Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review examines how gastronomic identity and perceived authenticity affect tourist satisfaction.
Gastronomy is a factor in destination competitiveness; however, studies addressing the integrated role of gastronomic identity and perceived authenticity as determinants of tourist satisfaction remain insufficiently explored. This systematic review examines how both constructs jointly shape satisfaction in gastronomic tourism destinations. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science using a Boolean search strategy based on four conceptual blocks. After applying eligibility criteria and assessing methodological quality using JBI protocols, 12 empirical articles published between 2017 and 2026 were selected. This relatively small corpus reflects the concept-driven focus of the review, which required the simultaneous presence of terms related to gastronomic identity, perceived authenticity, and experience satisfaction, thereby increasing the specificity of the search and reducing its sensitivity. It should therefore not be interpreted as an exhaustive representation of all research on gastronomic tourism. Findings reveal that gastronomic identity operates as a multidimensional cultural stimulus, while perceived authenticity (objective, constructive, and existential) plays a mediating or interpretive role in the relationship between culinary stimuli and satisfaction. Together, these constructs enhance tourist satisfaction and strengthen destination loyalty. Key gaps were identified, including geographic concentration in Europe and Asia, sampling biases, and the absence of hospitality as a moderating variable. The reviewed evidence suggests that both constructs function as interrelated determinants within the Stimulus-Organism-Response model, highlighting the need for destination managers to articulate local culinary heritage to maximize tourism competitiveness coherently.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arpiza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: