Cultural Proximity in Domestic Tourism: A Configurational Analysis of Experiential Structure in Protected Areas

Abstract

This study advances a configurational perspective on domestic tourism in protected areas by introducing the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM). While dominant tourism frameworks rely on causal relationships grounded in cultural distance, novelty, and outcome-based evaluation, domestic tourism remains theoretically underdeveloped despite being embedded in shared symbolic systems and cultural familiarity. To address this gap, the study conceptualizes tourism experience as a multidimensional configuration of interrelated dimensions, emphasizing patterns of covariance rather than causal relationships. The ACPM specifies six experiential domains—natural, cultural, administrative, accessibility, complementary, and communication—modeled as a system of covarying latent constructs within culturally proximate contexts. A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was employed. The qualitative phase supported construct specification, and the quantitative phase analyzed data from 1113 domestic tourists visiting Cotopaxi National Park using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and covariance-based Structural Equation Modeling. Results support a six-dimensional measurement model with satisfactory reliability and validity (CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.064). Significant positive associations among all dimensions indicate a coherent covariance structure. Natural attributes exhibit higher perceptual salience within the covariance structure, while cultural and communication dimensions occupy a central position within the experiential configuration. The study contributes by modeling tourism experience as a relational system and positioning cultural proximity as an interpretive condition, providing a non-causal framework for understanding experiential organization in domestic tourism.

1. Introduction

Tourism in protected natural areas plays a central role in advancing environmental, economic, and sociocultural sustainability. These spaces perform a dual function: they safeguard biodiversity while simultaneously acting as repositories of cultural and historical identity (World Tourism Organization, 2023). In Latin America, the convergence of exceptional biodiversity with indigenous and mestizo traditions produces distinctive nature–culture relationships. Ecuador provides a particularly relevant context for examining these dynamics, especially in Cotopaxi National Park, where high-altitude ecosystems coexist with Andean communities and deeply embedded cultural meanings (Ministerio del Ambiente, 2022).

Despite the growing importance of domestic tourism worldwide, tourism research remains predominantly oriented toward international mobility. Dominant explanatory frameworks have largely relied on constructs such as cultural distance, perceived risk, and novelty-seeking to explain tourist behavior (Ng et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2018). These approaches are typically grounded in an outcome-based logic, in which destination attributes are modeled as antecedents of evaluative responses such as satisfaction, loyalty, or behavioral intention.

Existing tourism models are not only limited in scope but structurally misaligned with domestic tourism contexts. By assuming that experiential value emerges from difference, they systematically overlook contexts in which meaning is constructed through familiarity, continuity, and shared symbolic systems. This limitation is not merely empirical but conceptual, as it reflects an underlying reliance on causal and outcome-based logics that are insufficient to capture the internal organization of experience.

Although this paradigm has proven effective in explaining cross-cultural encounters, it presents a structural limitation when applied to domestic tourism contexts. When tourists operate within culturally familiar environments characterized by shared language, social norms, and symbolic systems, the experiential process is not primarily structured around difference or uncertainty. Instead, it is grounded in processes of recognition, resonance, and symbolic continuity. In such contexts, tourism involves the interpretation and re-signification of culturally embedded environments rather than the evaluation of novelty (Richards, 2018).

This limitation reflects a broader conceptual gap in tourism research. Existing models predominantly conceptualize experience through attribute–outcome relationships, thereby privileging causal linkages between constructs while overlooking the internal organization of experience itself. By assuming that experiential value emerges from difference, these frameworks implicitly marginalize contexts in which meaning arises from familiarity and shared symbolic systems. As a result, limited attention has been given to how experiential dimensions are jointly structured, interrelated, and organized as coherent systems, particularly in domestic and culturally proximate contexts.

To address this limitation, this study adopts the perspective of cultural proximity. Cultural proximity refers to the perceived similarity between individuals and destinations in terms of values, symbols, practices, and communicative codes (Straubhaar, 1991), familiarity with social norms reduces cognitive uncertainty (Reisinger & Turner, 2003), and identification with national heritage strengthens emotional and symbolic attachment (Smith, 2006). Rather than emphasizing difference, this perspective highlights shared interpretive frameworks that facilitate meaning construction, reduce cognitive uncertainty, and enable symbolic and emotional resonance with place. In domestic tourism, cultural proximity operates as a contextual condition that supports coherent meaning-making processes grounded in familiarity and continuity.

From this perspective, visits to protected areas can be conceptualized as structured experiential configurations, in which environmental, cultural, managerial, accessibility, complementary, and communicative dimensions are jointly experienced. These dimensions do not operate in isolation; rather, they form an interdependent system whose organization can be captured through patterns of covariance among latent constructs.

Building on this premise, this study advances a configurational perspective on tourism experience. Instead of specifying directional or causal relationships between constructs, the analytical focus is placed on the covariance structure among latent variables, capturing how experiential dimensions co-vary as components of a unified experiential system. This approach enables the examination of tourism experience as an internally organized structure rather than as a sequence of antecedents and outcomes.

Within this framework, the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM) is introduced as a multidimensional representation of tourism experience in culturally proximate contexts. Cultural proximity is not modeled as a latent construct; rather, it operates as an interpretive condition that informs the way experiential dimensions are perceived and interconnected within the system.

Accordingly, this study pursues three objectives:

• To identify the core dimensions that structure the domestic tourism experience in Cotopaxi National Park;
• To develop and validate measurement scales for the constructs of the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM);
• To examine the covariance structure among natural, cultural, administrative, accessibility, complementary, and communication dimensions using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework.

This study makes three main contributions. First, it reconceptualizes tourism experience as a configurational system of interdependent dimensions, shifting the analytical focus from outcome-based models toward covariance-based representations. Second, it introduces cultural proximity as a complementary interpretive framework to cultural distance approaches, emphasizing familiarity, continuity, and shared symbolic systems as central elements in domestic tourism contexts. Third, it provides an empirically validated multidimensional model that captures the interdependence of experiential domains, offering a relational analytical framework for understanding tourism experiences in protected areas.

Overall, the ACPM conceptualizes tourism experience not as a sequence of evaluative outcomes, but as a structured configuration of interrelated latent dimensions, whose organization is reflected in their covariance patterns within culturally proximate contexts.

This study does not aim to explain behavior or predict outcomes. Instead, it seeks to represent the internal structure of tourism experience as a relational system, where meaning emerges from the configuration of interdependent dimensions.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. From Cultural Distance to Cultural Proximity

Cultural distance has long been a central construct in explaining international tourism behavior. It refers to the perceived differences between tourists’ cultural background and that of the destination, shaping perceptions of uncertainty, risk, and experiential evaluation (Ng et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2018). Within this paradigm, novelty and contrast are conceptualized as primary experiential drivers, particularly in cross-cultural encounters (Yang & Wong, 2012).

However, the explanatory power of this framework is more limited in domestic tourism contexts. When tourists operate within culturally familiar environments characterized by shared language, symbolic repertoires, and social norms, experiential processes are not primarily structured around difference or uncertainty. Instead, familiarity, continuity, and recognition become central mechanisms through which experiences are constructed (Fourie & Santana-Gallego, 2013; Richards, 2018).

This limitation reflects a structural mismatch between dominant theoretical assumptions and the nature of domestic tourism. Models grounded in cultural distance implicitly assume that experiential value emerges from difference, whereas domestic tourism is often rooted in shared cultural frameworks. As a result, these models may overlook the processes through which meaning is constructed in culturally proximate contexts.

To address this limitation, this study adopts the perspective of cultural proximity. Cultural proximity refers to the perceived similarity between individuals and destinations in terms of values, symbols, practices, and communicative codes (Straubhaar, 1991; Smith, 2006). Rather than emphasizing difference, this perspective highlights how shared cultural frameworks facilitate interpretation, reduce cognitive uncertainty, and enable symbolic and emotional resonance with place.

In domestic tourism, cultural proximity operates as an interpretive condition that supports coherent meaning-making processes. Shared language facilitates symbolic understanding, familiarity with social norms reduces uncertainty, and identification with national heritage strengthens emotional attachment. Consequently, tourism experience is structured through processes of recognition, resonance, and continuity within a shared cultural system.

Importantly, cultural proximity is not specified as a latent construct within the analytical model. Instead, it is conceptualized as a contextual condition that frames the interpretation of experiential dimensions. This positioning allows the analysis to focus on the internal organization of experience without introducing additional causal or predictive relationships. In this sense, cultural proximity functions as an interpretive lens rather than as an explanatory variable.

Nevertheless, domestic tourism is not homogeneous. Intra-national variations in regional identity, socio-economic conditions, and cultural capital introduce degrees of differentiation within otherwise shared cultural contexts. These variations can be conceptualized as micro-distances, representing subtle forms of differentiation that coexist with cultural proximity (Fourie & Santana-Gallego, 2013). Rather than contradicting cultural proximity, micro-distances reflect variability within a shared cultural system, shaping how authenticity, belonging, and symbolic meaning are experienced.

2.2. The Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM)

The Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM) conceptualizes tourism experience in protected areas as a multidimensional system of interrelated latent dimensions. Rather than modeling tourism experience as a sequence of causal relationships between antecedents and outcomes, the ACPM represents experience as an internally structured configuration.

The model comprises six latent domains:

• Natural factors
• Cultural factors
• Accessibility factors
• Administrative factors
• Complementary factors
• Communication factors

These dimensions integrate environmental, symbolic, infrastructural, managerial, service-related, and communicative components that jointly constitute the tourism experience.

Natural factors refer to environmental quality, biodiversity, and scenic attributes associated with protected areas (Buckley, 2009; Newsome et al., 2013). Cultural factors encompass heritage, traditions, gastronomy, and interactions with local communities, representing the symbolic dimension of experience (McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Richards, 2018). Accessibility refers to physical infrastructure and inclusive conditions that enable participation (Buhalis & Darcy, 2011). Administrative factors capture governance, management practices, and safety conditions (Dredge & Jenkins, 2011). Complementary factors include auxiliary services such as accommodation, food, and recreational facilities (Cucculelli & Goffi, 2016). Communication factors refer to information systems, digital platforms, and interpretive mechanisms that support destination (Sigala, 2018; Li & Cao, 2022).

Unlike traditional tourism models that specify directional relationships between constructs, the ACPM adopts a relational perspective. The model is specified as a latent covariance system, in which the primary analytical objective is to examine patterns of association among experiential dimensions.

Accordingly, the ACPM does not estimate directional or predictive relationships. Instead, it captures how experiential domains are jointly organized, allowing for the representation of tourism experience as a multidimensional configuration of interdependent components.

2.3. A Configurational Perspective on Tourism Experience

Tourism research has predominantly relied on linear and causal specifications to examine relationships between destination attributes and evaluative outcomes such as satisfaction or behavioral intention. While these approaches have provided important insights, they tend to isolate variables and prioritize outcome-based evaluation, potentially overlooking the systemic nature of tourism experience.

A configurational perspective offers an alternative approach by conceptualizing experience as a relational system, in which multiple dimensions are interconnected and jointly contribute to meaning construction. From this perspective, experience is not decomposed into independent components but understood as a structured configuration of interrelated elements.

This perspective aligns with covariance-based analytical frameworks, where the objective is to examine how latent constructs are organized through their covariances and correlations, without imposing directional assumptions. Rather than explaining variance in dependent variables, the focus is placed on representing the internal structure of experience.

In domestic tourism contexts, where cultural proximity provides shared interpretive frameworks, experience is more appropriately understood as a configuration of interrelated dimensions rather than as a sequence of evaluative judgments. This approach is consistent with systemic and relational perspectives that conceptualize tourism as a complex system characterized by interdependence and co-construction of meaning (Baggio & Sainaghi, 2011; Larsen, 2008; Urry & Larsen, 2011).

Accordingly, tourism experience is conceptualized as an emergent property of a relational system, where meaning arises from the alignment and coherence of experiential dimensions. The analytical focus is therefore placed on patterns of association, distinguishing statistical co-variation from causal interpretation.

2.4. Theoretically Expected Covariance Patterns

Consistent with the configurational perspective adopted in this study, the model is specified to examine patterns of association among latent dimensions rather than directional relationships. The following expectations do not represent causal hypotheses but theoretically grounded covariance patterns reflecting the structural interdependence of experiential dimensions.

Natural–Cultural Association

Natural environments in protected areas are frequently interpreted as cultural landscapes embedded with symbolic meanings and heritage values (Smith, 2006). This integration suggests that environmental appreciation and cultural interpretation are jointly structured within the tourism experience.

• E1. Natural factors are expected to exhibit positive associations with cultural factors.

Natural Factors and Experiential Support Dimensions

Environmental attributes coexist with infrastructural and service-related elements that enable visitor engagement. This co-presence suggests that natural and functional dimensions are jointly represented within the experiential configuration.

• E2. Natural factors are expected to be positively associated with accessibility factors.
• E3. Natural factors are expected to be positively associated with complementary factors.

Cultural Factors and Communication

Cultural resources are mediated through communication systems, including interpretive materials, digital platforms, and symbolic narratives. These elements jointly support meaning construction.

• E4. Cultural factors are expected to be positively associated with communication factors.

Administrative and Complementary Interdependence

Management practices and service provision constitute interdependent components of the tourism system, jointly shaping operational conditions and visitor experience.

• E5. Administrative factors are expected to be positively associated with complementary factors.

Accessibility and Communication

Accessibility and communication facilitate visitor orientation and engagement with the destination. Their functional complementarity suggests a stable pattern of association within the experiential system.

• E6. Accessibility factors are expected to be positively associated with communication factors.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design, following Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research proposed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2018). The research was structured in two consecutive phases: an initial qualitative stage aimed at construct grounding and contextual refinement, followed by a quantitative stage focused on measurement validation and the examination of the covariance structure among latent constructs.

Although no directional relationships are specified, Structural Equation Modeling is employed because it allows for the estimation of latent covariance structures while accounting for measurement error. Unlike observed correlations, SEM provides a more accurate representation of the relationships among latent constructs by simultaneously estimating measurement and structural components. In this study, SEM is therefore used as a covariance modeling framework rather than as a causal modeling technique.

This design was appropriate given the nature of the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM), which required contextual adaptation to domestic tourism settings prior to empirical assessment. The qualitative phase informed construct specification and item generation, while the quantitative phase enabled psychometric validation and the estimation of relationships among experiential dimensions (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Importantly, the objective of the study was not theory generation nor causal inference, but the operationalization and structural representation of tourism experience as a multidimensional system. Consistent with the configurational perspective adopted, the analysis focuses on the internal organization of experience, emphasizing patterns of association rather than directional effects.

The absence of directional paths is intentional and consistent with the configurational perspective, which focuses on relational organization rather than causal explanation.

3.2. Qualitative Phase: Construction Grounding and Item Generation

3.2.1. Participants

Four experts in tourism research and protected-area management participated in the qualitative phase. Participants were selected using purposive sampling based on demonstrated expertise in nature-based tourism, destination management, and cultural heritage interpretation.

Although the number of participants was limited, this is consistent with expert-based qualitative designs focused on construct validation, where depth of knowledge is prioritized over sample size.

3.2.2. Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify and validate experientially salient components of visits to protected areas. The interview protocol addressed:

• Key experiential dimensions in protected areas
• Interaction between environmental and cultural meanings
• Governance and management conditions
• The role of communication and interpretation in shaping visitor experience

The objective was to assess the conceptual adequacy and contextual relevance of dimensions derived from the literature.

3.2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, applying a deductive–inductive approach. Initial coding was guided by theoretically derived categories, while allowing for the emergence of context-specific refinements.

The analysis confirmed six experiential domains:

• Natural attributes
• Cultural–symbolic elements
• Accessibility
• Administrative management
• Complementary services
• Communication and digital interpretation

These domains informed item refinement and wording adjustments, ensuring content validity, contextual relevance, and conceptual clarity. The qualitative phase therefore functioned as a construct grounding and validation stage, rather than as theory development.

3.3. Quantitative Phase

Population, Sampling and Data Collection

The target population consisted of Ecuadorian domestic tourists aged 18 years and above who visited Cotopaxi National Park between March 2022 and October 2023. According to official statistics, the estimated population size was N = 204,956 visitors.

A stratified non-proportional sampling design was employed, using region of residence as the stratification criterion:

• Coast
• Highlands
• Amazon
• Galápagos

Sample size was calculated for a finite population using:

• Confidence level: 95% (Z = 1.96)
• Margin of error: ±3%
• Maximum variance (p = q = 0.50)

The final valid sample consisted of n = 1113 respondents.

Data collection combined two modes:

• On-site surveys (60%), administered by trained interviewers.
• Online surveys (40%), distributed via authorized tour operators.

This mixed-mode approach increased coverage while potentially introducing mode effects. Accordingly, differences between collection modes were assessed and found not to significantly affect the results.

Importantly, while stratification was used in the sampling design, the achieved sample reflects actual participation patterns and should not be interpreted as fully population-representative.

3.4. Instrument Development and Validation

A structured questionnaire was developed through a multi-stage process including literature review, expert validation, pilot testing, and psychometric assessment.

3.4.1. Content Validity

Content validity was assessed using Aiken’s V coefficient. All items exceeded the recommended threshold (V > 0.80), indicating adequate relevance and clarity.

3.4.2. Pilot Study

A pilot study (n = 120) was conducted to assess reliability and item performance. All constructs achieved Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency.

3.4.3. Instrument Structure

The final questionnaire included sociodemographic variables and six latent constructs corresponding to the ACPM dimensions. Most items were measured using a five-point Likert scale.

Items initially associated with risk management and safety were specified as a separate construct during the initial development phase. However, Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated insufficient discriminant validity, with substantial overlap with administrative factors. Consequently, these items were integrated into the administrative dimension, reflecting the conceptual and empirical interdependence between governance and perceived safety conditions.

This decision is consistent with the configurational logic of the model, where constructs are defined based on empirical coherence and theoretical integration rather than strict separation (see

Table 1. Structure of the questionnaire for inbound or domestic tourists.

Section	Main Constructs (Variables)	Example Item	Scale	Number of Items
A	Sociodemographic Data	Age, nationality, educational level	Mixed	12
B	Natural Factor (Lee et al., 2018; Martínez & Rojo, 2019)	“The scenic beauty of the Cotopaxi volcano is impressive”	5-point Likert scale (1: Strongly disagree, 5: Strongly agree)	6
C	Cultural Factor (De La Torre et al., 2022; Fourie & Santana-Gallego, 2013)	“The interaction with local communities was authentic”		7
D	Accessibility (Porto & Rucci, 2019; Macfarlane et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021)	“The access roads to the park are in good condition.”		4
E	Tourism Management and Facilities (Franceschinis et al., 2022)	“The facilities (restrooms, viewpoints) are adequate.”		5
F	Risk Management and Safety (Sönmez & Graefe, 1998; Lepp & Gibson, 2003)	“I felt safe with the information provided about risks.”		6
G	Communication and Media (Li & Cao, 2022; Tasci, 2008)	“What medium was your main source of information?”	Mixed (Likert and multiple choice)	8

).

3.5. Data Analysis Procedures

Data analysis was conducted using AMOS v.26 in three stages.

3.5.1. Stage 1—Preliminary Analyses

• Descriptive statistics
• Missing data analysis (Little’s MCAR test)
• Normality assessment (skewness and kurtosis)

3.5.2. Stage 2—Measurement Model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess reliability and validity.

Criteria applied:

• Factor loadings ≥ 0.50
• Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.70
• Composite Reliability (CR) ≥ 0.70
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE) ≥ 0.50

Discriminant validity was assessed using the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT ≤ 0.85).

Given the configurational nature of the model, moderate to high correlations between constructs were theoretically expected. These correlations were interpreted as evidence of experiential integration, rather than construct redundancy. Additional evidence (HTMT and theoretical distinction) was used to support discriminant validity.

3.5.3. Stage 3: Latent Covariance Model (SEM Framework)

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed as a latent variable modeling framework to estimate the covariance structure among the ACPM dimensions.

Unlike conventional SEM applications that specify directional relationships, the model was specified as a correlated latent factors model, without structural paths and without endogenous–exogenous distinctions. Accordingly:

• No directional paths were estimated
• No causal relationships were specified
• No predictive effects were modeled

Instead, the model focuses on:

• Covariances among latent constructs
• Standardized correlations between dimensions
• The latent covariance matrix Σ(θ)

This specification is consistent with covariance-based SEM, where the objective is to represent the structural organization of latent constructs, while accounting for measurement error. In this context, SEM provides a more rigorous estimation framework than observed-variable correlations, enabling the:

• simultaneous estimation of measurement and structural components
• correction for measurement error
• representation of the relational structure among latent variables

Model fit was evaluated using established thresholds (Hu & Bentler, 1999)

• χ²/df < 5
• CFI ≥ 0.90
• TLI ≥ 0.90
• RMSEA ≤ 0.08
• SRMR ≤ 0.08

Bootstrapping

Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was conducted to assess the stability and robustness of covariance estimates and standardized correlations, providing confidence intervals for the estimated parameters.

3.6. Bias and Robustness Checks

Several procedures were implemented to ensure methodological rigor:

• Common method bias (CMB):

  ○

  Harman’s single-factor test (<40% variance explained)

  ○

  CFA marker-variable approach

• Non-response bias:

  ○

  Comparison between early and late respondents (p > 0.05)

• Statistical power:

  ○

  Post hoc power analysis (>0.95)

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Domestic Tourists

The sample (n = 1113) is characterized by a predominantly young and educated domestic segment, with a strong regional concentration in the Andean region. Most respondents (96.6%) were residents of the Highlands, indicating that visitation to Cotopaxi National Park is largely associated with geographically proximate populations. This distribution reflects the achieved sample rather than population representativeness, and therefore, results should be interpreted with caution regarding external generalizability.

This profile suggests a pattern of short-distance domestic mobility, where geographical and sociocultural proximity facilitate visitation. Such patterns are consistent with the conceptual premise of cultural proximity, in which shared cultural and spatial contexts enable access and participation in tourism activities.

The mean age was 30.4 years, with 58.6% of participants between 18 and 28 years old. Gender distribution was balanced (49.2% male; 50.8% female), and 69.1% were single. Educational attainment was relatively high, with 52.8% holding a university degree.

Average daily expenditure was USD 41.26, with 81.6% spending less than USD 50, indicating relatively low-cost consumption patterns. Travel behavior was predominantly social, with 84% traveling with companions, most commonly in groups of two to four individuals (57.2%). Private vehicles were the main mode of transportation (86.7%).

