Academica Turistica
Tourism & Innovation Journal – Revija za turizem in inovativnost
Year 16, No. 2, August 2023, issn 2335-4194
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16_2
151 Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic:
A Protection Motivation Theory Approach
Damir Magaš, Zrinka Zadel, and Nikolina Šerić Honović
173 Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection:
COVID-19 in the Context of Kerala, India
Aravind Mohanan Potti, Vinith Kumar Nair, and Babu George
191 The Value of Digital Innovation for Tourism Entrepreneurs in Rural Iceland
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson
205 Archaeological Tourism Products: Towards a Concept Definition
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica
221 Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel: Malaysian Case
Jeetesh Kumar, Shameem Shagirbasha, and Rupam Konar
233 The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes on the East Coast of Malaysia
Nor Syuhada Zulkefli, Zaimatul Awang, and Suhaida Herni Suffarruddin
university of primorska press
Executive Editor Marijana Sikošek
Editor-in-Chief Gorazd Sedmak
Associate Editors Metod Šuligoj, Emil Juvan,
Helena Nemec Rudež, and Mitja Gorenak
Technical Editors Mariana Rodela
and Peter Kopić
Production Editor Alen Ježovnik
Editorial Board
Rodolfo Baggio, University di Bocconi, Italy
Štefan Bojnec, University of Primorska, Slovenia
Dušan Borovčanin, Singidunum University, Serbia
Dimitrios Buhalis, Bournemouth University, uk
Célio Gonçalo Cardoso Marques, Polytechnic Institute
of Tomar, Portugal
Frederic Dimanche, Ryerson University, Canada
Johan R. Edelheim,Hokkaido University, Japan
Doris Gomezelj Omerzel, University of Primorska,
Slovenia
Sotiris Hji-Avgoustis, Ball State University, usa
Jafar Jafari, University of Wisconsin-Stout, usa,
University of Algarve, Portugal
Sandra Jankovič, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Sonja Sibila Lebe, University of Maribor, Slovenia
Sari Lenggogeni, Andalas University, Indonesia
Mara Manente, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy
Yoel Mansfeld,University of Haifa, Israel
Tanja Mihalič, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Jasna Potočnik Topler, University of Maribor, Slovenia
Ljudevit Pranić, University of Split, Croatia
Hiroaki Saito, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University,
Japan
Vinod Sasidharan, San Diego State University, usa
Marianna Sigala, University of South Australia
Marios Sotiriadis, Ningbo University, China
Mislav Šimunić, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Andreja Trdina, University of Maribor, Slovenia
Miroslav Vujičić, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Suosheng Wang, Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis, usa
Indexed in Scopus, Erih Plus, cab Abstracts,
ciret, ebsco, and EconPapers.
Published by University of Primorska Press
University of Primorska
Titov trg 4, si-6000 Koper
E-mail: zalozba@upr.si
Web: http://www.hippocampus.si
Editorial Office Academica Turistica
Faculty of Tourism Studies – Turistica
Obala 11a, si-6320 Portorož, Slovenia
E-mail: academica@turistica.si
Web: http://academica.turistica.si
Subscriptions The journal is distributed free
of charge. For information about postage
and packaging prices, please contact us at
academica@turistica.si.
Copy Editor Susan Cook
Cover Design Mateja Oblak
Cover Photo Alen Ježovnik
Printed in Slovenia by Grafika 3000, Dob
Print Run 100 copies
Academica Turistica – Revija za turizem in ino-
vativnost je znanstvena revija, namenjena med-
narodni znanstveni in strokovni javnosti; izhaja v
angleščini s povzetki v slovenščini. Izid publikacije
je finančno podprla Agencija za raziskovalno de-
javnost Republike Slovenije iz sredstev državnega
proračuna iz naslova razpisa za sofinanciranje do-
mačih znanstvenih periodičnih publikacij.
issn 1855-3303 (printed)
issn 2335-4194 (online)
150 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Original Scientific Article
Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Protection
Motivation Theory Approach
Damir Magaš
University of Rijeka, Croatia
dmagas@gmail.com
Zrinka Zadel
University of Rijeka, Croatia
zrinka.zadel@fthm.hr
Nikolina Šerić Honović
University of Rijeka, Croatia
nseric@fthm.hr
This paper aims to investigate beach visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty during the
covid-19 pandemic using the Protection Motivation Theory (pmt) framework.
Through interviews with beach visitors on three separate, distinct beach locations
in Croatia, Primorsko-Goranska County, we identify the antecedents of beach visi-
tor satisfaction and consequent behavioural intentions representing loyalty. A novel,
combined satisfaction/importancemethod to investigate satisfaction with heteroge-
nous beach types is assessed and empirically validated. Using pls-sem structural
equation modelling we identified that natural beach characteristics carry the largest
impact on overall beach satisfaction and the consequent visitors’ behavioural inten-
tions of recommendation and revisit. Furthermore, we find that beach occupancy
has no significant impact on overall satisfaction. Lastly, we demonstrate that fear
and risk of covid-19 moderate the relationship between visitors‘ satisfaction with
beach facilities and their overall experience satisfaction with the beach. Satisfaction
with the overall experience at the beach significantly affects the intentions of recom-
mendation and revisit. This study investigates beach visitors’ satisfaction and loy-
alty under the covid-19 pandemic conditions. We employed the pmt to obtain a
deeper understanding of beach visitors’ preferences during the pandemic. Our re-
sults provide recommendations for management and future research.
Keywords: beach visitors, satisfaction, loyalty, covid-19, protection motivation
theory
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.151-171
Introduction
The covid-19 pandemic has dramatically and nega-
tively impacted the world tourism and leisure sectors
(Duro et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Unlike the previ-
ous health crises sars or mers, covid-19 is highly
infectious and has higher rates of susceptibility (Liu
et al., 2020). The economic impacts of beach tourism
have ledmany countries to reopen borders for tourists
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 151
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
as soon as the number of infection cases decreased
(Zielinski & Botero, 2020). The study of tourists’ beach
experiences has gained importance in the pandemic,
as it was one of the first tourism experiences to become
available post-lockdown in 2020, and to a lesser extent
in 2021. Alegre andCladera (2006) demonstrate that in
the case of the Balearic Islands, satisfaction with sun-
shine and beaches has the strongest impact on over-
all satisfaction with the destination. Beach tourists de-
mand high-quality environments and high-quality ex-
periences (Botero et al., 2013). In recent studies, re-
searchers have begun to focus on tourists’ perception
of beach quality (García-Morales et al., 2018; González
& Holtmann-Ahumada, 2017) and beach tourists’ fu-
ture behaviour intentions (Dodds & Holmes, 2019; Yu
et al., 2021).
At the same time, a growing focus on pandemic-
related risks in tourism research can be observed (Bha-
ti et al., 2021; Rather, 2021). As an affective component
of a tourist’s perceived risk, fear has been identified as
important concerning future travel behaviour (Luo &
Lam, 2020). Protection motivation theory (pmt), de-
veloped by Rogers (1975), offers a theoretical frame-
work under which components of fear appeal are cog-
nitively weighted in a mediating process forming pro-
tection motivation, which in turn, directly affects at-
titude change, or intent to adopt a recommended re-
sponse.
The conceptual model in this research expands
upon themodel proposed inDodds andHolmes (2019)
and is based on the satisfaction with attribute per-
formance levels of the following constructs: satisfac-
tion with natural beach characteristics, satisfaction
with beach facilities, satisfaction with perceived beach
crowding, their respective effects on the satisfaction
with the overall experience of beach visitors, and loy-
altymeasured as behavioural intentions of recommen-
dation and revisit. The covid-19 pandemic condi-
tions are integrated into the model as hypothesised
moderation effects of perceived pandemic-related
health risks of beach visitors utilising the pmt ap-
proach. In this regard we build a model of satisfac-
tion, attitude and behaviour of beach visitors while
controlling for the covid-19-related conditions, to
better understand beach visitor preferences and beach
management priorities under global pandemic condi-
tions.
The research questions that are proposed in this
paper are, thus, how fear and risk of covid-19 inter-
playswith satisfaction of beach visitors, andhowbeach
visitors’ satisfaction with the overall experience at the
beach during the covid-19 pandemic affects their fu-
ture behavioural intentions of recommendation and
revisit.
The aim of this paper is to extend pmt to the
covid-19 pandemic conditions to explore how it has
affected beach tourists’ satisfaction and future be-
havioural intentions. Furthermore, this study inves-
tigates the role of covid-19 perceived fear and risk
as a moderator in influencing visitors’ satisfaction
with natural beach characteristics, beach facilities and
beach crowding.
To investigate these research questions, a quantita-
tive research was conducted on three distinct beaches
of Primorsko-Goranska County in Croatia. Sampled
beach locations along the littoral coastline are shown
in Figure 1.
Theoretical Background
Protection Motivation Theory
Rogers (1975) postulates that three crucial compo-
nents of fear appeal – the magnitude of noxiousness,
probability of occurrence, and efficacy of a protec-
tive response – predict health-protective behaviour,
i.e. protectionmotivation. The magnitude of noxious-
ness initiates the appraisal of severity, the probability
that the event will occur appraises vulnerability and
the efficacy of protective response initiates appraisal
of response efficacy. A threat appraisal process is con-
ducted, which influences the protection motivation.
Furthermore, Rogers (1975) adds that fear is an af-
fective state protecting against possible hazards and a
motivational state directing an individual away from
something, but also an intervention variable, subjected
to stimuli and response, that motivates an organism to
avoid a noxious event.
Protection motivation theory (pmt) has recently
been used by tourism scholars to investigate travel
health risks (Bhati et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019),
tourists’ climate change adaptation intention (Wang
152 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Figure 1 Sampled Beach Sites, Croatia
et al., 2019) and virus outbreaks prevention on cruise
ships (Fisher et al., 2018), among others. Recently,
Rather (2021) revealed that socialmedia during covid-
19 significantly affects customer brand engagement
which in turn has an effect on revisit intention during
covid-19, with the risk of travelling during covid-
19 and fear of covid-19 acting as moderators on the
relationships.
The focus on the pandemic-related fear of travel-
ling during tourists’ stay, and its impact on the beach
tourism experience, offers a further development of
the pmt in the field of tourism during the covid-19
pandemic. This research extends the pmt to investi-
gate how it influences beach visitors’ satisfaction with
beach attributes, overall experience satisfaction, and
their intentions of recommendation and revisit. Ac-
cording to Rather (2021), only a few studies contend
with health-related risks of travellers during the pan-
demic.
The conceptual model in this research is adapted
based on the model proposed by Dodds and Holmes
(2019) and is shown in Figure 2. Since overall satisfac-
tion with a hospitality service or experience is depen-
dent on all individual attributes that make up the ser-
vice or experience (Chi & Qu, 2008), we propose in
Natural
beach char-
acteristics
Perceived
crowding
Beach
facilities
Overall
experience
satisfaction
Recom-
mendation
intention
Revisit
intention
H1 (H6)
H2 (H7)
H3
(H8
)
H4 (H
9)
H5 (H10)
Figure 2 Conceptual Framework
our mode that natural beach characteristics, beach fa-
cilities and visitor perceptions of beach crowding af-
fect overall beach experience. Since the influence of
satisfaction on post-purchase behaviour is well estab-
lished in the literature (Olsen, 2002; Prebensen et al.,
2010), we insert in the model recommendation and
revisit intention as dependant on overall experience
satisfaction. Following Rather (2021) and J. Wang et
al. (2019), we consider the threat and coping appraisal
components of pmt (perceived risk and fear) to affect
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 153
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
beach visitors’ overall experience satisfaction and loy-
alty.
Satisfaction
Customer satisfactionwith products or services is con-
sidered one of the most important determinants of
successful business operations. Anderson and Mittal
(2000) consider customer satisfaction a key link in
the satisfaction-profit chain, and argue that improve-
ment of product or service attribute performance lev-
els leads to an increase in customer satisfaction, which
consecutively leads to higher customer retention and
increased profitability.
While the importance of the satisfaction concept is
considered to be generally acknowledged in the litera-
ture, the approaches to its definition andmeasurement
have been diverse (Morgan et al., 1996). The reason for
this may lie in the fact that various theoretical frame-
works have been used by scholars as bases for conduct-
ing quantitative research, interpreting the results, and
explaining the satisfaction or dissatisfaction process in
customers.
A significant part of earlier research into customer
satisfaction is dominated by the expectancy disconfir-
mation theory of consumer satisfaction. Oliver (1980)
thus defines consumer satisfaction as a function of
expectations and expectancy disconfirmation and ar-
gues it can influence attitude change and purchase in-
tention. The expectancy disconfirmation theory has
been one of the earliest andmost widely used theoreti-
cal frameworks in customer satisfactionmeasurement
(Cadotte et al., 1987; Day, 1977; Oliver, 1976; Oliver,
1980). At the same time, some authors (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982; Tse & Wilton, 1988) find that direct
attribute performance level measurement, as opposed
to the measurement of difference in expected and
perceived performance, can arguably, in some cases,
be a more robust predictor of customer satisfaction.
Both these approaches to satisfaction measurement
presume there is a linear relationship between perfor-
mance and disconfirmation on one side, and customer
satisfaction on the other.
More recent literature on consumer satisfaction
(Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Alegre & Garau, 2011; Mi-
kulić & Prebežac, 2008; Matzler et al., 2004) suggests
classification of product or service attributes, pertain-
ing to the fact that besides linear, asymmetrical rela-
tionshipsmay exist between importance, performance
and satisfaction. The three-factor model of satisfac-
tion (Alegre & Garau, 2011) enables differentiation be-
tween factors that delight visitors and factors that are
perceived as basic service factors. Matzler and Sauer-
wein (2002) group attribute performance indicators
into three factors as dependent on the nature of their
relationship with satisfaction, and propose that (1) Ba-
sic factors act as minimal requirements that affect dis-
satisfaction when performing low, but do not affect
satisfaction when performing high or exceeding ex-
pectation, (2) Performance factors affect both satis-
faction and dissatisfaction, and (3) Excitement factors
affect satisfaction if fulfilled but do not affect dissatis-
faction if they are not.
Cadotte et al. (1987) add that satisfaction is an
emotional response to the result of the confirma-
tion/disconfirmation process of product performance
evaluations. Placing the emotional response within
the confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm, Oliver et
al. (1997) propose that emotions coexist with satisfac-
tion judgment and correlate with satisfaction (Mano&
Oliver, 1993). Spreng et al. (1996) identify that subjec-
tive satisfaction judgments of service attribute perfor-
mance influence overall satisfaction, which is in turn,
an emotional reaction to a product or service.
In the context of customer satisfaction in tourism,
previous research has shown that satisfaction with
tourism destinations (Court & Lupton, 1997; Kozak
& Rimmington, 2000) and satisfaction with tourism
experiences (Chen & Chen, 2010; Prayag et al., 2017)
contribute to tourism destination loyalty. Chi and Qu
(2008) investigate how destination image and satis-
faction with attributes of a tourism destination af-
fect overall satisfaction and loyalty; their findings in-
dicate that destination image affects overall satisfac-
tion. Furthermore, destination attribute satisfaction
affects overall satisfaction and overall satisfaction af-
fects destination loyalty. Considering satisfaction with
the sun and sea tourism destinations, Alegre and Ga-
rau (2011) reveal that the most important among the
performance factors are in fact beaches, while consid-
ering familiarity with a destination as an excitement
154 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
factor, linked to the affective and emotional dimen-
sions of satisfaction.
Loyalty
Early loyalty research has been concerned with the
concept of brand loyalty, with three approaches to
measurement: behavioural measures, attitudinal mea-
sures and composite measures, as the combination
of behavioural and attitudinal measures (Jacoby &
Chestnut, 1978). Behavioural measures of loyalty (Op-
permann, 2000) are based on actual purchasing be-
haviour or reported purchasing behaviour. Attitudi-
nal measures of loyalty include consumer preferences,
intentions and affection for a brand (Petrick, 2005).
Oppermann (2000) argues that a composite measure
of loyalty, taken as a combination of behavioural and
attitudinal measures, may be a more comprehensive
measure, but not as practical, due to the question of
weighing of the behavioural and attitudinal compo-
nents in the composite approach to measurement.
Since repeated purchasing behaviour may be out of
convenience or because of other factors not related to
brand loyalty (Jacoby&Chestnut, 1978),measurement
of behavioural loyalty as actual repurchase behaviour
has not taken significant root in modern literature
(Olsen, 2002), and researchers have instead relied pre-
dominantly on attitudinal measures, which, in more
recent literature, are commonly referred to as loyalty
behaviours (Pinkus et al., 2016) or (future) behavioural
intentions (Žabkar et al., 2010). This approach tomea-
surement is based on the popular (Ajzen, 1991) theory
of planned behaviour, which states that behavioural
intentions are a reliable predictor of future behaviour.
Two typical behaviours of consumer loyalty in tourism
are the willingness to recommend (positive word of
mouth) and intention of revisit (intention of return),
and may be regarded as two subdimensions of loyalty
(Bosque & San Martín, 2008). These are commonly
conceptually combined in modern tourism loyalty
research (Chi & Qu, 2008). However, some destina-
tions require considerable effort and expense to visit
(Pinkus et al., 2016), and this fact may influence their
future intentions. For example, in their investigation
of tourists to the Galapagos islands of Ecuador, Rivera
andCroes (2010) found that tourists will gladly recom-
mend the destination, but will not consider revisiting.
Other reasons for wanting to recommend a destina-
tion, but not consider revisit may include general nov-
elty seeking in tourism (Kim&Chen, 2019; Lončarić et
al., 2018). For these reasons willingness to recommend
and intention of revisit should bemodelled as separate
constructs but may conceptually be used together to
describe loyalty in tourism.
Building on the attitudinal, i.e. behavioural inten-
tion, approach to loyalty, Oliver (1999) explains that
consumers become loyal in a cognitive sense first,
then in an affective sense, following a conativemanner
and finally a behavioural manner. Cognitive loyalty is
based on available information about the brand, be-
liefs, and prior experience. Affective loyalty is a posi-
tive attitude toward the brand developed on a basis of
a continuous number of previous purchases and is not
as easily dislodged from the consumer mind by mar-
keting of other alternative brands. Conative loyalty is
influenced by the affective stage and implies a serious
commitment of repurchase. In the final stage of action
loyalty, the repurchase commitment is accompanied
by the desire to do so, nomatter the obstacles encoun-
tered.
Edvardsson et al. (2000) expand this framework
and differentiate between bought and earned loyalty,
as well as between loyalty to product companies and
loyalty to service companies. Bought loyalty is earned
through indirect payments to customers in the sense
of loyalty programmes andmember discounts. Earned
loyalty, on the other hand, results in an affective attach-
ment of the customer to the company or brand, which
is not as easily removed by marketing of competitors.
The authors furthermore demonstrate empirically that
satisfaction impacts profitability significantly in the
service loyalty model, while in the product loyalty
model, the effect is also significant, but smaller. The
impact of loyalty onprofitability for serviceswas found
to be positive, while for the products it was found to be
negative. The findings of their study suggest that for
services, revenue growth comes primarily indirectly
through satisfaction and word-of-mouth recommen-
dation, while, on the other hand, product companies
rely more on paid loyalty strategies, which have a neg-
ative effect on profitability.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 155
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Loyal visitors are important to destination man-
agers as it is less expensive to retain visitors than
seek new ones (Thomas, 2001); they are more likely
to spread positive word of mouth with no extra cost
(Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999), while typically attribut-
ing service errors to uncontrollable factors (Weiner,
2000). The concept of loyalty in tourism includes, but
is not exclusive to: tourism destination loyalty (Ni-
ininen & Riley, 2003; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Meleddu
et al., 2015), hotel brand loyalty (So et al., 2013; Nam
et al., 2011), loyalty to digital tourism platforms such
as Airbnb (Lalicic & Weismayer, 2018) and, more re-
cently, loyalty to nature-based tourism destination
settings (Pinkus et al., 2016; Mirzaalian & Halpenny,
2021).
Perceived COVID-19 Fear
Fear is an emotion that is activated when a danger-
ous situation is perceived as a risk to personal safety,
or safety of others (Garcia, 2017). The covid-19 pan-
demic has significantly influenced individual percep-
tions of fear and risk (Hassan & Soliman, 2021). In
accordance with pmt (Dillard et al., 2012) individual
perception of risk from an event may motivate pro-
tective behaviour related to that event. Ahorsu et al.
(2022) suggest that perceived fear of covid-19 may
even amplify the damage of the disease, and with high
levels of fear, individuals may not be rational in mak-
ing their decisions.
Studies thus far have identified a significant influ-
ence of the covid-19 pandemic on tourists’ perceived
risk (Lu et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2021), travel in-
tention (Turnšek et al., 2020) and behaviour (Bae &
Chang, 2021).
Some authors model fear of covid-19 as a mod-
erator between previously established relationships
from the literature (Hassan & Soliman, 2021; Rather,
2021). Hassan and Soliman (2021) find that fear arousal
concerning covid-19moderates the relationships be-
tween destination reputation and revisit intention.
Furthermore, Turnšek et al. (2020) add that in the case
of women, age affects the level of perceived threat,
while people with higher education perceive higher
risk. T. H. Lee and Jan (2023) find that travellers’
personality traits are also connected to different lev-
els of risk perceptions concerning covid-19. Lu et
al. (2022) suggest that perceived risk of covid-19 is
linked to temporal dynamics of the pandemic, ge-
ographical distance from outbreak areas, and differ-
ences in regional tourism development.
Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis
Development
Satisfaction with Beach Natural Characteristics and
Overall Experience Satisfaction
According to Pizam et al. (1978), tourist satisfaction
is the result of interaction between a tourist’s experi-
ence with the destination and their expectations about
the destination. Expectations have widely been ex-
plored (Roca & Villares, 2008; Lozoya et al., 2014)
in the study of beach visitors. A significant number
of studies (Roca et al., 2008; Roca et al., 2009; Marin
et al., 2009) measure visitor satisfaction with beach
natural and environmental characteristics. The find-
ings indicate that visitors highly value both the natural
and environmental beach characteristics. Dodds and
Holmes (2019) find that both satisfaction with nat-
ural characteristics and facilities are correlated with
overall satisfaction. Based on these arguments the first
hypothesis is proposed as:
h1 Satisfaction with natural beach characteristics
has a significant impact on overall experience
satisfaction.
Tourism and marketing literature has established
that attribute-based performance evaluations of prod-
ucts/service quality affect overall satisfaction (Alegre
& Cladera, 2006; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Grappi &
Montanari, 2011; Giese & Cote, 2000). Baloglu et al.
(2004) argue that empirical work concerning the ef-
fect of experience attributes of products/services on
overall satisfaction leads to a better understanding of
the relative contribution of these attributes to the over-
all experience and/or behavioural intention.
Beach Crowding and Overall Experience Satisfaction
Beaches are vulnerable socio-ecological systems and
are under increased pressure of high tourist visita-
tion during the summer season. According to Da Silva
(2002), the straightforward notion of less crowding
156 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
equalsmore quality, or better tourist experience, is not
always applicable, particularly in the context of beach
experiences. Studies of beach crowding often use the
concept of available space in m2/visitor to estimate
crowding, i.e. determine the beach carrying capacity
thresholds. Roca et al. (2008) investigated the effect
of sand area availability in m2/visitor in their study of
the Spanish Catalan coast and found that there is no
statistically significant relationship between sand area
availability and visitor satisfaction. Furthermore, the
results showed that minimum mean values observed
were often lower than recommended thresholds in the
literature, which, depending on the author, amount to
4 – 6m2 per visitor available for themost congested ur-
ban beach type (Roca et al., 2008). Cabezas-Rabadán
et al. (2019) find that beach visitor density is very sub-
jective in connection to the evaluation of crowding.
Indeed, previous research (Da Silva, 2002; Kane et al.,
2021) identified that beach visitors congregate in the
area less than 30–50 meters away from the sea and
often group together (Guyonnard & Vacher, 2016).
However, since data on beach crowding preferences
during a global pandemic is scarce and limited to the
usa (Kane et al., 2021), we formulate the second hy-
pothesis as:
h2 There is a statistically significant relationship
between perceived crowding on the beach and
the overall experience satisfaction at the beach.
We measure perceived crowding as perceptions
of satisfaction with the space available at the beach,
crowding and noise, following the social carrying ca-
pacity paradigm. Shelby and Heberlein (1984, p. 433)
define social carrying capacity as the ‘level of use be-
yond which experience parameters exceed acceptable
levels.’ High crowding may lead to reduced available
space on the beach and produce presence of unpleas-
ant noise.
Beach Facilities and Overall Experience Satisfaction
Research conducted thus far offers mixed results on
the connection between visitors’ satisfaction with the
beach and their satisfactionwith beach facilities. Beach
visitors were found to prioritise beach facilities at ur-
ban beach locations (Lozoya et al., 2014). However,
Peña-Alonso et al. (2018) find that visitors place im-
portance on the quality of beach facilities in both nat-
ural and semi-urban environments. Frampton (2010)
argues that, following the holistic beach management
approach, facilities and amenities must be included
in beach evaluation, as they meet the needs of those
who use the beach. Evaluation of beach facilities are
also part of the bare (Bathing Area and Registration
Evaluation system) scheme developed by Micallef and
Williams (2004). Dodds andHolmes (2019) found that
beach facilities have a positive impact on overall expe-
rience satisfaction. We thus formulate the third hy-
pothesis as:
h3 Beach facilities have a positive effect on overall
experience satisfaction.
Beach facilities and amenities are identified as im-
portant in the literature (Botero et al., 2013) and amin-
imum service offer is expected by beach visitors (Lo-
zoya et al., 2014).However, a ‘diminishing return’ func-
tion is hypothesised by some researchers. For instance,
Marin et al. (2009) argue thatwhen the anthropic pres-
sure is too high, the result can be a ‘banalisation’ of
the natural marine environment. Furthermore, Roca
and Villares (2008) argue that overexploitation of the
beach area results in reduction of available beach sur-
face and influences perceived crowding.
Loyalty: Intention to Recommend and Intention
of Revisit
Oliver defines loyalty as ‘a deeply held commitment
to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product/service
consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive
same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite
situational influences and marketing efforts having
the potential to cause switching behaviour’ (Oliver,
1999, p. 34). Borrowing an environmental psychology
perspective of place attachment (Scannell & Gifford,
2010), we derive thatOliver’s product/service-oriented
definition is applicable to the concept of a tourists’ loy-
alty to a beach, i.e. a specific place.
According to Yoon and Uysal (2005), repeat pur-
chases or recommendations to others are the most
usual indicators of consumer loyalty in marketing lit-
erature. Previous research studies of loyalty in tourism
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 157
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
have established that high level of satisfaction leads
to intention of recommendation (Oppermann, 2000;
Prebensen et al., 2010) and intention of revisit (Hai et
al., 2020). According to Alegre and Cladera (2006),
repeat visitors are likely to return to the destination,
but the main determinant of repeat visitation is high
satisfaction.
The satisfied tourist has a tendency to express a
favourable opinion about the destination and is likely
to recommend the destination to others or revisit
(Verma & Rajendran, 2017). According to Zeithaml
et al. (1996), when customers express preference for
a company over available alternatives in the form of
competition, increase the volume of purchase, or are
willing to pay a price premium, they are behaviourally
bonding with the company. Word of mouth recom-
mendations are highly regarded information among
tourists (Prebensen et al., 2010), and are also typically
perceived as highly reliable (Chi & Qu, 2008). Logi-
cally, we formulate hypothesis 4 as:
h4 Overall experience satisfaction positively affects
the intention to recommend the beach.
Regarding beach visitors,Dodds andHolmes (2019)
find that overall experience satisfaction at the beach is
positively correlated with intention of revisit. How-
ever, Assaker and Hallak (2012) find that some tourist
segments, even when satisfied with the destination,
may not revisit, and at the same time, some segments
that are not satisfied might revisit. Consequently, we
examine the following hypothesis.
h5 Overall experience satisfaction positively affects
the intention to revisit the beach.
By understanding the relationship between pro-
vided services and their connection to visitor satis-
faction and loyalty, destination managers are better
informed on how to influence the creation of satisfac-
tion and loyalty among destination visitors (Petrick,
2005).
Moderating Role of covid-19 Perceived Fear and Risk
Previous studies have established the relation between
health protective behaviour and travel behaviour (Bha-
ti et al., 2021; Park & Almanza, 2020). Rather (2021)
revealed that perception of fear and risk of covid-19
moderates relationships between social media, con-
sumer brand engagement, co-creation, and revisit in-
tention. In exploring the links between destination
reputation and revisit intention, and between per-
ceived trust and revisit intention during the covid-
19 pandemic, Hassan and Soliman (2021) also found a
moderating role of fear arousal. This study models the
perceived risk and fear of covid-19 as a moderator
in a conceptual model of attribute satisfaction, over-
all experience satisfaction and loyalty of beach visitors
following the framework of Oliver (1993).
In context of beaches, Botero et al. (2013) have es-
tablished that water and sand quality are top prefer-
ences of beach visitors in urban and rural areas. Hong
et al. (2020) demonstrate that tourists placed great im-
portance on natural and green areas in b&b tourism
during the covid-19 pandemic. Visitor perceptions
of the beach and sea environment as unclean or unhy-
gienic during a pandemic, according to the pmt, may
trigger health protective behaviour which in turn may
moderate the relationship between satisfaction with
natural beach characteristics and overall experience
satisfaction. We therefore propose to examine the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
h6 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between satisfaction with natural
beach characteristics and overall experience sat-
isfaction.
Previous research (Cumberbatch & Moses, 2011)
has established that perceptions of ‘too many people’
and lack of personal space are the main factors that
cause beach visitors to perceive the beach as crowded.
According to De Ruyck et al. (1997), beach visitors’
group size affects space taken on the beach inversely;
the larger the group size, the less beach space was used
by the group. covid-19 protocols include safe dis-
tance from others as an avoidance strategy, and fear
of covid-19 may moderate the relationship between
perceived crowding and overall experience satisfac-
tion. We therefore examine the following hypothesis:
h7 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between perceived crowding on the
beach and overall experience satisfaction.
Ivanova et al. (2021) find that hygiene, disinfection,
158 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and a reliable health system in a destination are leading
factors in deciding to travel. At the same time, clean
drinking water, good sanitary conditions and hygiene
of the environment, restaurants and accommodation
is expected by tourists (Liu et al., 2014; Bhati et al.,
2021). Logically, we propose to examine the following
hypothesis:
h8 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship of satisfaction with beach facilities
and overall experience satisfaction.
Since personal behaviour varies by the individual’s
perceived risk level (Kim & Chen, 2019), we propose
to examine the possible moderation of covid-19 fear
on the relationship between overall experience satis-
faction and intention to recommend.We thus propose
the following hypothesis:
h9 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between overall experience satisfac-
tion and intention to recommend.
As consumers have a higher preference to avoid
risk than maximize utility, perceived risk is an im-
portant factor in an effort to explain purchase be-
haviour (Yu et al., 2021) and is part of the pmt model.
Perceived risk experienced during travel and recre-
ational activities may moderate the relationship be-
tween overall experience satisfaction and intention to
revisit. Consequently, we propose to examine the fol-
lowing scientific hypothesis:
h10Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between overall experience satisfac-
tion and intention to revisit.
Research Design
The data for the purpose of hypothesis testing was ob-
tained by quantitative research (N = 377). A structured
questionnaire was used as a survey instrument. The
three beaches represent a natural (n = 121), municipal
(n = 152), and urban beach (n = 104).
Operationalisation of the Constructs
The original set of 23 items measuring beach natural
characteristics, crowding and facilities on the beach
was reduced to 17, as 6 items from the beach facilities
construct were deleted based on the statistical signifi-
cance of the formative construct outer loadings crite-
ria (Hair et al., 2017).
Satisfaction measures of performance for seven
items measuring satisfaction with natural beach char-
acteristics were adopted from previous research (Roca
et al., 2009). These include: nc1 – Beach sediment tex-
ture, nc2 – Available shade on the beach, nc3 – Tex-
ture of beach sediment when entering the sea, nc4 –
Cleanliness of the sea, nc5 – Opportunities to observe
maritime species, nce1 – Litter/plastic on the beach,
and nc_scn – Beach scenery and local landscape. Fol-
lowing the socio-ecological systems (Refulio-Corona-
do et al., 2021) paradigm of coastal and marine envi-
ronments, natural beach characteristics are modelled
together with perceptions of water and sand cleanli-
ness in a single construct.
Beach crowding items were adapted from previ-
ous research (Roca et al., 2008; Lozoya et al., 2014).
Namely, items occ1 – Available space on the beach
and occ – 3 Crowding on the beach. We insert also
item occ2 –Noise on the beach, as Cumberbatch and
Moses (2011) find that presence of unpleasant noise
on the beach, associated with the various activities
of beach visitors, may contribute to perceptions of a
crowded beach.
Regarding beach visitor satisfaction with beach fa-
cilities, itemswere adapted formRoca et al. (2009) and
Lozoya et al. (2014). These include measures of gen-
eral beach facilities (bf1 – Changing room availabil-
ity, bf2 – Available parking space, . . .), sanitary facili-
ties (bsan1 – Litter bin availability, bsan2 – Shower
availability, . . .), recreation facilities bf4 – Areas for
sport, recreation, and children’s play on the beach and
bf5 –Accessibility to the beach and sea for persons with
disabilities.
Overall experience satisfaction at the beach is based
on the scale proposed in Oliver (1997) and adapted
for this research, containing affective (1 – I really en-
joyed this beach), cognitive (2 – I made a wise choice
to visit this beach) and fulfilment (3 – This beach is ex-
actly what I needed) components of satisfaction. This
original scale was expanded by del Bosque and San
Martín (2008) by a single overall satisfaction measure
which was also included and adapted for this research
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 159
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
(4 – I am satisfied with the overall experience at this
beach).
Loyalty is measured in constructs of intention to
recommend the beach and intention of revisit. These
two constructs measuring loyalty represent attitudinal
loyalty in the form of behavioural intention. The In-
tention to revisit construct includes two items adapted
from del Bosque and San Martín (2008) (1 – I will try
to visit this beach again and 2 – I think I will visit this
beach) and one item adapted fromDodds andHolmes
(2019) (3 – I will probably visit this beach again). In-
tention to recommend items were included using the
three items adapted from Prayag et al. (2017) based on
Grappi and Montanari (2011) and Lee et al. (2008).
We measure perceived risk and fear of covid-
19 as a single reflective construct with 2 items which
demonstrate high face validity: 1 – I feel safe on this
beach and 2 – I do not fear getting covid-19 on this
beach. The 2 items of the Perceived risk and fear of
covid-19 construct were generated for the purpose
of this research by a focus group including university
professors. As the results in Table 2 demonstrate, the
construct exhibits satisfactory levels of reliability and
convergent validity.
Appendix A presents the full list of items. Items
were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Since the natural beach contained almost no facil-
ities from the original set of items, we proxied sat-
isfaction with importance on the natural beach. We
find justification in this approach as, according to Teas
(1993), a perceived ability of a product to deliver satis-
faction can be conceptualised as a conformation with
a consumer’s ideal product features.
Data Collection
The research was conducted on three distinct beaches
of Primorsko-GoranskaCounty in Croatia: City beach
in the municipality of Crikvenica, Ploče beach in the
city of Rijeka and Klančac beach in the municipal-
ity of Brseč. The investigation took place during the
months of July, August and September of 2021. Beach
visitors were approached on each beach location with
a formal introduction, explanation of study goals and
assurance of anonymity. The research was conducted
only on working days of the week, between the hours
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
Variables Categories () ()
Gender Male . 
Female . 
Age (years) – . 
– . 
– . 
– . 
– . 
Above  . 
Education Elementary school . 
Highschool . 
University degree . 
phd . 
Visitor type Domestic tourist . 
Foreign tourist . 
Local resident . 
Season resident . 
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) proportion (),
(2) frequency.
of 09.00 am – 12.00 am and 03.00 pm – 06.00 pm to
avoid high sun exposure of the investigators. A pilot
study was carried out in order to ensure all questions
were clear to the respondents, establish the feasibility
of the research protocol and test the sampling strategy.
Feedback from the pilot studywas used in the final ver-
sions of the research protocol and questionnaire. The
sampling strategy used was a stratified random sam-
ple approach. Age and gender proportion stratums on
each beach were estimated daily, and the random sam-
plewas picked proportionally to and from ratio sizes of
stratums identified. Both tourists and the local popu-
lation are part of the sample, following the sustainable
development paradigm.
Descriptive statistics show that 59.4 of the sam-
ple are female and 40.6 are male respondents. Fur-
thermore, 21 of respondents were between the age
of 15–24, 16.7 were 25–34, 20.7 were 35–44, 25.7
were 45–54, 10.9 were 55–64 and 5 were 65 years
and above. The results of the descriptive analysis are
presented in Table 1.
160 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
CommonMethod Variance (CMV)
cmv is variance that originates from themeasurement
method rather than the measurement of constructs,
and can be a problem commonly known as method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Employing the commonly
usedHarman’s single factor test for assessing cmv, we
find that most of the variance is not explained by a
single factor. In fact, variance explained by one fac-
tor amounted to 22.9 of total variance explained. We
conclude that cmv is not an issue in this research.
Research Results
Themodel was tested using partial least squares struc-
tural equation modelling (pls-sem) with Smartpls
3.3.5 software. pls-sem has become a standard tool
for analysing complex relationships between variables
in tourism and many other fields of study (Sarstedt
et al., 2020). The pls-sem approach is recommended
due to the ability of generating high statistical power
with smaller sample sizes, workingwith non-normally
distributed data and different scale types, while taking
a predictive modelling approach (Hair et al., 2017).
Reflective Measurement Model Assessment
Since our model includes both formative and reflec-
tive constructs, we report the reliability and validity
results for the reflective constructs separately in Ta-
ble 2. All the constructs factor loadings are above the
0.7 threshold value (Hair et al., 2017). Composite re-
liability values range from 0.95–0.89, while the Cron-
bach’s alpha values are in the range of 0.77–0.93. The
lowest value for alpha is 0.77 and it is associated with
the perceived fear/risk from covid-19, which is at
an acceptable level for exploratory research (Hair et
al., 2017). Cronbach’s alpha values of other constructs
range from0.90–0.93 and display excellent levels of re-
liability. Average variance extracted (ave) is ameasure
of convergent validity and the recommended thresh-
old is above 0.5. ave ranges from values of 0.81–0.88.
Thus, the measures of the reflective constructs have
high levels of convergent validity.We conclude that the
reflective constructs indicators are reliable and conver-
gently valid.
Next, we assess the discriminant validity of the
reflective constructs using the Fornell and Larcker
Table 2 Reliability and Validity of Reflective Model Items
() () () () () () ()
(a) c . . . . . .
c .
(b) sate . . . . . .
sate .
sate .
sate .
(c) reci . . . . . .
reci .
reci .
(d) ri . . . . . .
ri .
ri .
Notes Constructs: (a) perceived fear/risk of covid-19, (b)
overall experience satisfaction, (c) recommendation inten-
tion, (d) revisit intention. Column headings are as follows:
(1) items, (2) average variance extracted, (3) composite relia-
bility, (4) Cronbach alpha, (5) mean, (6) standard deviation,
(7) outer loadings.
(1981) criterion followed by the heterotrait-monotrait
(htmt) criterion as recommended byHair et al. (2017).
The results are represented in Table 3 and Table 4, re-
spectively.
The squared root of each construct’s ave is higher
than correlations with other constructs, as shown in
Table 3, by which discriminant validity using the For-
nell and Larcker criterion is established.We do not cal-
culate ave for the formative variables as this measure
is appropriate only for reflective construct assessment.
All htmt values are below the recommended thresh-
old of 0.9, as shown in Table 4. This result confirms
discriminant validity of the reflective constructs using
the htmt criterion.
Formative Measurement Model Assessment
In this section we assess the formative constructs in-
dicators for issues of collinearity and test their statisti-
cal significance. According to Hair et al. (2017), a vif
indicator value of 5 and higher represents a possible
collinearity problem. Table 5 presents the vif for the
formative constructs’ indicators. All values are below
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 161
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 3 Discriminant Validity by Fornell and Larcker’s
Criterion
() () () ()
() .
() . .
() . . .
() . . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: (1) covid-19
fear/risk, (2) overall satisfaction, (3) recommendation inten-
tion, (4) revisit intention.
Table 4 Discriminant Validity by htmt Criterion
() () ()
() .
() . .
() . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: (1) covid-19
fear/risk, (2) overall satisfaction, (3) recommendation inten-
tion, (4) revisit intention.
the recommended threshold of 5; this indicates that
the issue of collinearity is not a problem in the forma-
tive indicators. All items are statistically significant at
p < 0.01 level except items nc2 and and occ2, which
are significant at p < 0.05 level.
Structural Model Evaluation
Next, we evaluate the structural model. Using stan-
dardised root mean square residual (srmr) we evalu-
ate the model fit. We also investigate the model’s path
coefficients, coefficients of determination of endoge-
nous constructs – R2, effect size of exogenous on en-
dogenous constructs – f 2, predictive relevance – Q2,
and effect size of the predicted effect – q2. The srmr
value in this research (srmr = 0.053) indicates a good
fit as it is below the recommended conservative thresh-
old of 0.08 (Hair et al., 2017). R2 values are as follows:
Overall satisfaction – R2 = 0.44, recommendation in-
tention – R2 = 0.67 and revisit intention – R2 = 0.58.
Following guidelines from the literature, overall satis-
faction displays moderate to weak R2 values, while the
recommendation and revisit intention R2 values may
be described as moderate to substantial. All Stone-
Table 5 Assessment of Formative Model
Constructs with variables () () ()
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bsan → Facilities . . .
bsan → Facilities . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nce → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc_scn → Natural Character. . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) outer loadings,
(2) p values, (3) VIF.
Geisser’sQ2 values for endogenous constructs (overall
satisfaction: 0.35, recommendation intention: 0.56 and
intention to revisit: 0.50) are positive, which estab-
lishes the predictive relevance of the proposed model
(Hair et al., 2017).
Furthermore, q2 values of predictive effect size of
exogenous construct’s contribution to an endogenous
latent variable Q2 were calculated. In the proposed
model the calculation was possible for the influence of
satisfaction with natural characteristics on overall sat-
isfaction and the influence of satisfactionwith facilities
on overall satisfaction. The q2 resulted in values of 0.23
and 0.03, respectively. Satisfaction with natural char-
acteristics has a moderately strong predictive effect
size on overall satisfaction, while satisfaction with fa-
cilities has a weak predictive effect size. All constructs
in the proposed model are statistically significant at
p < 0.01, except occupancy, which is not statisti-
cally significant. The results are displayed in Tables 6
and 7.
162 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 6 Structural Model Results
Hypothesis/paths β p f 2 Supported
h Natural Characteristics→ Overall Satisfaction . . . Yes
h Crowding→ Overall Satisfaction . . . No
h Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction . . . Yes
h Overall Satisfaction→ Recommendation Intention . . . Yes
h Overall Satisfaction→ Revisit intention . . . Yes
Notes Overall satisfaction R2 = 0.44, Q2 = 0.35; recommendation intention R2 = 0.67, Q2 = 0.56; revisit intention R2 = 0.58,
Q2 = 0.50. β – regression coefficient, p – statistical significance, f 2 – effect size.
Table 7 Predictive Effect Sizes
Paths () () ()
Natural Characteristics→ Overall
Satisfaction
. . .
Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1)Q2 included, (2)
Q2 excluded, (3) q2.
Moderation Analysis
In the final stage, the moderating effect of perceived
fear and risk of covid-19 is assessed in the proposed
relationships between satisfaction with natural beach
characteristics and overall satisfaction, between satis-
faction with beach facilities and overall satisfaction,
and between overall satisfaction and intentions of rec-
ommendation and revisit. Since the perceived crowd-
ing effect on overall satisfaction is not statistically sig-
nificant, we do not test the moderating effect in this
relationship. Thus, Hypotheses h7 is rejected. The
product indicator approachwas used as themoderator
calculation method and the product term generated
was standardised following recommendations from
the literature (Rasoolimanesh, Wang et al., 2021). The
results of the hypothesised moderating relationships
are displayed in Table 8. The only statistically signifi-
cant (p < 0.05) moderated relationship in the model
is between beach facilities and overall satisfaction. The
negative beta coefficient in the supported moderation
indicates that an increase in the perceived fear/risk
of covid-19 increases the effect of satisfaction with
beach facilities on overall satisfaction with the beach.
Lower values on the covid-19 fear/risk scale indicate
higher values of perceived fear/risk. The effect size is
weak at f 2 = 0.02. The results are displayed in Table 8.
Discussion
As the results of our investigation show, natural beach
characteristics have the largest effect on overall visi-
tor satisfaction, even during the covid-19 pandemic,
confirming h1. These results support the findings of
previous research (Dodds & Holmes, 2019; Lozoya et
al., 2014)which reports that beach visitors highly value
natural beach characteristics. However, as demon-
strated in Lozoya et al. (2014), there are significant
differences in beach visitor preferences between differ-
ent beach types. The authors find that visitors placed
higher importance on natural beach characteristics
than facilities, in a natural beach setting, while on the
urban beach, a higher proportion of visitors valued
facilities over natural characteristics.
As for the relationship between perceived crowd-
ing on the beach and overall beach visitor experience
satisfaction, our investigation finds no significant con-
nection, thus h2 is rejected. These results support
the findings of previous research. Namely, Roca et al.
(2008) demonstrate a limited descriptive influence of
higher beach area availability on beach visitor satis-
faction; however, they find no significant correlation.
Taking both these results into consideration, we sug-
gest the possibility of an asymmetrical relationship
between crowding at the beach and beach visitor expe-
rience satisfaction. Namely, higher levels of perceived
crowding may influence only visitor dissatisfaction,
while a lower level of perceived crowding does not
lead to higher levels of beach visitor satisfaction. It
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 163
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 8 Moderation Analysis
Hypothesis/tested paths β p Moderation
h covid- Moderating Effect Natural characteristics→Overall Satisfaction –. . No
h covid- Moderating effect Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction –. . Yes
h covid- Moderating Effect Overall satisfaction→ Recommendation Intention . . No
h covid- Moderating Effect Overall satisfaction→ Revisit Intention –. . No
seems a certain ‘baseline performance’ of crowding at
the beach is expected by visitors and is an integral part
of the overall beach experience, and consequently the
sun and sea tourism destination product.
Next, the results indicate that beach facilities have
a significant positive effect on overall experience sat-
isfaction at the beach, thus confirming hypothesis
h3. These results are in line with previous research
(Rodella & Corbau, 2020) which has established that
visitors value highly good quality services and facil-
ities, even in natural beach settings (Lozoya et al.,
2014). Furthermore, Botero et al. (2013) find that beach
facilities are among the top three priorities of visi-
tors at both European and Caribbean beaches. Beach
managers should take special interest in visitor pref-
erences and evaluations regarding beach facilities at
each beach location, as it is an important feature di-
rectly under their control.
Our investigation shows that overall experience
satisfaction positively affects the intention to recom-
mend the beach and the intention of revisit, thus
confirming hypothesis h4 and hypothesis h5, respec-
tively. These results are in line with previous research,
which has established that (Žabkar et al., 2010) tour-
ism destination attributes affect perceived destination
quality and consequently tourist satisfaction and be-
havioural intentions. This hypothesis has also been
confirmed as valid in the case of nature-based desti-
nations (Pinkus et al., 2016), and particularly beaches
(Dodds & Holmes, 2019).
Research results did not support hypothesis h6,
concerning the existence of a moderating effect of
covid-19 fear and risk between the relationship of sat-
isfactionwith natural beach characteristics and overall
experience satisfaction. This indicates that even in the
presence of a health/safety risk during the pandemic,
visitors perceive the natural beach environment as rel-
atively safe. This may be explained by the fact that epi-
demiological studies of covid-19 (Qian et al., 2021)
suggest that there is higher risk of covid-19 infec-
tion indoors than outdoors. Furthermore, Kane et al.
(2021) argue that coastal environments offer lower risk
of infection than regular outdoor areas, due to the dis-
persion of respiratory droplets in the regular airflow
of the coastline. As perceived crowding does not affect
overall experience satisfaction at the beach, the hy-
pothesis h7 concerning a possible moderating effect
of covid-19 fear and risk between perceived crowd-
ing and overall experience satisfaction was not tested
and is thus rejected.
Beach facilities affect overall satisfaction positively,
but as the moderation analysis has shown, when the
perceived fear and risk are higher, the influence of
beach facilities on overall satisfaction is stronger, con-
firming hypothesis h8. Since previous research has
demonstrated (Yu et al., 2021) that emotion regulation
ability is a significant moderator between perceived
risk of covid-19 and stress, the availability of nec-
essary facilities at the beach can aid visitors in their
ability to regulate perceived risk, which in turn leads
to higher overall experience satisfaction levels. These
results support the findings of Hassan and Soliman
(2021), which show that fear arousal has a modera-
tion impact on the relationships between visitors’ per-
ceived trust and revisit intention, social responsibility
and revisit intention, and between destination reputa-
tion and revisit intention.
No moderating effect of covid-19 fear and risk
has been found between the paths of overall experi-
ence satisfaction and recommendation intention, thus
hypothesis h9 is rejected. The reason for this may lie
in the fact that 39.8 of the respondents had signifi-
164 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
cant previous experience with the beach and the des-
tination, namely domestic tourists, local and seasonal
residents. Rasoolimanesh, Seyfi et al. (2021) find that
past experience with a destination is a significant fac-
tor contributing to tourists’ willingness to support a
destination. According to Han and Hyun (2015), pre-
vious travel experience tends to create trust and min-
imises future travel risk perceptions.
Finally, no moderating effect of covid-19 fear and
risk was found between overall experience satisfaction
and revisit intention, thus hypothesis h10 is not con-
firmed. These results are opposite to those of Rather
(2021), who finds that perceived covid-19 fear mod-
erates the relationship between consumer brand en-
gagement and revisit intention. Furthermore, Hassan
and Soliman (2021) find that fear arousal negatively
moderates the direct positive relationships between
destination reputation and return intention and be-
tween perceived trust and return intention. The rea-
sons for these differences in results, besides previous
destination experience, may lie in the visitor percep-
tion of beaches being relatively safer during a pan-
demic, as opposed to other environments within the
tourist destination. Regarding this result, it may also
be argued that during pandemic conditions, destina-
tion managers should emphasise the tourism desti-
nation beach environments in their marketing cam-
paigns and in particular to the marketing segments
with previous experiences with the beach and the des-
tination.
Using pmt nested in the satisfaction-loyalty frame-
work we have demonstrated that under the pandemic
conditions, perceived threat of covid-19 increases
the value visitors place on facilities in public areas,
or in the case of this investigation, at the beach. As the
protection motivation of the pmt framework is am-
plified, because of perceived fear/risk increase, beach
visitors place more value on facilities (available park-
ing space, areas for recreation, easier accessibility)
and sanitary standards (litter bin and shower avail-
ability). These results can be interpreted within the
pmt framework, as activation of efficacy response.
The availability of these common facilities leads to
higher levels of overall satisfaction as the perceived
fear/risk of disease increases.
Conclusion
This paper investigated the antecedents of beach vis-
itors’ satisfaction with beaches during the covid-
19 pandemic in the case of three distinct Croatian
beaches of the Primorsko-Goranska County wider lit-
toral area. A significant number of authors (Ariza et
al., 2014;Magaš et al., 2018; Milanés Batista et al., 2020;
Villares et al., 2006) argue that stakeholder partici-
pation is a key element in an integrated approach to
beach and coastal zone management. We have em-
ployed the pmt approach to model visitors’ percep-
tions of fear and risk of covid-19 in a conative model
of visitor satisfaction and future behavioural inten-
tions. Furthermore, we have tested and demonstrated
the validity of the combined satisfaction-importance
method for investigating beach visitors’ satisfaction
with heterogenous beach types (rural, urban, town)
in an integral approach. This novel holistic methodol-
ogy can be used by destination managers in assessing
satisfaction with beaches of a tourism destination in
a wider geographical sense, while controlling for dif-
ferent preferences of visitors to natural and/or rural
beach locations as opposed to visitor preferences of
urban and semi-urban beach types.
The empirical findings of this study offer theoret-
ical contributions to the pmt. When, in accordance
with the pmt model, the intent to adopt a recom-
mended response is triggered, the availability of basic
facilities provides protective response ability, leading
to higher overall satisfaction of visitors and favourable
future intentions toward the destination. These find-
ings have implications for beach and destinationman-
agers about visitor satisfaction and loyalty during a
global pandemic.
The main limitation of this paper is the combined
satisfaction/importancemeasurement for the purpose
of combined assessment of natural and urban beach
types in our investigation. A further limitation of this
research is a sample of 3 beaches in only one coun-
try. Future research on the topic should include more
beaches in a multiple-country investigation.
Further future research recommendations include
identification of attributes that carry the largest effect
sizes on overall satisfaction and future behavioural in-
tentions in a beach sample under investigation. This
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 165
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
can be accomplished using the importance-perfor-
mance technique. The attributes carrying the largest
impacts on satisfaction and loyalty, in the overall sam-
ple, should be the ones thatmanagers need to consider
and prioritise to foster sustainable and competitive
beach tourism destinations, even during the times of
a global pandemic. Lastly, future research in tourism
during a pandemic, on visitor satisfaction and loyalty,
should focus on the tourism destination, accommo-
dation establishments (hotels, b&b), hospitality es-
tablishments (restaurants, bars), and entertainment
events and model the pandemic influence on the pre-
viously established theoretical relationships from the
literature.
Acknowledgments
This paper was funded under the project line zip uniri
of the University of Rijeka, for the project zip-uniri-
116-1-20.
References
Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C. Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M.
D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2022). The fear of covid-19 scale:
Development and initial validation. International Jour-
nal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(3), 1537–1545.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 438–
459.
Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature
sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 44(3), 288–297.
Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2011). The factor structure of tourist
satisfaction at sun and sand destinations. Journal of
Travel Research, 50(1), 78–86.
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the
satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research,
3(2), 107–120.
Ariza, E., Lindeman, K. C., Mozumder, P., & Suman, D. O.
(2014). Beach management in Florida: Assessing stake-
holder perceptions on governance. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 96, 82–93.
Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2012). European travelers’ return
likelihood and satisfactionwithMediterranean sun-and-
sand destinations: A chi-square automatic identification
detector-based segmentation approach. Journal of Vaca-
tion Marketing, 18(2), 105–120.
Bae, S. Y., & Chang, P. J. (2021). The effect of coronavirus
disease-19 (covid-19) risk perception on behavioural
intention towards ‘untact’ tourism in South Korea dur-
ing the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020).Current
Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 1017–1035.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S. L., & Santos, J. (2004). The
relationship between destination performance, overall
satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct seg-
ments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 4(3–4), 149–165.
