the actions of the agents, others are unchangeable (or “natural) and form a point of departure which sometimes leads to competitive advantage and at other times, to some restriction that must be taken into account. Taking the work by Cracolici & Nijkamp (2008) as our starting point, in this investigation we have looked at the ATD as a complex and mixed portfolio of the idiosyncratic elements of a particular area which, if suitably packaged, could offer the visitor a satisfactory experience that will fully meet their needs and expectations. We believe that the proposed definition links the three major approaches to the concept most commonly adopted in studies into the ATD for visitors (Lew, 1986): ideographical; organizational; and cognitive. From the first perspective, the ATD is analyzed on the basis of the area‟s specific characteristics, based on homogeneous groups of attributes which form this destination‟s tourism offer. From the organizational perspective, the analyses of the ATD describe the spatial and temporal relationships between the attraction‟s different elements and agencies. Finally, the cognitive approach views the question from the potential tourists‟ perceptions of the destination; an aspect that is linked to demand. 3. CONCEPT MAPPING METHODOLOGY: PROCEDURE AND PRINCIPAL RESULTS A conceptual map is a type of structured conceptualization that can be used to develop a conceptual framework on which to base an evaluation and/or planning project for a particular situation and which involves the participation of a working group. The conceptualization is the articulation and objective representation of thoughts, ideas or opinions. This conceptualization is arrived at through the development of conceptual maps, a procedure that uses data and quantitative and qualitative information (Trochim & Linton, 1986; Trochim, 1989). Concept Mapping methodology can be used for problems other than planning and evaluation (Trochim, et al., 2003b; Anderson et al., 2006; Wu, 2006). Thus we find works that use this methodology for the development and validation of measurement scales (Scott & Lauren, 2007), for the development of surveys or measuring instruments (Jackson & Trochim, 2002), and even for the development of models and the construction of theories (Nabitz et al., 2001). Moreover, this methodology has been used successfully in many TOURISM & MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Nº 7, (2011) INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH EDITION, ISSN: 1646-2408 12 other spheres and fields of investigation, such as in educational improvement (Hughes & Hay, 2001; Weideman & Kritzinger, 2003), for analyzing the effectiveness of management training (McLinden & Trochim, 1998), improving communication processes (Witkin & Trochim, 1997), or evaluating technology transfer programmes (Shern et al., 1995). Its use is not unknown in the field of tourism; we could point to works such as those by Kim (1998) or Bigné et al. (2002). We have described below the process that should be followed for the development of a conceptual map (Trochim, 2000) and its application to the study of the ATD. 3.1. PLANNING AND GENERATION OF IDEAS This stage consists of two parts. In the first part, the investigators must decide who will participate in the process. Experience shows that a better conceptualization is achieved when a wide variety of relevant people or experts take part. In this case, the group that was chosen consisted of 14 experts from the following knowledge fields: catering, innovation and new technologies, public promotion of tourism at local and regional level, travel agencies, culture, high-end tourism, tourism marketing, communications, universities, security, leisure and free time, town planning and hotels. In the first working session the following activities were carried out: 1. Explanation of the objectives and the methodology to be followed and the explanation of the main question. In this case the theme for the study was the ATD and, in particular, how it can be improved through specific courses of action in both the public and private spheres. The following question was asked: “What actions, of any type and from different fields and agents, do you consider would be feasible and desirable to put in place to contribute to the improvement of the tourist attractiveness of the city of Seville? 2. Identification of questions or aspects related to the construct submitted to the study. The technique used for generating ideas was brainstorming (Osborn, 1948; Dunn, 1982). 3. Open discussion of the points identified in order to clear up any doubts; discussion about the best wording for each element and the elimination of any duplications. 4. Creation of a list of the items (122) which define the field of conceptualization. 3.2. STRUCTURING THE IDEAS Once the set of ideas which describe the conceptual domain of the proposed theme has been established, it is necessary to provide information about how these are related to each other and to give a weighting to each one according to the proposed theme. Information is usually obtained about the correlations by using a card-grouping procedure (Rosenberg et al., 1975). When each expert has completed the grouping task, the results should be combined with those of the other participants. This is done in two phases: in the first, the results of each person‟s groupings are placed in a square matrix which contains the same number of rows and columns as items obtained from the brainstorming session. All of the values of the matrix are “0” or “1”. “1” indicates that the items in this row and column were placed together by that person in one pile, while “0” indicates that they were not placed in the same pile. The principal diagonal values will always be “1” to indicate that every item is always grouped with itself. The individual matrices are then combined to produce a similarity matrix for the group. However, here the value in the matrix for each pair of items indicates how many people placed them in the same pile, regardless of the importance that each person gives to their grouping. The principal diagonal values always add up to the number of people that carried out the grouping. This similarity matrix is seen as the relational structure for the conceptual domain as it provides the information on how the participants grouped the items. A high value in this matrix indicates that many participants placed this pair of items together, which implies that they are conceptually similar. On the other hand, a low value indicates that this pair of items was rarely placed together, which implies that they are conceptually different. The main advantage of this grouping procedure is that it is easily understood by the participants and does not take long. The second task in the structuring process is the weighting of each item on a previously defined DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS – A.-MORA, J.-PINEDA, R. PERIÁÑEZ, E. SUÁREZ: 9-23 13 scale. A Likert-type scale is normally used, with 1-7 points to indicate the importance, priority, effort or expectation of the result associated with each item. For each item the arithmetical mean is obtained. 3.3. REPRESENTATION OF THE ITEMS, INTERPRETATION AND USE OF CONCEPTUAL MAPS The information brought by the experts was processed using the guidelines for the Concept Mapping methodology by applying the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Cluster Analysis (Trochim, 1989) techniques. The analyses were carried out using SPSS 15.0 software. Multidimensional Scaling is a technique that, using a similarity matrix, provides a graphical representation of the distances between the original items in the matrix. In the conceptual map this multidimensional scaling creates a map of points which represent the set of statements produced by the brainstorming session, based on the similarity matrix resulting from the classification task (Kruskal et al., 1978; Davison, 1983). Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (Anderberg, 1973; Everitt, 1980) is used to group the individual items on the map into clusters which presumably reflect similar concepts. Once the MDS and the cluster analysis have been carried out, two graphical representations have been obtained: a map of points and a cluster map. The first gives an analysis which places each item or idea as a separate point on a map. The items which are closest together on the map are those that were generally placed into one group by the experts, whilst the items that are furthest apart on the map are those that were rarely or least often placed in one group. The map of points resulting from the multidimensional scaling (MDS) is shown in the figure 1. In the second graphical representation, the items on the map are grouped in clusters which represent the best order of the conceptual grouping of the original set of ideas. After carrying out different tests with regard to the number of clusters that the programme should produce and analysing the conceptual coherence of each of the solutions, ten groups were finally identified (Figure 2), with each one being assigned a label or meaning for the group. We can also see the importance of the cluster through the weightings of the actions for improvement which make up the group. These results are shown in Annex 1. In addition, once the cloud of points and the clusters has been analyzed, the information that these contain can be interpreted using two axes or dimensions. Given that the points on the map are placed on Cartesian axes which are, a priori, unspecified, a closer investigation is required of the two dimensional conceptual framework to provide an explanation of the positioning of points and clusters in the graph that results from the application of the MDS and Cluster Analysis techniques (Figure 2). An exhaustive study of the information obtained led the investigators to propose the existence of two main axes. Firstly, the horizontal line could be used to show actions of a public nature, bearing in mind that actions with a clear political orientation would be placed at one extreme, and the more technical actions at the other end. The vertical plane shows the scenario for private actions, with obviously entrepreneurial or sectoral actions at one extreme, while at the other, those which are closest to civil actions, which be classed as individual, or those grouped together in associations or similar non-commercial bodies. Institutions that could be dubbed “pseudo-public” –since they do not belong in the strictly defined political field nor in the business or civil field– sit astride both axes, and they could be placed at their imaginary intersection or, in mathematical terms, at the origin coordinates of the imaginary map that helps to provide greater coherence to the placement of points and clusters. The cluster map, with its respective labels, provides the conceptual framework and the basic result of the process (Trochim et al., 2003a). It must not be forgotten that this final map is in reality a product of the opinions, grouping and weightings of the experts. TOURISM & MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Nº 7, (2011) INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH EDITION, ISSN: 1646-2408 14 Figure 1: Map of points produced by MDS Figure 2: Cluster Map and Grouping by Axes 4. VALIDATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL Following this first phase it was necessary to design a scientific strategy that would enable the validation of the results obtained to test whether this model could, in effect, provide a conceptual description of the phenomenon being studied and whether its structure would be accepted –in terms of external validity– by a different and broader group of experts than those involved in the development of the investigation. The validation strategy was formulated according to the central tenets of the proposals set out by Trochim (1985), which he called systematic “Pattern Matching” whilst, at the same time, partly applying the ideas proposed by Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer (2001) and Anderson & Gerbing (1991). To this end, the investigators devised a model questionnaire consisting of different sections: (1) Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 5 Cluster 9 Cluster 8 Cluster 7 Cluster 4 Cluster 6 Cluster 10 Cluster 3 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 5 Cluster 9 Cluster 8 Cluster 7 Cluster 4 Cluster 6 Cluster 10 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 5 Cluster 9 Cluster 8 Cluster 7 Cluster 4 Cluster 6 Cluster 10 Cluster 3 PRIVATE Civil Entrepreneurial PUBLIC Political Technical DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS – A.-MORA, J.-PINEDA, R. PERIÁÑEZ, E. SUÁREZ: 9-23 15 General validation of the model; (2) Prioritization of lines of strategy; (3) Correlation between lines of strategy; (4) Validation of the groupings. The population that was sent the questionnaire via email was obtained from the database of tourism professionals and experts held by the Seville Tourism Association, from which 39 valid replies were received, providing the data which will be commented on below. The specific objectives of the validation process were the following: 1. Content validation of: (a) the clusters conceptual model; (b) the content of each cluster and (c) the relationships between clusters. 2. Validation of the relative importance of the clusters identified. The object of the content validation process was to test from different perspectives the suitability of the conceptual model produced by CM. On one hand, we were attempting to prove whether the conceptual description of the construct, derived from the clusters (excluding the residual cluster that contained diverse actions with no conceptual relationships), would be accepted by a wider group of experts representing every facet of the local tourism sector. Likewise, we hoped to prove that the assignation of actions to each cluster (or, what amounts to the same thing, the labelling carried out by the investigators based on their analysis of the actions within each cluster) was sufficiently correct. It must also be remembered that the clusters appear in the conceptual model in a specific position on the map, and it was therefore necessary to check that these positions (representing a stronger or weaker bond or conceptual relationship between clusters measured by the Euclidean distance between them) matched the perceived interconnections of a different and broader group of experts. These relationships were tested by asking them to rate, on a single scale, the degree of connection they perceived between pairs of clusters. Finally, they were asked to place in order of importance each of the clusters shown in the model so that the investigators could subsequently compare these weightings with those that were obtained from the conceptual model produced by the CM. In the first module of the questionnaire we asked the participants to rate on a scale of 0-10 the suitability of the conceptual model (taking each cluster to be a potential strategic line of action in a hypothetical plan to improve Seville‟s ATD). The distribution of the frequencies obtained is shown in table 1. The values of the centrality and dispersion statistics that were calculated are shown in table 2. Table 1: Frequency distribution for the evaluation of the model’s suitability Table 2: Centrality and dispersion figures From a study of the above data it would be fairly accurate to conclude that the global value given to the conceptual model by the experts was more than acceptable. The mean average of the scores was 8.11, with more than 50% of the opinions being concentrated around 8 and 9 in the distribution (interquartile range = 1). To develop the questionnaire sent to the experts, the investigators randomly chose two actions from each cluster which were then listed in random order. The experts were asked to place each of the Frequency Distribution Value F 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 2 6 2 7 6 8 15 9 9 10 5 Mean 8.11 Median 8 Mode 8 First quartile 8 Third quartile 9 Interquartile space 1 Variance 11.94 Standard deviation 3.45 TOURISM & MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Nº 7, (2011) INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH EDITION, ISSN: 1646-2408 16 actions in the most appropriate cluster. This was perhaps the aspect of the validation which gave less robust conclusions. Using the assignments obtained from the questionnaires, the two following indicators were calculated:  PSA (“Proportion of substantive agreement for each action”), calculated as the quotient between the number of correct assignations made by the experts (that is, the number of people who placed the chosen action in the cluster indicated by the conceptual model) and the total number of participants.  