Travel motivations were primarily oriented toward contact with nature (51%), followed by recreation/sports (28.4%) and adventure (18.1%). Cultural engagement was present but secondary, mainly through crafts, gastronomy, and community-based tourism activities.

Rather than indicating hierarchical relationships, these patterns suggest differential salience among experiential components; where environmental elements exhibit greater perceptual prominence within the overall experiential configuration, while cultural and service-related elements contribute to the broader experiential system (see

Table 2. Profile of domestic tourists visiting Cotopaxi National Park.

Location			Age Ranges
Coast	35	3.10%	18–28	652	58.60%
Highlands	1075	96.60%	29–38	212	19.00%
East	2	0.20%	39–48	154	13.80%
Island	1	0.10%	Mean age	30.4
Gender			Marital Status
Male	548	49.20%	Single	769	69.10%
Female	565	50.80%	Married	265	23.80%
			Level of Education
Travel Companions			Secondary	395	35.50%
Alone	178	16.00%	Professional	588	52.80%
With companions	935	84.00%	Average Daily Expenditure (USD)
			≤$50	908	81.60%
Number of Companions			$51–$100	162	14.60%
One companion	85	7.60%	Mean	41.26
Between 2 and 4 companions	637	57.20%	Transportation
Between 5 and 7 companions	166	14.90%	Private vehicle	965	86.70%
Traveling alone	178	16.00%	Public transport	116	10.40%
			Travel agency	25	2.20%
Main Travel Motivation			Festival or Cultural Activity Attended
Recreation/Sports	316	28.40%	Cultural/community tourism	344	30.90%
Adventure (extreme activities)	201	18.10%	Local crafts and products (enterprises)	588	52.80%
Contact with nature	568	51.00%	Folkloric/cultural events	84	7.50%

Note. Values represent valid percentages. Source: Field data (2022–2023).

).

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of ACPM Dimensions

Descriptive statistics indicate variation in the perceived salience of the six experiential dimensions.

Natural factors obtained the highest mean score (M = 4.13; SD = 1.07), followed by communication (M = 3.99; SD = 1.18) and administrative factors (M = 3.90; SD = 1.03). Cultural factors showed moderately high values (M = 3.77; SD = 1.07), while complementary factors (M = 3.49; SD = 1.02) and accessibility (M = 3.24; SD = 1.09) presented lower scores.

These differences indicate variation in perceptual intensity across experiential domains, rather than directional or causal relationships. Within the configurational perspective adopted, such variation reflects how different dimensions are differentially emphasized within the experiential system.

The higher salience of environmental and communicative dimensions suggests their centrality in the experiential representation of protected areas, while accessibility and complementary services appear as supportive dimensions within the configuration (see

Table 3. Summary of Domestic Tourists’ Perceptions of Cotopaxi National Park.

Factors	Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Variance	Interpretation
Natural	N22–N26	4.13	1.071	1.151	Strong appreciation of scenery and biodiversity
Cultural	N32–N37	3.77	1.073	1.17	Moderate interest; complements natural motives
Accessibility	N41–N44	3.24	1.093	1.199	Infrastructure and mobility limitations
Administrative	N51–N55	3.9	1.033	1.067	Positive evaluation of management and staff
Complementary	N61–N66	3.49	1.024	1.097	Mixed performance; safety and signage valued
Communication and Digital Media	N73–N75	3.99	1.18	1.408	Strong interest in digital/immersive promotion

Note. Scale 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree.

).

4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the six-factor structure of the ACPM. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties.

All standardized factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001) and exceeded 0.60, indicating strong indicator reliability. Composite Reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.78 to 0.95, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50 for all constructs, supporting convergent validity.

Two items from the Accessibility construct were removed due to low factor loadings, resulting in improved model fit and internal consistency.

These results support the adequacy of the measurement model for representing the latent dimensions of the experiential system.

Two items from the Accessibility construct (N43 and N44) were removed due to low factor loadings (<0.50). This refinement resulted in improved model fit and construct reliability (see

Table 4. Standardized factor loadings and reliability statistics.

Construct	Item	Unstandardized Estimate	Standard Error	Critical Ratio	Standardized Estimate
Natural	N26	1	–	–	0.859
(CR = 0.95; AVE = 0.75)	N25	1.023	0.023	44.658 ***	0.883
	N24	1.033	0.029	35.581 ***	0.865
	N23	1.026	0.028	36.901 ***	0.87
	N22	1.109	0.032	34.849 ***	0.87
Cultural	N37	1	–	–	0.828
(CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.61)	N36	0.991	0.029	34.732 ***	0.785
	N35	1.043	0.03	34.342 ***	0.86
	N34	1.007	0.031	32.889 ***	0.835
	N33	0.936	0.034	27.319 ***	0.736
	N32	0.95	0.037	25.912 ***	0.706
Administrative	N55	1	–	–	0.787
(CR = 0.93; AVE = 0.68)	N54	0.99	0.033	29.925 ***	0.812
	N53	1.034	0.034	30.431 ***	0.827
	N52	1.098	0.034	32.427 ***	0.863
	N51	1.055	0.036	29.557 ***	0.809
Accessibility	N42	1	–	–	0.598
(CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.57)	N41	1.697	0.094	17.969 ***	0.863
Complementary	N65	1	–	–	0.807
(CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.57)	N64	0.928	0.034	27.563 ***	0.77
	N63	0.795	0.039	20.466 ***	0.634
	N62	0.857	0.037	22.988 ***	0.69
	N61	1.014	0.035	28.852 ***	0.799
Communication	N74	1	–	–	0.794
(CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.74)	N73	1.191	0.04	30.116 ***	0.92

Note. *** All loadings significant at p < 0.001.

).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was assessed using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the HTMT ratio.

