**3. Results**

To compare the perspectives that decision makers in the tourism sector and tourism academics/researchers have regarding the causes and effects of tourism competitiveness, as well as the relationship between them, the following tools were used: experton, forgotten effects and Hamming distance between experts, with the last tool showing numerical differences of opinion. Each expert evaluated the cause–effect, cause–cause and effect–effect relationships; the expertons shown in Tables 4–9 were constructed based on these evaluations.

Figure 1 shows the Hamming distance between the two groups of experts regarding the evaluation of the relationship between the causes and effects of tourism competitiveness. The greatest distance, with a value of 0.19, occurs in the relationship between Environmental Commitment and Tourism Demand. The experton which was constructed based on the assessment of this relationship by the sector of academics/researchers was considerably higher than the one obtained by experts in the tourism sector.

In this regard, there is a growing acceptance of public and private stakeholders interested in tourism due to the assumption of a compatibility between the economic benefit and the minimization of the socio-cultural impacts on hosts and tourists with the protection of the natural environment; a situation that raises conflicting attitudes among the actors involved, which are favorable among administrators, researchers and environmental groups, but reluctant in the private sector [68]. It is visualized that this is one of the reasons why the group of academics/researchers reported a higher evaluation with respect to the experts of the tourism sector.

**Table 4.** Expertons made up of the cause–effect valuation carried out by the group of experts from the tourism sector (Matrix M1).


Source: own elaboration.


**Table 5.** Expertons formed from the cause–effect evaluation carried out by the group of academic experts/researchers (Matrix M2).

Source: own elaboration.

**Table 6.** Expertons made up of the cause–cause valuation carried out by the group of experts from the tourism sector (Matrix A1).


Source: own elaboration.


**Table 7.** Expertons made up of the cause–cause valuation carried out by the group of academic experts/researchers (Matrix A2).

Source: own elaboration.

**Table 8.** Expertons made up of the effect–effect valuation carried out by the group of experts from the tourism sector (Matrix B1).


Source: own elaboration.

In Figure 1, it can also be seen that there are relationships in which the distance is zero in the evaluation of both groups of experts. This means that both groups agree on those evaluations; this is found in the relationships of Location–Tourist Demand, Hospitality–Customer Satisfaction and Location–Economic Growth. Regarding the Hospitality–Customer Satisfaction relationship, previous studies show the relationship between them, such as those developed by Oliver [70], who proposed that satisfaction is deduced from the guest's perception of the attention given. Alves and Barcellos [71] indicated that experiences in hospitality and tourist services are the main product of the sector, with an impact and influence on its competitiveness.


**Table 9.** Expertons made up of the effect–effect assessment carried out by the group of academic experts/researchers (Matrix B2).

Source: own elaboration.

**Figure 1.** Hamming distance between expert groups in cause–effect relationships. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 2 shows the Hamming distance between the two groups of experts regarding the evaluation of the relationship between causes and the cause of tourism competitiveness. The greatest distance, with a value of 0.26, occurs in the relationship found between General Infrastructure and Location, and again in this relationship, academic experts were the ones who gave a higher evaluation compared to the evaluations made by the tourism sector experts. In this matrix, there is a diagonal line of the relationships in which the distance is zero. However, this occurs because the evaluation of the cause–cause relationship produces a value of one when it is the same.

Figure 3 shows the Hamming distance between the two groups of experts regarding the evaluation of the relationship between effect–effect of tourism competitiveness. The greatest distance, with a value of 0.25, occurs in the relationship that is found between Customer Loyalty and Sustainable Development. This time, it was also academic experts who evaluated the relationship higher. Note that in this matrix there is also a diagonal line of the relationships in which the distance is zero, which is for the same reasons as in the previous figure.

**Figure 2.** Hamming distance between experts in cause–cause relationships. Source: own elaboration.

**Figure 3.** Hamming distance between experts in effect–effect relationships. Source: own elaboration.

From the information shown in Tables 4–9, the forgotten effects were obtained by each group of experts and with these results. The Hamming distance of the forgotten effects was calculated, which is shown in Figure 4. The greatest distance, with a value of 0.33, occurs in the relationship between Environmental Commitment (cause) and Customer Satisfaction (effect). In this case, the forgotten effect by the academic sector was zero, while the forgotten effect by the tourism sector was 0.33, which indicates that the academic sector has clearly identified the impact of the environmental commitment that a tourist destination has on customer satisfaction, which is a situation in which people who work in the tourism sector have not ye<sup>t</sup> recognized.

Figure 4 shows 30 relationships whose Hamming distance is zero. In this situation, all the effects and all the causes are present except for Accessibility and The Macroenvironment. Cumulatively, the Hamming distance of the effect that shows the highest value is the "Sustainable Development" effect with a value of 1.78, while for the Hamming distance of the causes, the causes with the highest values are "Environmental Commitment" and "Accessibility", with both causes having a value of 1.18.

**Figure 4.** Hamming distance in the forgotten effects. Source: own elaboration.