Bhati, A. S., Mohammadi, Z., Agarwal, M., Kamble, Z., &
Donough-Tan, G. (2021). Motivating or manipulating:
The influence of health-protective behaviour and media
engagement on post-covid-19 travel. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(15), 2088–2092.
Botero, C., Anfuso, G.,Williams, A. T., Zielinski, S., da Silva,
C. P., Cervantes, O., Silva, L., &Cabrera, J. A. (2013). Rea-
sons for beach choice: European andCaribbean perspec-
tives. Journal of Coastal Research, 65, 880–885.
Cabezas-Rabadán, C., Rodilla, M., Pardo-Pascual, J. E., &
Herrera-Racionero, P. (2019). Assessing users’ expec-
tations and perceptions on different beach types and
the need for diverse management frameworks along the
Western Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 81, 219–231.
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Ex-
pectations and norms in models of consumer satisfac-
tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 305–314.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, per-
ceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for
heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural re-
lationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and
destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 624–636.
Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation
into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal
of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504.
Court, B., & Lupton, R. A. (1997). Customer portfolio devel-
opment: Modeling destination adopters, inactives, and
rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 35–43.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service qual-
ity: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Market-
ing, 56(3), 55–68.
Cumberbatch, J., & Moses, J. (2011). Social carrying capac-
ity in beachmanagement in Barbados. Journal of Coastal
Research, 14(23), 14–23.
Da Silva, C. P. (2002). Beach carrying capacity assessment:
How important is it? Journal of Coastal Research, 36(1),
190–197.
Day, R. (1977). Extending the concept of consumer satisfac-
tion. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 149–154.
166 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
De Ruyck, M. C., Soares, A. G., & McLachlan, A. (1997). So-
cial carrying capacity as a management tool for sandy
beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3), 822–830.
Del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfac-
tion a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 35(2), 551–573.
Dillard, A. J., Ferrer, R. A., Ubel, P. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2012).
Risk perception measures’ associations with behavior
intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer
screening messages.Health Psychology, 31(1), 106–113.
Dodds, R., &Holmes,M. R. (2019). Beach tourists:What fac-
tors satisfy them and drive them to return. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 168, 158–166.
Duro, J. A., Perez-Laborda, A., Turrion-Prats, J., & Fernán-
dez-Fernández,M. (2021). Covid-19 and tourism vulner-
ability. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38(2), 100819.
Edvardsson, B., Johnson,M. D., Gustafsson, A., & Strandvik,
T. (2000). The effects of satisfaction and loyalty on prof-
its and growth: Products versus services. Total Quality
Management, 11(7), 917–927.
Fisher, J. J., Almanza, B. A., Behnke, C., Nelson, D. C., &
Neal, J. (2018). Norovirus on cruise ships: Motivation for
handwashing? International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement, 75, 10–17.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–
50.
Frampton, A. P. R. (2010). A review of amenity beach man-
agement. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(6), 1112–1122.
Garcia, R. (2017). Neurobiology of fear and specific phobias.
Learning and Memory, 24(9), 462–471.
García-Morales, G., Arreola-Lizárraga, J. A., Mendoza-Sal-
gado, R. A., García-Hernández, J., Rosales-Grano, P., &
Ortega-Rubio, A. (2018). Evaluation of beach quality as
perceived by users. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 61(1), 161–175.
Giese, J., & Cote, J. (2000). Defining consumer satisfac-
tion. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2000(1).
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf
González, S. A., & Holtmann-Ahumada, G. (2017). Quality
of tourist beaches of northern Chile: A first approach for
ecosystem-basedmanagement.Ocean and Coastal Man-
agement, 137, 154–164.
Grappi, S., &Montanari, F. (2011). The role of social identifi-
cation and hedonism in affecting tourist re-patronizing
behaviours: The case of an Italian festival.TourismMan-
agement, 32(5), 1128–1140.
Guyonnard, V., & Vacher, L. (2016). Beach filling model
to improve beach management: A case on the French
Atlantic coast (Pertuis Charentais beaches). Sustainable
Tourisim, 7(1), 67–78.
Hai, P. T., Thuong, M. T., & Quy, N. L. D. (2020). Tourists’
satisfaction, loyalty and intention to return: Survey at
Phong Nha-Ke Bang national park, Vietnam. Journal of
Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(2). https://doi.org/10
.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.2.57
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt,M. (2017).
Aprimer on partial least squares structural equationmod-
eling (pls-sem) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2015). Customer retention in the
medical tourism industry: Impact of quality, satisfaction,
trust, and price reasonableness. Tourism Management,
46, 20–29.
Hassan, S. B., & Soliman, M. (2021). covid-19 and repeat
visitation: Assessing the role of destination social re-
sponsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust
and fear arousal. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, 19, 100495.
Hong, Y., Cai, G., Mo, Z., Gao, W., Xu, L., Jiang, Y., &
Jiang, J. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on tourist sat-
isfaction with b&b in Zhejiang, China: An importance-
performance analysis. International Journal of Environ-
mental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3747.
Ivanova, M., Ivanov, I. K., & Ivanov, S. (2021). Travel be-
haviour after the pandemic: The case of Bulgaria.Anato-
lia, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1818267
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement
and management. John Wiley.
Kane, B., Zajchowski, C. A. B., Allen, T. R., McLeod, G.,
& Allen, N. H. (2021). Is it safer at the beach? Spatial
and temporal analyses of beachgoer behaviors during the
covid-19 pandemic. Ocean and Coastal Management,
205(1), 105533.
Kim, H., & Chen, J. S. (2019). The memorable travel expe-
rience and its reminiscence functions. Journal of Travel
Research, 58(4), 637–649.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction
with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destina-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260–269.
Lalicic, L., & Weismayer, C. (2018). A model of tourists’
loyalty: The case of Airbnb. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 9(1), 78–90.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2023). How does personality affect
covid-19 pandemic travel risk perceptions and behav-
iors? Evidence from segment analysis in Taiwan. Sustain-
ability, 15(1), 655.
Lee, Y. K., Lee, C. K., Lee, S. K., & Babin, B. J. (2008). Fes-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 167
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
tivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loy-
alty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 56–64.
Liu, J., Xie, W., Wang, Y., Xiong, Y., Chen, S., Han, J., &
Wu, Q. (2020). A comparative overview of covid-19,
mers and sars: Review article. International Journal of
Surgery, 81(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.032
Liu, Z., Zhang, G., & Zhang, X. (2014). Urban street foods in
Shijiazhuang city, China: Current status, safety practices
and risk mitigating strategies. Food Control, 41(1), 212–
218.
Lončarić, D., Dlačić, J., & Perišić Prodan, M. (2018). What
makes summer vacation experiencememorable?An em-
pirical study from Croatia. Zbornik Veleučilišta u Rijeci,
6(1), 67–80.
Lozoya, J. P., Sardá, R., & Jiménez, J. A. (2014). Users ex-
pectations and the need for differential beach manage-
ment frameworks along the Costa Brava: Urban vs. nat-
ural protected beaches. Land Use Policy, 38, 397–414.
Lu, Y. H., Liu, P., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., & Shen, C. (2022).
Spatial-temporal differences in the effect of epidemic
risk perception onpotential travel intention. sage Open,
12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141392
Luo, J. M., & Lam, C. F. (2020). Travel anxiety, risk atti-
tude and travel intentions towards ‘travel bubble’ desti-
nations inHongKong: Effect of the fear of covid-19. In-
ternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(21), 7859.
Magaš, D., Debelić, B., & Vilke, S. (2018). Users’ perception
as a tool for an integrated coastalmanagement and beach
quality assessment. Pomorstvo, 32(2), 290–296.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensional-
ity and structure of the consumption experience: Evalu-
ation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 20(3), 451–466.
Marin, V., Palmisani, F., Ivaldi, R., Dursi, R., & Fabiano, M.
(2009). Users’ perception analysis for sustainable beach
management in Italy. Ocean and Coastal Management,
52(5), 268–277.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., &
Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between
attribute-level performance and overall customer sat-
isfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-perfor-
mance analysis. IndustrialMarketingManagement, 33(4),
271–277.
Matzler, K., & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure
of customer satisfaction: An empirical test of the im-
portance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis.
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
13(4), 314–332.
Meleddu, M., Paci, R., & Pulina, M. (2015). Repeated be-
haviour and destination loyalty. Tourism Management,
50, 159–171.
Micallef, A., &Williams, A. T. (2004). Application of a novel
approach to beach classification in the Maltese Islands.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 47(5–6), 225–242.
Mikulić, J., & Prebežac, D. (2008). Prioritizing improvement
of service attributes using impact range-performance
analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis.Managing Ser-
vice Quality, 18(6), 559–576.
Milanés Batista, C., Planas, J. A., Pelot, R., & Núñez, J.
R. (2020). A new methodology incorporating public
participation within Cuba’s iczm program. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 186(15), 105101.
Mirzaalian, F., & Halpenny, E. (2021). Exploring destination
loyalty: Application of social media analytics in a nature-
based tourism setting. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, 20, 100598.
Morgan,M. J., Attaway, J. S., & Griffin,M. (1996). The role of
product/service experience in the satisfaction formation
process. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 9, 104–114.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., &Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand
loyalty and consumer satisfaction.Annals of TourismRe-
search, 38(3), 1009–1030.
Niininen, O., & Riley, M. (2003). Towards the conceptual-
ization of tourism destination loyalty. Tourism Analysis,
8(2–4), 243–246.
Oliver, R. L. (1976). Effect of expectation and disconfirma-
tion on postexposure product evaluations: An alterna-
tive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4),
480–486.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitivemodel of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute basesof
the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(3), 418–430.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction a behavioral perspective on
the consumer. Routledge.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 63(4), 33–44.
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., &Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight:
Foundations, findings, andmanagerial insight. Journal of
Retailing, 73(3), 311–336.
Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the rela-
tionship between quality, satisfaction, and repurchase
loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
30(3), 240–249.
168 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Jour-
nal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84.
Park, H., & Almanza, B. (2020). What do airplane travelers
think about the cleanliness of airplanes and how do they
try to prevent themselves from getting sick? Journal of
Quality Assurance inHospitality and Tourism, 21(6), 738–
757.
Peña-Alonso, C., Ariza, E.,Hernández-Calvento, L., &Pérez-
Chacón, E. (2018). Exploring multi-dimensional recre-
ational quality of beach socio-ecological systems in the
Canary Islands (Spain). Tourism Management, 64, 303–
313.
Petrick, J. F. (2005). Reoperationalising the loyalty frame-
work. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 199–212.
Pinkus, E., Moore, S. A., Taplin, R., & Pearce, J. (2016). Re-
thinking visitor loyalty at ‘once in a lifetime’ nature-
based tourism destinations: Empirical evidence from
Purnululu National Park, Australia. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 16, 7–15.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimentions
of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of
Tourism Research, 5(3), 314–322.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral re-
search: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879–903.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Del Chiappa, G. (2017).
Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emo-
tional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction,
and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research,
56(1), 41–54.
Prebensen, N., Skallerud, K., & Chen, J. S. (2010). Tourist
motivation with sun and sand destinations: Satisfaction
and the wom-effect. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
keting, 27(8), 858–873.
Qian, H., Miao, T., Liu, L., Zheng, X., Luo, D., & Li, Y. (2021).
Indoor transmission of sars-cov-2. Indoor Air, 31(3),
639–645.
Rahman, M. K., Gazi, A. I., Bhuiyan, M. A., & Rahaman,
A. (2021). Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on tourist travel
risk and management perceptions. plos one, 16(9),
e0256486.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Rastegar, R., & Hall, C. M.
(2021). Destination image during the covid-19 pan-
demic and future travel behavior: The moderating role
of past experience. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, 21(1), 100620.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M.,Wang,M.,Mikulić, J., &Kunasekaran,
P. (2021). A critical review of moderation analysis in
tourism and hospitality research toward robust guide-
lines. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 33(12), 4311–4333.
Rather, R. A. (2021). Demystifying the effects of perceived
risk and fear on customer engagement, co-creation and
revisit intention during covid-19: A protectionmotiva-
tion theory approach. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, 20, 100564.
Refulio-Coronado, S., Lacasse, K., Dalton, T., Humphries,
A., Basu, S., Uchida, H., &Uchida, E. (2021). Coastal and
marine socio-ecological systems: A systematic review of
the literature. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 648006.
Rivera, M. A., & Croes, R. (2010). Ecotourists’ loyalty: Will
they tell about the destination or will they return? Jour-
nal of Ecotourism, 9(2), 85–103.
Roca, E., & Villares, M. (2008). Public perceptions for eval-
uating beach quality in urban and semi-natural environ-
ments. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51(4), 314–329.
Roca, E., Villares, M., & Ortego, M. I. (2009). Assessing
public perceptions on beach quality according to beach
users’ profile: A case study in the Costa Brava (Spain).
Tourism Management, 30(4), 598–607.
Roca, E., Riera, C., Villares, M., Fragell, R., & Junyent, R.
(2008). A combined assessment of beach occupancy
and public perceptions of beach quality: A case study in
the Costa Brava, Spain.Ocean and Coastal Management,
51(12), 839–846.
Rodella, I., & Corbau, C. (2020). Linking scenery and users’
perception analysis of Italian beaches (case studies in
Veneto, Emilia-Romagna and Basilicata regions). Ocean
and Coastal Management, 183, 104992.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear
appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1),
93–114.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu,
O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness
checks in pls-sem. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–554.
Scannell, L., &Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment:
A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp
.2009.09.006
Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). A conceptual frame-
work for carrying capacity determination. Leisure Sci-
ences, 6(4), 433–451.
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: The
future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 18(4), 345–370.
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The in-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 169
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
fluence of customer brand identification on hotel brand
evaluation and loyalty development. International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 34(1), 31–41.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996).
A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satis-
faction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32.
Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation,
and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of Mar-
keting, 57(4), 18–34.
Thomas, J. S. (2001). A methodology for linking customer
acquisition to customer retention. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 262–268.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer sat-
isfaction formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 204–212.
Turnšek, M., Brumen, B., Rangus,M., Gorenak,M., Mekinc,
J., & Štuhec, T. L. (2020). Perceived threat of covid-19
and future travel avoidance: Results from an early con-
venient sample in Slovenia.Academica Turistica, 13(1), 3–
19.
Verma, A., & Rajendran, G. (2017). The effect of histori-
cal nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention:
An empirical study of the world cultural heritage site-
Mahabalipuram, India. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 22(9), 977–990.
Villares, M., Roca, E., Serra, J., & Montori, C. (2006). Social
perception as a tool for beach planning: A case study on
the Catalan coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 48, 118–
123.
Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Mills, D. J. (2019).
Travellers’ self-protections against health risks: An appli-
cation of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Annals
of Tourism Research, 78, 102743.
Wang,W. C., Lin, C. H., Lu, W. B., & Lee, S. H. (2019). When
destination attractiveness shifts in response to climate
change: Tourists’ adaptation intention in Taiwan’s Kent-
ing National Park. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(5), 522–
543.
Weiner, B. (2000). Reflections and reviews attributional
thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(3), 382–387.
Yang, Y., Zhang, C.X., &Rickly, J.M. (2021). A reviewof early
covid-19 research in tourism: Launching the Annals of
Tourism Research’s Curated Collection on coronavirus
and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 91, 103313.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects
of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A
structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.
Yu, J., Lee, K., & Hyun, S. S. (2021). Understanding the in-
fluence of the perceived risk of the coronavirus disease
(covid-19) on the post-traumatic stress disorder and re-
visit intention of hotel guests. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 46, 327–335.
Žabkar, V., Brenčič, M. M., & Dmitrović, T. (2010). Mod-
elling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behav-
ioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Man-
agement, 31(4), 537–546.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The
behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of
Marketing, 60(4), 596–611.
Zielinski, S., & Botero, C. M. (2020). Beach tourism in times
of covid-19 pandemic: Critical issues, knowledge gaps
and research opportunities. International Journal of En-
vironmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7288.
Appendix A
Natural beach characteristics. Please rate your level of
satisfaction where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied,
3 – neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 –
very satisfied.
nc1 Beach sediment texture
nc2 Available shade on the beach
nc3 Texture of beach sediment when entering the
sea
nc4 Cleanliness of the sea
nc5 Opportunities to observe maritime species
(fish, crabs, shells . . .)
nce1 Litter/Plastic on the beach
nc_scn Beach scenery and local landscape
covid-19 fear/risk. Please rate your level of agreement
with the following statements where 1 – strongly dis-
agree, 2 – somewhat disagree, 3 – neither agree, nor
disagree, 4 – somewhat agree 5 – strongly agree.
c191 I do not fear getting covid-19 on this beach
c193 I feel safe on this beach
Perceived crowding. Please rate your level of satisfac-
tion where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied, 3 –
neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 – very
satisfied.
pco1 Available space on the beach
pco2 Noise on the beach
pco3 Crowding on the beach
Beach facilities.Please rate your level of satisfaction/im-
portance where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied, 3
170 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
– neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 –
very satisfied.
bf1 Change room availability
bf2 Available parking space
bf3 Lifeguard and/or medical service
bf4 Areas for sport, recreation, and children play
on the beach
bf5 Accessibility to the beach and sea for persons
with disabilities
bsan1 Litter bin availability
bsan2 Shower availability
Overall satisfaction and intentions of recommenda-
tion/revisit. Please rate your level of agreement with
the following statements where 1 – strongly disagree, 2
– somewhat disagree, 3 – neither agree, nor disagree,
4 – somewhat agree, 5 – strongly agree.
sate1 I am satisfied with the overall experience at
this beach
sate2 I made a wise decision to visit this beach
sate3 This beach is exactly what I needed
sate4 I really enjoy this beach
reci1 I will recommend this beach to other people
reci2 I will tell other people positive things about
this beach
reci3 I will encourage friends and relatives to visit
this beach
ri1 I will try to visit this beach again
ri2 I think I will visit this beach again
ri3 I will probably visit this beach again
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 171

Original Scientific Article
Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’
Destination Selection: COVID-19
in the Context of Kerala, India
Aravind Mohanan Potti
tkm Institute of Management, India
aravind.1551@gmail.com
Vinith Kumar Nair
Amrita School of Business,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,
Amritapuri, India
vinithkumarnair@am.amrita.edu
Babu George
Alcorn State University, usa
bgeorge@alcorn.edu
This paper discusses a new conceptual model that can better describe the destina-
tion selection decision of tourists during and possibly after covid-19. The utility
theory proposed by Lancaster (1966, 1971) is the basis of the proposedmodel. This re-
search paper revises the existing push-pull literature by redefining ‘pull’ factors as the
‘pull back factors’ or constraints in destination selection. The external destination-
related pull factors have become risky and unknown to travellers on account of the
distress created by covid-19. This model identifies primary push-pull constructs:
environment, ethnicity, entertainment, expenses, and endurance. Responses from
311 tourists who have either visited or booked to visit Kerala in 2021 were collated for
empirically testing this concept. The classic co-variance-based structural equation
modelling approach (cb-sem) was used for statistical validation. From this study,
it is observed that the tourists visiting a destination are willing to spend money to
experience the climate and culture; but from the entertainment point of view, they
are cost-conscious. A direct positive relationship between the safety and spending
habits of the tourists were found. These results call for replacing the current leisure-
oriented strategies by prioritizing health, culture, outdoor experiences, nature, and
well-being.
Keywords: push-pull model, tourist motivation, destination selection, cb-sem
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.173-189
Introduction
Before covid-19, tourism was considered one of the
world’s largest economic sectors that creates jobs, dri-
ves exports, and generates prosperity worldwide. The
World Travel and Tourism Council’s research (World
Travel and Tourism Council, 2018), in its annual anal-
ysis quantifying the global economic and employment
impact of travel and tourism in 185 countries and 25
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 173
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
regions, reveals that the sector accounted for 10.4
of global gdp and 319 million jobs, or 10 of total
employment, in 2018. Tourism is a growing industry
in developed and underdeveloped countries (Tasci &
Knutson, 2004). The report by wttc highlights that
travel to emerging economies is expected to increase
at twice the rate of travel to advanced economies from
now until 2030. In these countries, tourism is a cat-
alyst of change in household economies, leading to
new opportunities for employment, new sources of
cash income, and new information about technolo-
gies (Barkin, 1996; Eadington & Smith, 1992; Levy &
Lerch, 1991).
As an impact of the covid-19 pandemic, the tour-
ism industry is reported to be one of the most dam-
aged industries, with a steep decline amounting to
2.86 trillion us dollars (Abbas et al., 2021). covid-19
has drastically shifted travel patterns globally (Irwin,
2020). However, some literature has rightly pointed
out that policymakers can consider this an opportu-
nity as well-being and wellness can become a factor
of destination choice (Wen et al., 2020; Buckley &
Westway, 2020). According to De Vos (2020), active
modes, i.e. walking and cycling, would aid in enhanc-
ing physical activities and maintaining the health and
well-being of people during pandemics. Santos et al.
(2020) pointed out that tourists may now look more
for quieter places with outdoor experiences and in na-
ture. This scenario can be used as an opportunity for
smaller enterprises as they can promote health, well-
being, safety, etc. as a factor of attraction (Sharma et
al., 2021). These positive outlooks can add more value
to this research.
Correia and Pimpao (2008) argue that selecting
tourist destinations depends on developing theories
about consumer behaviour and understanding tour-
ists’ choices.While it is commonly accepted that a clear
understanding of travellers’ images of a destination is
crucial for developing successful marketing and posi-
tioning strategies, equally important is the area of be-
haviour,motivations, perceptions and images of places
across sub-segments of a potential market (Sirakaya et
al., 1996).
The theoretical framework of this study is based on
Lancaster’s original work on the consumer analysis-
product characteristics approach (1966, 1971). Lan-
caster’s original work on consumer analysis was pub-
lished in 1966 but has since been refined and extended
to provide an interesting and innovative approach to
consumer demand theory. The spark for formulating
Lancaster’s theory originated from the simple obser-
vation that traditional demand theory ignored highly
pertinent and obvious information and the properties
of goods themselves (Lancaster, 1971). Despite the con-
tribution and prominence of the traditional demand
theory for tourism research, it still suffers from se-
rious drawbacks since it ignores the particularities of
the product (Rugg, 1973;Morley, 1992; Papatheodorou,
2001). Lancaster views the relationship between peo-
ple and products as at least a two-stage affair. This af-
fair comprises the relationship between products and
their characteristics (objective and technical), and the
relationship between characteristics and people (per-
sonal, involving individual preferences). Rugg (1973)
was the first to incorporate the Lancasterian char-
acteristics approach to tourism. As was seen earlier
in this section, the essence of Lancaster’s approach
is that goods are no longer utility objects by them-
selves. Goods are assumed to generate certain charac-
teristics or attributes from which utility is ultimately
derived. Maximizing utility requires choosing a bun-
dle of goods that generates the optimum bundle of
characteristics. In the Lancasterian approach to con-
sumer analysis, the utility for each good is defined as a
weighted sum of a set of characteristics. Characteris-
tics demand theory by Lancaster states that consumers
derive utility not from the actual contents of the basket
but from the characteristics of the goods in it. When
applied to tourism, these characteristics can be defined
as the set of attractions and facilities that can offer vis-
itors a pleasant experience.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to under-
stand the push and pull factors that would affect the
tourism destination selection in the ambit of the five
‘E’s. The literature survey identified five major des-
tination selection characteristics, viz., expenses, en-
durances, environment, ethnicity, and entertainment.
Those aspects that can positively influence tourists in
selecting a destination were classified as push items.
The other factors that can also stand as an obstacle
174 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
in their decision were categorized as pull items. In
the context of Lancasterian theory, the tourists should
weigh utility for push characteristics rather than pull
factors in selecting a destination. This research is very
relevant in the covid-19 scenario as it attempts to re-
define the existing theoretical model. This may help
policymakers to shape brand-new tourism strategies
post covid-19. The classic covariance-based struc-
tural equation modelling was employed for observing
the relationship with push and pull variables.
Literature Review
According to the International Monetary fund, tour-
ism receipts worldwide are expected to recover to
2019 levels in 2023 (Behsudi, 2020). covid-19 and
tourist typology and its influence on short or long-haul
travel can become a major challenge for the travel and
tourism industry across the world (Senbeto & Hon,
2020). During pandemics, people avoid places with
medium or high risks (Hotle, 2020). One of the most
adopted preventive behaviours during covid-19 was
the avoidance of public transportation (Yıldırım et al.,
2020). Pandey et al. (2021) pointed out that the pan-
demic has considerably impacted the Indian tourism
industry, and across the country those working in
the tourism sector are confronting a decline in their
income. They have suggested a sustainable recovery
framework to overcome this trauma. According to Ja-
fari et al. (2021), this pandemic invariably hits tourism-
reliant sectors such as hotels, restaurants, travel agents,
the transport sector, etc.; therefore, the strategies de-
signed to address the pandemic must be holistic. This
pandemic adversely affected our foreign exchange
earnings and regional developments (Jaipuria, 2020).
There are many factors that act as major actors for
tour attractions, the attractiveness of the spot, histori-
cal aspects and entertainment facilities being some of
them. It is required to provide a basket of services in all
those fields in order to satisfy customers (Neal, 2003).
The performance of a tourist destination and satisfac-
tion of visitors with the destination are of paramount
importance to the destination competitiveness since
the pleasantness of the experience is more likely to
influence visitors’ future behaviour. (Baloglu et al.,
2003). A tourist destination consists of several inde-
pendent interest groups that, in turn, have concrete
and different goals and plans. Its residents act simulta-
neously as recipients and producers of the destination’s
brand image (Freire, 2011).
Consumers’ choice processes are influenced by
psychological variables such as motivations, attitudes,
beliefs, and images, and non-psychological variables
like time, destination attributes, perceived costs of
tourism products, buyer characteristics, and bene-
fits sought. The different research works in consumer
decision theory suggest that images of tourism and
travellers’ perceptions of destinations play important
roles in the destination choice decisions of poten-
tial travellers (Ahmed, 1991; Alhemoud & Armstrong,
1996; Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997). According to Fak-
eye and Crompton (1991), destinations with positive
images can be expected to prosper, while those with
less favourable images may never achieve their fullest
tourism potential.
Understanding why people travel and what factors
influence their behavioural intention of choosing a
travel destination is beneficial to tourismplanning and
marketing. Many researchers have investigated travel
motivation within different fields, such as sociology,
anthropology, and psychology (Cohen, 1972; Dann,
1977; Crompton, 1979; Gnoth, 1997). One popular ty-
pology for understanding travel decisions is the ‘push
and pull’ model (Crompton, 1979). A review of the
past literature on tourist motivation indicates that the
analysis of motivations based on the two dimensions
of push and pull factors have been generally accepted
(Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993).
The examination of studies (Gilbert & Terrata,
2001; Hanqin & Lam, 1999; Kim et al., 2006; Kozak,
2002; Mohsin & Alsawafi, 2011; Phau et al., 2013; Sang-
pikul, 2008; Sirakaya et al., 2003) in the area of travel
motivation demonstrates that among the proposed
models, Crompton’s (1979) push and pull factors are
more popular among researchers. The push-pull the-
oretical framework is a popular theory to explain why
tourists decide to visit the destination rather than
other places, the kind of experience they want to
get, and the type of activity they want to do (Prayag
& Hosany, 2014). Crompton (1979) first sought to
draw seven socio-psychological push motives: escape-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 175
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
exploratory, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship-
enhancement, social interaction, and cultural, and for
pull motives, novelty and education. The conceptual
framework developed would influence the selection of
a destination, and this approach implies that the des-
tination can influence vacation behaviour in meeting
an aroused need.
Numerous studies (Devesa et al., 2010; Hanqin &
Lam, 1999; Kozak, 2002; Lo & Lee, 2011; Phau et al.,
2013; Prayag&Hosany, 2014; Yoon&Uysal, 2005)were
conducted to test and to integrate this concept, and in
these studies, the push factors are treated as the inter-
nal factors by which people feel motivated for the trip,
considering their own needs. One of the positive fea-
tures of Crompton’s model was its dynamism, which
allowed later researchers to add some factors to the
model or remove some with regard to the tourists’ na-
tionality and their owndestinations. Travelmotivation
is a push factor that impels an individual to make a
trip. Holiday motivations can be characterized as the
need for relaxation, social contact, mastery, and intel-
lectual stimulation (Ryan & Glendon, 1998). Accord-
ing to Leiper (1990), tourists are pushed by their own
motivation toward the places where they expect their
needs will be satisfied. Goffi and Cucculelli (2014) re-
ported the core attractors or push factors in destina-
tion selection as natural and cultural resources, events,
and gastronomy.
In this research, the authors judged the major de-
motivating variables in destination selection as pull
variables. In some other literature, pull motivation is
defined as the tangible resources and traveller’s per-
ception of the features or attributes of a specific desti-
nation; therefore, it plays an important role in the des-
tination choice of tourists once the decision to travel
has beenmade (Crompton, 1979; Uysal &Hagan, 1993;
Kim et al., 2006). The pull factor is the external forces
related to food, people, recreation facilities, and the
marketed image of the destination (Uysal & Hagan,
1993). Considering the above notions, we intend to re-
define the pull motives as the major factors that pull
back tourists from visiting a destination. In light of the
covid-19 pandemic, some more factors can be added
to this such as isolation costs during the quarantine pe-
riod, covid testing charges, and the cost involved in
treating covid-infected tourists, etc. (Kaushal & Sri-
vastava, 2021).
The pull motivation factors related to wellness
tourist products were labelled as Basic wellness, In-
tangible wellness, and Extra wellness. Sometimes the
touristsmay give importance to intangible wellness as-
pects like atmosphere, relaxation, and surroundings,
compared to tangible wellness aspects such as mas-
sage, sauna, mud baths/wraps, etc. (Damijanić, 2020).
According to Jackson (2000), time, cost, skills prob-
lems, and fears may become increasingly important
constraints in selecting a destination. There are con-
straints related to cost, transportation, companion-
ship, health, and available activities/programmes (Mc-
Carville & Smale, 1993; Scott &Munson, 1994; Searle &
Jackson, 1985). The limitations, viz., time availability,
transportation access, fear of crime, family respon-
sibilities, lack of skill and ability, and a lack of self-
confidence, can act as major pull aspects in visiting a
destination (Horna, 1989; Searle & Jackson, 1985; Witt
& Goodale, 1981; Jun et al., 2009; Das & Tiwari, 2020).
The fear of travelling can induce coping strategies, in-
creasing individuals’ resilience, and embracing careful
travel behaviours (Zheng et al., 2021).
While reviewing some studies on expenses, it is re-
ported that destination selection depends on higher
buying power resulting from a favourable currency
exchange rate and lower living expenditures (Pokharel
et al., 2018). The currency exchange rate between des-
tination and outbound countries also has an impact
on the number of international tourists; tourists were
more likely to visit countries with higher exchange
rates, and the international tourists were more at-
tracted to countries where exchange rates were more
favourable (Song et al., 2003). Food quality is reported
as essential to destination choices (Bjork & Raisanen,
2016). The tourists will search for food-related infor-
mation before their trips, and the uniqueness of local
food impacts travel satisfaction.
The covid-19 restriction has made tourists look
for a new way to travel. covid-19 has impacted eco-
nomically, socially, and psychologically among po-
tential tourists (Jaipuria et al., 2021). In this context,
numerous enduring pull factors, such as lockdown,
fear of social isolation, fear of infection, government
176 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
restriction, depression, boredom, etc., can be identi-
fied. (Di Renzo et al., 2020; Pradana et al., 2020; Go-
lets et al., 2021). From the angle of expenses, the ma-
jor pull factors are the cost of covid testing, hotel
isolation expenses, money spent on quarantine, addi-
tional expenses on avoidance of public transportation,
etc. (Kaushal & Srivastava, 2021). This may pave new
trends in travelling, such as one-day trips, home pic-
nics, etc. (Roy & Sharma, 2021).
It is reported that responsible travellers post covid-
19 will be determined by three main factors, namely,
travel preferences, health and hygiene considerations,
anddestination choices (Gamil, 2022).Hygiene should
be projected as a nichemarket solution post covid-19
(Hosta&Plevnik, 2021). In another research the clean-
liness of accommodation products was reported to be
the most important aspect post covid-19. The hotels
and restaurants in tourist destinations should adhere
to public health strategies to limit the spread of disease
and regain customers’ trust (Chang&Kim, 2022). Post
covid-19, the tourism cities should project a safe and
healthy image to attract more tourists. The tourism
marketers should treat the image of the destination as
the key parameter for pitching their marketing strate-
gies (Sahebi et al., 2022).
The Proposed Conceptual Model
In the literature, push factors were defined as the mo-
tivation and intangible desires of individual travellers
to visit a destination, whereas pull factors refer to the
external forces of destination attributes in the coun-
try (Dann, 1977; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; Hanqin &
Lam, 1999). In the proposed conceptual model, some
slight modifications were brought to the above defini-
tions by redefining push factors as the implicit drive
of a tourist to visit a destination and the pull factors
as the explicit constraints. Here the push factors are
described as the way of satisfying the psychological
needs of the visitors. In this context, three major fac-
tors, viz., environmental image (Okoroafo, 1995), eth-
nicity parametersHitchcock (1999) and entertainment
amenities (Nallathiga, 2006) were listed. These fac-
tors internally motivate the tourists to opt for tourism
for elusive rewards such as fun, assurance, and other
emotional needs. In contrast, the pull factors are the
major factors that can also become constraints in vis-
iting a tourism destination. The restrictions attributed
to the visitor also play an important role in selecting
or rejecting a destination (Karl et al., 2015). Financial
and operational restrictions are important (Saito &
Strehlau, 2018). This includes travel and transporta-
tion expenses, currency exchange, the impossibility
of finding a suitable travel partner, dangers, political
situations at the destination, etc. Based on the above
variables, two major constructs, viz., Expenses and
Endurance, were developed.
Thus, three push factors (environment, ethnicity,
and entertainment) and two pull factors (expenses
and endurance) were identified. Further, a concep-
tual model was developed based on the identified con-
structs. We have made a solemn effort to fit our con-
ceptual model in the context of Lancasterian (1966,
1971) utility theory. This work proposes fivemajor fac-
tors for selecting a tourist destination. In other words,
the utility for each destination is defined as a weighted
sum of a set of characteristics. Characteristics demand
theory by Lancaster (1971) states that consumers de-
rive utility not from the actual contents of the basket
but from the characteristics of the goods in it. In our
model, the central postulation is that the tourists vis-
iting the destination will neglect the hurdles such as
expenses and endurances to satisfy their emotional
needs. And the internal drives of the tourists to ex-
perience environment, ethnicity, and entertainment
have significant influence over other constraints. The
primary objective of this research is to examine the
statistical viability of this conceptual model based on
real data. This model will add to the existing litera-
ture by redefining the push-pullmodel used by various
practitioners and thinkers amidst covid-19.
Table 1 explains the proposed redefined push-pull
model for tourism destination selection. This model
has used two key parameters in the context of covid-
19, viz., health and safety restrictions imposed in the
tourismdestinations by the government and the finan-
cial positions of the tourists. If the health and safety
restriction is minimal and the personal financial po-
sition of the tourists is strong, then it is evident that
they tend to explore the destination. This model ar-
gues that if the government restrictions are minimal,
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 177
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 1 Redefined Push-Pull Destination Selection Model Amidst covid-19
Health & safety restrictions in destinations
Minimal Maximal
Financial position of the tourist Strong Push Motives (Ethnicity,
Entertainment & Environment)
Push Motives (Environment &
Ethnicity)
Weak Push Motives (Ethnicity,
Entertainment & Environment)
Pull Motives (Expenses &
Endurance)
tourists prioritize exploration despite their individual
financial condition.
Conversely, if the health and safety measures in
the destination are stringent, only financially sound
tourists prefer to visit the destination, and their pri-
mary motive will be to reconnoitre the environment.
During the pandemic period, if the safety restriction
is at its maximum, it is observed that tourists are less
favourable to the entertainment opportunities offered
in the destinations.
Finally, it is expected that tourists will give weigh-
tage to expense and endurance over other push mo-
tives if their financial position is weak and health and
safety restriction are at its maximum. In such a situa-
tion, it is obvious that people will prioritize satisfying
their physiological needs rather than exploring new
tourist destinations. Here this theory is redefining pull
motives as the major factor pulling back tourists from
visiting a destination amidst the pandemic.
Data andMethodology
In this study, Kerala, the southwestern state of India,
has been selected as a destination for the survey. This
state’s tourism is popularized with the ‘God’s Own
Country’ campaign. The exclusive geographical di-
versity of Kerala offers tourists a range of attractions
and experiences, such as beaches, backwaters, wildlife
sanctuaries, evergreen forests, and diverse flora and
fauna of the State (Edward & George, 2008). A re-
port released by the Ministry of Tourism, Govern-
ment of India, reported that 340,755 foreign tourists
visited Kerala in 2020. Based on the travel trend report
that The Association of British Travel Agents (abta)
released, Kerala is ranked eighth among the twelve
destinations to watch (India Today, 2017). As per offi-
cial statistics, Tourism contributes 10 percent of Ker-
ala’s gdp and 23.5 percent to the total employment
in the state (Kavya Lekshmi & Mallick, 2020). How-
ever, covid-19 has hit the tourism sector in Kerala at
its worst. The statistics from authorities reported that
the total loss the sector incurred between January and
September 2020was Rs.249.71 billion, while the loss in
earnings from the decline in foreign tourist arrivals is
estimated to be Rs.5.274 billion after witnessing 8.52
growth in the year 2019 (Times of India, 2021). This
scenario calls for a revisit of the existing models and
redefining the destination selection factors consider-
ing the covid-19 pandemic.
Three major tourist destinations in Kerala state
have been identified as the places for conducting this
research. They are Thangassery in Kollam district,
Kuttanad in Alappuzha district and Kumarakom in
Kottayam district. The population for this research
consists of the international tourists who have vis-
ited or booked to visit the above destinations prior
to imposing the travel ban due to covid-19. In the
year 2019–2020 a total number of 340,755 interna-
tional tourists have visited Kerala and out of this,
46,629 tourists have visited Alappuzha, 20,072 to Kot-
tayam and 5,141 persons to Kollam respectively (Ker-
ala Tourism, 2020). Considering the above informa-
tion as a foundation, available data of international
tourists who made reservations to visit these destina-
tions before the imposition of travel restrictions were
duly collected. One of the limitations in this method
is that the survey was restricted to respondents whose
emails/contacts were shared by the resorts or travel
agents in these destinations. The electronic question-
naire was circulated among 1,400 prospective respon-
dents who had either visited or booked to visit the
178 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Variable Selection
Factors Categorization Observed Variable Mean sd Rank
Pull Factors Expenses Cost of Accommodation . . 
Cost of Food and Beverages . .
Shopping Expenses . .
Travel Cost . . 
Visa Charges . .
Currency Exchange . . 
Miscellaneous Expenses . .
Endurances Safety and Security at Destination . . 
Security measures in Adventure Sports . .
Food and its quality . . 
Nightlife and Safety . .
Easy Transportation Access . . 
Security for Outdoor Activities . .
Communication Systems without breaks . .
Push Factors Environment To appreciate natural resources . . 
To sightsee tourist spots . .
For exploration . . 
To experience the climate . . 
To expose to new surroundings . .
Continued on the next page
above destinations before the spread of covid-19.
The questionnaire was written in English and was dis-
tributed to the respondentswho could read andunder-
stand English. Later it was reported that, as an impact
of pandemic, the number of international tourists vis-
iting Kerala had dropped to 60,487 in the year 2020–
2021. Out of this, 777 tourists have visited Alappuzha,
365 visited Kottayam and only 77 visited Kollam (Ker-
ala Tourism, 2021). A simple random sampling tech-
nique was used for data collection. Finally, 311 valid
responses were obtained from this survey.
The questionnaire design was adapted from previ-
ous researchers’ work, such as Dann (1977, 1981), Uysal
and Jurowski (1994) andHanqin and Lam (1999). Push
factors, origin-related and intangible desires of indi-
vidual travellers, comprised 25 items. Likewise, 14 pull
motive items, which were the external forces of des-
tination attributes in the country, were put together.
The push and pull items were assessed using a 7-point
Likert scale, from 7 indicating very important to 1 not
important. This research devised fivemajor constructs
in the proposed theoretical model, viz., expenses, en-
durance, environment, ethnicity, and entertainment.
For developing this framework, the authors have con-
sidered 39 push-pull variables determining the desti-
nation selection of tourists across the globe.
The G*Power 3.1 software package was used to test
whether the number of observations are adequate for
regression analysis. G*Power 3.1 provides power anal-
ysis procedures for both the conditional (and fixed-
predictors) and the unconditional (or random-pre-
dictors) models of multiple regression (Gatsonis &
Sampson, 1989). In this study, power analysis proce-
dure suggested by Faul et al. (2009) was used to justify
the sample size for the linear regressionmodel. Amin-
imum power level of 0.80 can be accepted at 5 percent
level of significance (typically α = 0.05). The software
has generated a sample value of 225. This value statis-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 179
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 2 Continued from the previous page
Factors Categorization Observed Variable Mean sd Rank
Ethnicity For social interaction . . 