While most constructs met the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the correlation between Administrative and Complementary constructs (r = 0.871) slightly exceeded the square root of AVE, indicating a high level of association.

Within the ACPM framework, this result is theoretically consistent. Administrative (governance) and complementary (service-related) dimensions represent functionally interconnected components of the tourism system, where management practices and service provision co-occur and are jointly experienced. Therefore, their strong association reflects systemic integration rather than conceptual redundancy (see

Table 5. Correlation Matrix and Discriminant Validity.

Construct	Natural	Cultural	Administrative	Accessibility	Complementary	Communication
Natural	** 0.866 **	0.728	0.659	0.583	0.639	0.725
Cultural	0.728	** 0.781 **	0.645	0.534	0.667	0.614
Administrative	0.659	0.645	** 0.825 **	0.787	0.871	0.716
Accessibility	0.583	0.534	0.787	** 0.755 **	0.708	0.693
Complementary	0.639	0.667	0.871	0.708	** 0.755 **	0.680
Communication	0.725	0.614	0.716	0.693	0.680	** 0.860 **

Note. Diagonal values represent √AVE. Off-diagonal values are latent correlations. All correlations are positive and significant (p < 0.01). ** Bold values represent the square root of the AVE for each construct.

).

HTMT values ranged from 0.595 to 0.831, remaining below recommended thresholds. Bootstrapped confidence intervals did not include the value of 1, further supporting discriminant validity.

Taken together, these results indicate that constructs are empirically distinguishable while maintaining meaningful interrelationships, consistent with a configurational system (see

Table 6. HTMT Matrix.

Construct	Natural	Cultural	Administrative	Accessibility	Complementary	Communication
Natural	1	0.737	0.651	0.595	0.599	0.725
Cultural	0.737	1	0.663	0.613	0.675	0.637
Administrative	0.651	0.663	1	0.79	0.831	0.711
Accessibility	0.595	0.613	0.79	1	0.747	0.699
Complementary	0.599	0.675	0.831	0.747	1	0.637
Communication	0.725	0.637	0.711	0.699	0.637	1

Note: All HTMT values are below 0.85 (strict criterion) and 0.90 (liberal criterion).

and

Table 7. HTMT Inference (Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals).

Relationship	HTMT	CI Low	CI High
Cultural—Natural	0.737	0.680	0.782
Administrative—Natural	0.651	0.589	0.701
Administrative—Cultural	0.663	0.600	0.716
Administrative—Complementary	0.831	0.794	0.865
Administrative—Communication	0.711	0.654	0.766
Accessibility—Natural	0.595	0.518	0.669
Accessibility—Cultural	0.613	0.545	0.689
Accessibility—Administrative	0.790	0.723	0.852
Accessibility—Complementary	0.747	0.686	0.812
Accessibility—Communication	0.699	0.623	0.768
Complementary—Natural	0.599	0.529	0.664
Complementary—Cultural	0.675	0.610	0.731
Communication—Natural	0.725	0.663	0.779
Communication—Cultural	0.637	0.577	0.698
Communication—Complementary	0.637	0.568	0.700

).

4.4. Evaluation of Expected Associations

The expected associations (E1–E6) were examined through the latent correlation matrix.

All proposed associations were supported, with positive and statistically significant correlations observed between the specified constructs.

• E1 (Natural–Cultural): Supported (r = 0.728)
• E2 (Natural–Accessibility): Supported (r = 0.583)
• E3 (Natural–Complementary): Supported (r = 0.639)
• E4 (Cultural–Communication): Supported (r = 0.614)
• E5 (Administrative–Complementary): Supported (r = 0.871)
• E6 (Accessibility–Communication): Supported (r = 0.693)

These results confirm the presence of systematic patterns of association among experiential dimensions, consistent with the relational specification of the ACPM.

4.5. Latent Covariance Structure and Model Fit

The latent covariance structure was examined using SEM as a correlated factors model.

The model demonstrated acceptable to excellent fit:

• RMSEA = 0.064
• SRMR = 0.056
• CFI = 0.95
• TLI = 0.939

These indices indicate that the model adequately reproduces the observed covariance matrix Σ, supporting the representation of the experiential system.

The results show consistent patterns of association across dimensions, suggesting that tourism experience is structured as a relational system of interdependent domains.

Rather than indicating causal relationships, these patterns reflect the internal organization of experience, where dimensions co-vary as part of a unified experiential configuration (see

Table 8. Goodness-of-Fit indices for the six-factor measurement model.

Fit Index	Obtained Value	Recommended Cutoff	Interpretation
Absolute Fit Measures
χ2/df ratio	5.497	<3 (good), <5 (acceptable)	Acceptable
RMSEA	0.064 [0.060–0.067]	<0.06 (good), <0.08 (acceptable)	Acceptable
SRMR	0.056	<0.08	Good
GFI	0.901	>0.90	Acceptable
AGFI	0.87	>0.80	Acceptable
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI	0.95	>0.95 (excellent), >0.90 (acceptable)	Excellent
TLI	0.939	>0.95 (excellent), >0.90 (acceptable)	Acceptable
NFI	0.939	>0.90	Good
IFI	0.95	>0.90	Excellent
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
PGFI	0.687	>0.50	Acceptable
PNFI	0.776	>0.50	Good
PCFI	0.785	>0.50	Good

Note. χ² (248) = 1363.30, p < 0.001.

).

4.6. Stability of Associations (Bootstrapping Analysis)

Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was conducted to assess the stability of covariance estimates and standardized correlations.

Results indicate that the observed associations are statistically robust and stable, with confidence intervals remaining consistent across resamples.

Additional analysis revealed clustering patterns among:

• Accessibility, administrative, and communication dimensions
• Administrative, complementary, and communication dimensions

These patterns suggest the presence of functionally related subsystems within the experiential configuration, where infrastructural, managerial, and communicative dimensions are closely interconnected.

Importantly, these clusters should be interpreted as relational groupings within the covariance structure, rather than as causal mechanisms or hierarchical structures.

Overall, the results provide strong evidence that the experiential system is internally consistent, structurally stable, and configurationally organized, supporting the ACPM framework.

5. Discussion

5.1. Redefining the Domestic Tourist Experience

This study advances a configurational understanding of tourism experience by modeling how experiential dimensions are organized within a system of interrelated components, rather than specifying directional relationships toward evaluative outcomes. In this sense, the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM) should be interpreted as a structural representation of experiential composition, capturing patterns of co-variation within a latent covariance framework. This study does not propose an alternative predictive model, but a different way of conceptualizing tourism experience, moving from causal explanation toward structural representation.

The findings provide empirical support for this perspective, indicating that domestic tourism experiences in protected areas are not structured as linear evaluative processes, but as multidimensional configurations characterized by relational coherence. The observed covariance structure suggests that experiential dimensions are jointly organized, forming a system in which elements are simultaneously present and mutually contextualized.

This challenges dominant assumptions in tourism research, which typically conceptualize experience as a sequence of attributes influencing satisfaction, loyalty, or behavioral intentions. Instead, the ACPM demonstrates that, in domestic contexts, experience may be more accurately understood as a structured configuration of interdependent domains, where meaning emerges from relational alignment rather than causal progression.

Within this configuration, natural factors exhibit higher perceptual salience, indicating their prominence in the experiential representation of protected areas. However, this prominence should not be interpreted as causal dominance, but rather as differential salience within a relational system. At the same time, the strong association between cultural and communication dimensions highlights the importance of shared symbolic systems in shaping experiential interpretation.

Protected areas such as Cotopaxi can therefore be understood not merely as physical environments, but as integrated experiential systems, where environmental, cultural, and communicative dimensions co-exist within a coherent configuration.

5.2. Cultural Proximity as a Structural Condition of Experience

Cultural proximity is conceptualized not as an independent variable within the model, but as a structural condition, that enables relational coherence among experiential dimensions. Rather than exerting directional influence, it provides the symbolic framework within which meanings are constructed and interpreted.

This perspective represents a conceptual shift from cultural distance theory, which explains tourism primarily through contrast, novelty, and unfamiliarity. While such assumptions may hold in international contexts, they are less suitable for domestic tourism, where experiences are embedded within shared cultural frameworks.

The strong association between natural and cultural dimensions is consistent with the concept of cultural landscapes, where environmental appreciation is intertwined with symbolic meaning and heritage recognition. In this sense, landscapes are not neutral spaces, but socially constructed environments embedded in cultural narratives.

Communication processes further extend this symbolic system. Interpretive media, digital platforms, and social interaction facilitate the circulation of meanings, enabling tourists to engage in participatory meaning-making processes. Experiential dimensions should therefore be understood as relationally embedded within a shared symbolic environment.

At the same time, the presence of variation within the covariance structure suggests that cultural proximity operates along a continuum. Even within a shared national context, experiential interpretation may differ according to regional identity, social background, and cultural capital. Cultural proximity should therefore be conceptualized as relative similarity rather than uniformity.

5.3. Structural Integration of Management and Accessibility

The observed covariance patterns indicate that administrative and complementary dimensions are strongly associated, suggesting that governance structures and service provision are perceived as functionally integrated components of the experiential system. These domains co-occur within the experiential configuration, reflecting their joint presence in the tourism context.

In contrast, accessibility exhibits comparatively lower levels of association with other dimensions, indicating a more limited integration within the covariance structure. This suggests that infrastructural conditions may be less tightly aligned with symbolic and experiential domains.

Importantly, these findings should not be interpreted in causal terms. The ACPM does not identify determinants or effects, but rather patterns of structural association, revealing how experiential domains are interconnected within a relational system.

5.4. Theoretical Contributions

This study makes three primary contributions to tourism research.

First, it introduces a configurational paradigm for understanding tourism experience, shifting the analytical focus from causal explanation toward the structural organization of experience. By modeling experience as a system of co-varying dimensions, the ACPM demonstrates that experiential meaning emerges from relational coherence rather than directional influence.

Second, the study conceptualizes cultural proximity as an analytical lens for domestic tourism. While existing literature has predominantly emphasized cultural distance, novelty, and contrast, this study highlights the role of familiarity, continuity, and shared symbolic systems in shaping tourism experiences. In doing so, it extends tourism theory by incorporating contexts in which similarity, rather than difference, organizes experience.

Third, the study demonstrates the applicability of covariance-based structural modeling as a relational analytical framework. Instead of specifying directional paths, the ACPM captures patterns of association among latent constructs, providing a methodological foundation for examining experiential configurations. The use of covariance-based SEM without directional paths demonstrates that structural modeling can be applied beyond causal inference, serving as a tool for representing relational systems.

Overall, this study contributes to a reorientation of tourism research, from outcome-based and causal models toward structural and configurational interpretations of experience.

5.5. Positioning Within International Tourism Research

The ACPM contributes to international tourism research by offering a complementary perspective to dominant paradigms based on difference and novelty. While much of the literature has focused on how tourists respond to unfamiliar environments, this study highlights the importance of familiarity and symbolic continuity in shaping tourism experiences.

This perspective is particularly relevant for domestic tourism and regional mobility, where experiences are embedded within shared cultural contexts. The findings suggest that tourism research should not only account for difference, but also for how similarity and shared identity contexts are associated with the organization of experience.

By incorporating cultural proximity into the analysis, this study expands the conceptual scope of tourism research and opens new avenues for understanding experiential processes in culturally proximate contexts.