CSV (“Coefficient of substantive validity for each action”), calculated as the quotient between the difference observed between correct and incorrect assignations of the actions and the number of total participants. The results obtained are shown in table 3. The average PSA statistic for the 18 chosen actions was 54%; that is, on average, the experts made over 50% of their assignations to the cluster that was produced by the conceptual model. Whilst this is quite a high value, it is usually desirable for this value (either on average or item by item), to be above 75%. Likewise, with regard to the coefficient of substantive validity, only four actions were observed with a statistic equal to 0.5, which is the lower limit commonly considered to be acceptable by investigators. Table 3: PSA and CSV coefficients Actions % accuracy % error PSA CSV 1 79% 21% 0.8 0.6 2 21% 79% 0.2 -0.6 3 92% 8% 0.9 0.8 4 59% 41% 0.6 0.2 5 38% 62% 0.4 -0.2 6 79% 21% 0.8 0.6 7 49% 51% 0.5 0.0 8 74% 26% 0.7 0.5 9 21% 79% 0.2 -0.6 10 46% 54% 0.5 -0.1 11 56% 44% 0.6 0.1 12 26% 74% 0.3 -0.5 13 46% 54% 0.5 -0.1 14 56% 44% 0.6 0.1 15 44% 56% 0.4 -0.1 16 67% 33% 0.7 0.3 17 36% 64% 0.4 -0.3 18 85% 15% 0.9 0.7 Bearing in mind that the actions were randomly chosen, it is not unreasonable to think that, had other actions been chosen, the results would have been equally different. Furthermore, the questionnaire did not include a detailed description of each cluster, just the wording that was taken from the initial labelling, and one might therefore expect the number of incorrect assignations to be higher than would be desired. It is logical to conclude that a more detailed description of each strategic line of action arising from the conceptual model would have substantially reduced the number of assignation errors. The third element of the validation developed by the investigators related to testing the validity of the weightings derived from the CM process for the clusters conceptual model that had been identified. To achieve this, the participants were asked to rank the model‟s strategic actions in decreasing order of importance (1 to 9), (table 4). DETERMINING FACTORS OF A CITY’S TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS – A.-MORA, J.-PINEDA, R. PERIÁÑEZ, E. SUÁREZ: 9-23 17 Table 4: Prioritization of the lines of strategy These three rows show, respectively, the average values obtained of the experts‟ opinions, the order of importance arrived at from these values and, finally, the order derived from the conceptual model obtained during the CM process. The calculation of Spearman‟s rank correlation index for the latter two series produced a value very close to 0 (-0.238), from which it was clear that neither of these rankings was significantly correlated. When a conceptualization process is carried out using CM there are two values in each cluster which could be significant as indicators of the importance of each one within the model. The first is the one that was used previously and which is derived from the values given to each of the items identified by the experts taking part in the conceptualization process. Once the clusters have been created, the average importance of the ideas included in each one is calculated and this value is taken to indicate the importance of each block within the model. Table 5: Prioritization of lines of strategy according to number of ideas they contain L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 No of Items 21 7 22 6 12 22 12 10 2 Ranking 1 (according to no of items in CM) 3 7 2 8 5 1 4 6 9 Ranking 2 (according to validation questionnaire) 1 4 5 3 6 2 7 8 9 A second way to measure the possible importance of each cluster within the conceptual model is to consider the number of ideas in each one (table 5). A comparison of this new criterion (with its resultant ordering), with that derived from the validation questionnaire, led to the results shown in table 6. In this case the Spearman‟s rank correlation index achieved a value of 0.48333, thereby indicating a significant correlation for a significance level of 0.094. It can be stated, therefore, with a confidence level of just over 90% that a significant correlation exists between both rankings. Table 6: Spearman’s Correlation Index Ranking 1 (according to no of items in CM) Ranking 2 (according to validation questionnaire) Spearman‟s rho Ranking 1 (according to no of items in CM) Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.483 Sig. (unilateral) . 0.094 N 9 9 Ranking 2 (according to validation questionnaire) Correlation coefficient 0.483 1.000 Sig. (unilateral) 0.094 . N 9 9 It is obvious from the results when evaluating the importance of each cluster within the conceptual model, the consideration of the number of ideas contained in each cluster is much more significant than the average weighting obtained from the evaluation of their importance made by the experts taking part in the conceptualization process. The final validation element related to the arrangement of the clusters within the conceptual map, in other words, the intensity of the relationships which might exist between lines of strategy that emerge from the use of CM. To be able to draw conclusions in this regard, we asked the participants in the validation process to rate, using a single scale (1-7), their perception of the intensity of the relationships between pairs of the lines of strategy in the model. The coordinates of the centroids of each cluster were also identified on the initial conceptual map and the Euclidian distance between them was calculated in pairs. A comparison of the opinions of the participants regarding the intensity of the relationship between the lines and the Euclidean distances between the centroids, obtained the following results (table 7, in annex 2). Prioritization of lines of strategy (1=most important 9=least important) L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 Mean 3.64 4.54 4.54 4.38 5.41 4.33 5.44 6.33 6.38 Order 1 4 5 3 6 2 7 8 9 CM order 6 8 7 5 9 2 3 4 1