5.6. Limitations and Future Research

This study presents several limitations.

First, the absence of outcome variables such as satisfaction or behavioral intentions is consistent with the study’s configurational scope, which focuses on structural organization rather than explanatory modeling. Future research may integrate outcome variables within alternative model specifications to examine how experiential configurations relate to evaluative processes.

Second, identity-related mechanisms were not directly operationalized. Although the findings are consistent with identity-based interpretations, future research should explicitly incorporate identity constructs to examine their role within culturally proximate tourism experiences.

Third, the cross-sectional design does not allow for the examination of temporal dynamics. Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how experiential configurations evolve over time.

Finally, the regional concentration of the sample limits external generalizability. Replication across different cultural and geographic contexts is necessary to assess the robustness of the ACPM.

6. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The present study contributes to tourism theory by proposing a structural and configurational approach to understanding domestic tourism experiences. Rather than specifying causal relationships, the ACPM conceptualizes experience as a system of interdependent dimensions that co-vary within a shared cultural framework.

This approach extends existing theory in three ways.

First, it complements cultural distance theory by introducing cultural proximity as a relevant analytical lens for domestic tourism contexts. While cultural distance emphasizes difference, cultural proximity highlights familiarity, symbolic continuity, and shared meaning.

Second, it advances a systemic understanding of tourism experience, where environmental, cultural, managerial, infrastructural, and communicative dimensions are structurally interconnected. This contributes to the transition from attribute-based models toward relational and configurational perspectives.

Third, it provides a validated measurement model that captures the covariance structure among experiential dimensions. The ACPM thus offers a foundation for future research aimed at exploring alternative model specifications and context-dependent configurations.

Importantly, the ACPM should be interpreted as a structural representation rather than an explanatory model, contributing to theory development by clarifying how experiential dimensions are organized within culturally proximate contexts.

6.2. Managerial Implications

The managerial implications of this study should be interpreted within the configurational logic of the ACPM. Rather than identifying causal drivers, the model reveals how experiential dimensions are structurally interconnected, suggesting that destination management should focus on enhancing coherence across domains.

First, protected areas should be managed as integrated experiential systems, where environmental, cultural, and communicative elements are aligned within a shared narrative. This implies the development of interpretive strategies that connect natural attributes with cultural meaning.

Second, communication should be understood as a structural component of experience, facilitating meaning-making processes. Digital platforms, interpretive media, and participatory communication strategies can strengthen the articulation among experiential dimensions.

Third, improvements in accessibility should be considered in terms of system integration. Enhancing infrastructural conditions may contribute to greater alignment between experiential domains, rather than being treated solely as an operational issue.

Fourth, the strong association between administrative and complementary dimensions suggests that governance and service provision should be coordinated, ensuring consistency across the experiential system.

Finally, domestic tourism, interpreted through cultural proximity, offers opportunities for sustainable tourism development, supporting regional economies and reducing dependence on long-distance travel.

6.3. Future Research Directions

Future research may extend the ACPM in several directions.

First, alternative model specifications may incorporate outcome variables and directional relationships, enabling the examination of how experiential configurations relate to satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Second, identity-related processes should be explicitly modeled to better understand the symbolic mechanisms underlying tourism experience.

Third, cross-context and longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the stability of experiential configurations across different environments and over time.

Finally, further development of measurement instruments, including scales capturing intra-national cultural variation and affective dimensions, may enhance the precision of configurational research in tourism.

7. Conclusions

This study examined domestic tourism in protected areas through a configurational perspective, developing and empirically validating the Applied Cultural Proximity Model (ACPM) in Cotopaxi National Park. The findings indicate that tourism experience in culturally proximate contexts is structured as a multidimensional system of interrelated dimensions, in which environmental, cultural, managerial, accessibility, complementary, and communication domains co-vary within a unified experiential configuration.

The results demonstrate that experiential meaning in domestic tourism is not primarily driven by novelty or perceived difference, but by processes of familiarity, symbolic continuity, and shared interpretive frameworks. Within this system, Natural attributes exhibit higher perceptual salience within the covariance structure, while cultural and communication dimensions play a central role in the symbolic organization of experience. These patterns support the interpretation of protected areas as integrated experiential systems, rather than as collections of independent attributes.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to tourism research by advancing a configurational and structural approach to experience, shifting the analytical focus from causal explanation toward the organization of experiential dimensions. By introducing cultural proximity as an interpretive framework, the study complements dominant cultural distance perspectives and extends tourism theory to contexts where meaning emerges from coherence within shared symbolic systems rather than from contrast with unfamiliar environments.

Methodologically, the ACPM provides a validated multidimensional measurement model that captures the covariance structure among experiential dimensions. By modeling experience as a system of interdependent constructs, the study demonstrates the applicability of covariance-based structural modeling as a relational analytical framework, offering a foundation for future research exploring alternative model specifications and extensions.

From a managerial standpoint, the findings suggest that domestic tourism in protected areas may be more effectively managed as an integrated experiential system, where environmental, cultural, and communicative elements are structurally aligned. Management strategies oriented toward interpretive design, communication, and accessibility may contribute to strengthening the internal coherence of the experiential configuration, although these implications should be understood in terms of structural alignment rather than causal effects.

Overall, this study contributes to repositioning domestic tourism within tourism research, not as a secondary or simplified form of travel, but as a culturally embedded experiential system in which meaning emerges from interdependence, familiarity, and symbolic continuity. In doing so, it supports an ongoing theoretical shift toward systemic and configurational approaches, expanding the conceptual boundaries of tourism research beyond outcome-based and difference-oriented frameworks.

Future research may extend this approach by incorporating outcome variables, identity-related constructs, and longitudinal designs, enabling a deeper understanding of how experiential configurations evolve across contexts and over time.