For visiting heritage sites . . 
For relationship enhancement . .
For social relationship with family and friends . .
To explore different cultures . . 
To experience new and different lifestyles or traditions . .
To seek novelty . .
For prestige and impression . .
To exchange customs and traditions . .
To enhance communication with local community . .
To reconnect with spiritual roots . .
Entertainment For relaxation and having fun . . 
To find a new or unusual experience . .
For shopping . .
To participate in new activities . .
To fulfil my dream of visiting a foreign land/country . .
For experiencing adventure . . 
Experience festivals and events . . 
To have enjoyable time with my travel companion(s) . .
To find thrills and excitement . .
tically justifies the obtained sample size of 311. In this
analysis, five constructs and 15 observations were re-
tained. Moreover, the academic literature shows that
a sample size of 200 is appropriate for path modelling
(Hoyle, 1995; Boomsma, 1982; 1985). Thus, a sample
of 311 can be considered sufficient for the regression
modelling.
After gathering the final response, each variable’s
weighted average mean and standard deviation were
calculated. At this stage, an effort has been taken to
retain three variables per construct for further mod-
elling, as many variables per construct may produce
dubious outcomes in path analysis (Ropovik, 2015).
The variables with the most favourable response from
each category were identified based on the respective
weighted mean score of the individual item. At most,
care has been employed for ensuring three indicat-
ing variables, each per construct. This is because a
single indicator per construct needs to pay attention
to the unreliability of measurement. Therefore, using
three items is theminimum threshold as a general rule
for the number of items per construct (Baumgartner
& Homburg, 1996). The study was carried out with
covariance-based structural equation modelling (cb-
sem), and the ibm-amos.21 package was employed
for processing the data. It is reported that cb-sem is
useful for examining moderating effects, especially
when a third variable changes the relationship be-
tween two related variables (Hair et al., 2010). Table
2 represents the descriptive statistics of the variables
selected for the study.
Simple weighted average mean criterion was em-
ployed for ranking the all variables mentioned in the
questionnaire. This is because the highest rank pref-
erence will be given to the variables with maximum
weighted mean scores. The variables such as accom-
180 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 3 Demographic Profile
Variable Category Count 
Gender Male  .
Female  .
Total  .
Age <  .
–  .
–  .
–  .
>  .
Total  .
Occupation Employed  .
Entrepreneur  .
Retired  .
Student  .
Unemployed  .
Total  .
Education <th Standard  .
Bachelors  .
Master’s  .
Professional  .
Total  .
Marital Status Single  .
Married  .
Total  .
Notes N = 311.
modation cost, currency exchange, and travelling ex-
penses under the construct expenses (weighted mean
scores are 3.11, 3.07, and 2.95) were retained. For mea-
suring endurance, we have used safety and security,
quality of food, and transportation access as the high-
est obtained mean values for these variables are 6.35,
6.21, and 6.11. The construct of environment is ob-
served to be influenced by climate, natural resources,
and exploration (the reported weighted means are
6.10, 6.02, and 5.99). From the ethnic angle, most re-
spondents favoured culture, social interaction, and
heritage (obtained mean values are 6.39, 6.30, and
5.92). And finally, from an entertainment angle, the
variables such as fun, adventure, and festival were
reported to be important, with respective weighted
mean scores of 6.70, 6.42, and 6.01. Thus, from the
push perspective, nine variables were retained, and
from the pull viewpoint, six variables were preserved
for further modelling. The demographic profile of the
participants in this survey is exhibited in Table 3.
The sample is well-distributed and represents the
right demographic mix. A majority of 65.6 of the re-
spondents aremale. A greater part, 40.83, is aged be-
tween 26 and 35 years. In a broader perspective, 78.7
of the respondents are in the larger group of 26 to
55 years of age, with a lesser percentage of 13.8 re-
spondents representing greater than 55 years of age
and an even lesser 7.4  representing the age group
below 25 years. A high of 46.3 of the respondents
are employed, while 23.8 of the respondents are en-
trepreneurs, 13.8 are retired, and only 20.9 are un-
employed. The sample selected is well-educated, given
that 98.7 of the respondents have earned a univer-
sity degree or above. The sample is almost equally dis-
tributed with respect to marital status, with 50.16 be-
ing single and 49.84 being married.
Data Analysis
The classic Cronbach’s alpha model (1951) was used to
measure the constructs’ reliability. The alpha values of
the constructs were computed using the estimates of
the residuals and their standard error. Sources indicate
that an alpha value of 0.8 or above reports sound reli-
ability of the constructs (Cortina, 1993).
From Table 4, it is clear that Cronbach’s alpha val-
ues of the respective factors range from 0.94 to 0.81.
The above range signals the strong reliability of the
constructs as the threshold limit set in this direction
is only 0.8 (α > 0.8). The composite reliability (cr) of
the constructs is also reported to be sound as the ob-
tained values range from 0.68 to 0.86. It is obtained by
combining all of the true score variances (λ2) of the
observed variables related to constructs and by divid-
ing this sum by the total variance in the constructs. If
the cr of the factor loadings is above the threshold of
0.7, it indicates internal consistency (Hair et al., 2014).
Here, with respect to the factor ‘endurance,’ the com-
posite reliability is reported to be 0.68, which can be
further rounded off to 0.7. Other than this, all other
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 181
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 4 Constructs’ Reliability and Validity
Factor Cronbach’s alpha cr ave
Expenses . . .
Endurance . . .
Environment . . .
Ethnicity . . .
Entertainment . . .
Notes cr indicates composite reliability.
Table 5 Measurement of Fornell-Larcker Criterion
Factors () () () () ()
() Expenses .
() Endurance . .
() Environment –. –. .
() Ethnicity –. –. . .
() Entertainment -. –. . . .
Notes Diagonal values are squared roots of ave; off-
diagonal values are the estimates of inter-correlation be-
tween the latent constructs.
constructs were reported to have sound internal con-
sistency, scoring above the doorstep limit of 0.7.
The convergent validity and discriminant validity
of the constructs were duly assessed. An ave of 0.5
or more confirms the convergent validity of the fac-
tors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). From Table 5, it is
clear that the obtained ave of the constructs is much
above the stated limit of 0.5, with a range of 0.51 to
0.69. This result confirms the convergent validity of
the scale. Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion was
used for checking the discriminant validity. Based on
this norm, if the square root of the ave is higher than
the correlation between the respective latent variables,
it confirms discriminant validity.
From Table 6, it is clear that other than the correla-
tion between the construct’s endurance and expenses
(0.72 < 1.01), the rest of the constructs satisfy the cri-
terion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) as the correlation be-
tween the square root of ave is reported to be much
higher than that of the inter-correlation between the
factors. Amajority of the construct satisfies the norms
in connectionwith the discriminant validity; therefore
the results can be substantiated.
Table 6 cb sem Model
Observed variable
← Construct
B se T p f 2
Accommodation
Cost← Expenses
. .
Currency Exchange
← Expenses
. . . . .
Travelling Cost
← Expenses
. . . . .
Safety and Security
← Endurance
. .
Food and its quality
← Endurance
. . . . .
Transportation
Access← Endurance
. . . . .
Climate
← Environment
. .
Natural Resources
← Environment
. . . . .
Exploration
← Environment
. . . . .
Cultural Experience
← Ethnicity
. .
Social Interaction
← Ethnicity
. . . . .
Heritage Sites Visit
← Ethnicity
. . . . .
Fun
← Entertainment
. .
Adventure
← Entertainment
. . . . .
Festivals and Events
← Entertainment
. . . . .
Table 6 exhibits the result of the path analysis of
the established model. This model intends to study
the effect of the observed push-pull variables on the
established constructs. Interestingly, all the observed
variables were reported to have a positive and sig-
nificant effect on the 5e factors, viz., expenses, en-
durance, environment, ethnicity, and entertainment.
This is because the probability value of the test statis-
tics is much below the critical point of 0.05. Moreover,
182 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
the T-test results are much above the reference point
of 1.96. These results will force us to signify our hy-
potheses by accepting the fact that the push factors
and pull factors have a positive influence on destina-
tion selection.
Each path’s effect size wasmeasured using f 2 values
(Cohen, 1988). From Table 6, it can be realized that
the f 2 values range from 11.19 to 0.28. Cohen (1988)
defined effect sizes as small if the obtained f 2 score
is below 0.2; an f 2 score above 0.8 indicates a large
effect size. In this analysis, all the observed variables
possess a medium or large effect on their respective
constructs. Concerning the factor of expense, cur-
rency exchange is considered the primary factor with
an effect size of 1.85 (β = 1.50, p = 0.00). It can be in-
ferred that people are hesitant to visit Kerala because
of the fluctuation of their home currency exchange
rates with inr. The β is a coefficient that indicates the
impact of change in the observed variables on the re-
spective factor. For instance, in the above situation, β
is 1.50; this indicates that every one percent change in
the currency exchange rate would pull the tourists 1.5
times from visiting a destination because of the ex-
pense factor. This result agrees with Pokharel et al.
(2018) and Song et al. (2003), as these studies empha-
sized that exchange rate was a major variable in des-
tination choice. Another important pull factor from
the endurance angle is the food quality (f 2 = 1.14, β =
1.44, p = 0.00), which indicates that foreigners visiting
Kerala are greatly concerned about the food quality,
and they are very anxious about their ability to sur-
vive with the cuisine in this state. It is perceived that
this result was obtained on the ground that the tradi-
tional Kerala food is usually spicy, which is different
from the taste of the westerners, and the visitors are
concerned about whether they can access the western
style of food while visiting remote areas. This strongly
adds to the literature quoted by Bjork and Raisanen
(2016).
From another dimension, the climatic conditions
in the host place seem to be themajor push factor from
the environmental angle, with an effect size of 11.19 (β
= 1.00, p = 0.00). This variable possesses the highest
effect size among all other variables used in this study,
signalling that tourists are prominently selecting Ker-
Table 7 Covariance among Constructs
Constructs β se T p
Expenses↔ Endurance . . . .
Expenses↔ Environment –. . –. .
Expenses↔ Ethnicity –. . –. .
Entertainment↔ Expenses –. . –. .
Endurance↔ Environment –. . –. .
Endurance↔ Ethnicity –. . –. .
Entertain.↔ Endurance –. . –. .
Environment↔ Ethnicity . . . .
Entertain.↔ Environment . . . .
Entertainment↔ Ethnicity . . . .
ala as a destination to experience its climatic condi-
tions. From an ethnic angle, the destination selection
is mainly based on the motive of experiencing the cul-
ture in that place (f 2 = 9.53, β = 1.00, p = 0.00). In
the literature, Crompton (1979) has also highlighted
the importance of cultural aspects in the destination
points and has quoted culture as one of the important
variables among seven socio-psychological push mo-
tives. Another intention of visiting a place is to partic-
ipate in and experience major festivals and events (f 2
= 10.76). This finding seems true for a destination like
Kerala, a land of festivals. The literature review also
identified the festivals and events as core attractors in
destination selection (Goffi & Cucculelli, 2014).
The covariance techniques measure the relation-
ship between the constructs. The covariance among
constructs is used to infer the relationships between
the focal construct and its measures (Bollen, 1989).
The co-variances among the constructs are presented
in Table 7, which shows that in terms of direction, the
push and pull factors possess a negative relationship.
On the other hand, the similar natures of constructs
have a positive relationship. For instance, the pull con-
structs of expense and endurance are reported to have
a covariance estimate of 0.60, and the probability value
of the test statistics also signifies the result (p-value
0.00 < 0.05). This indicates that the tourists will spend
more if the place ensures adequate safety. Likewise, the
push constructs such as environment, ethnicity, and
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 183
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Table 8 cb-sem Model Fit Assessment
Criterion Norms References Obtained value
rmsea Value less than . indicates good fit MacCallum et al. () .
nfi Value of more than . indicates fit to the model Bentler and Bonett () .
cfi Value of more than . indicates fit to the model Bentler () .
pnfi Value of more than . indicates fit to the model Mulaik et al. () .
entertainment also accounted for the positive and sig-
nificant relationship among them.
Some interesting results were obtained to prove the
theoretical propositions statistically. Though the con-
structs of expenses and environment have a negative
relationship with a covariance of –0.03, the test statis-
tics’ probability value does not signify the result (p-
value 0.65 > 0.05). Similarly, expenses and ethnicity is
reported to have a negative direction of –0.06, but this
relation cannot be signified as the probability value
of the test statistics is 0.35 (p-value > 0.05). On the
other hand, the factors such as expenses and enter-
tainment accounted for a negative and significant co-
variance of –0.23. This can be verbally written as the
tourists visiting the destination are willing to spend
money to experience the climate and culture, but from
the entertainment point of view, they are cost con-
scious. These results support the utility theory of Lan-
caster (1966, 1971) by agreeing that consumers derive
utility not from the actual contents of the basket but
from the characteristics of the goods in it. From an-
other angle, the constructs such as ethnicity and envi-
ronment hold a negative and insignificant relationship
with endurance as the reported p-values 0.13 and 0.41
are much above the critical line of 0.05. This indicates
that tourists are willing to suffer all sorts of difficul-
ties attributed to a destination to satisfy their utility
(Lancaster, 1966, 1971). The covariance between enter-
tainment and endurance is –0.20, and the probability
value of this relation is 0.01 (0.01 < 0.05). This shows
that the tourist’s value utility on the variable entertain-
ment is less, as other powerful factors influence their
destination selection.
The fitness of the cb-sem modelwas assessedwith
numerous statistical techniques (Table 8). The root
means square error approximation (rmsea) reported
a value of 0.02, which is much below the threshold
limit of 0.08 suggested by MacCallum et al. (1996).
The normed fit index (nfi) value of 0.95 and the com-
parative fit index (cfi) value of 0.91 are close to the
critical mark of 0.90. The parsimonious normed fit in-
dex (pnfi) reportedwith a value of 0.86 ismuch closer
to the required level of 0.90 (Mulaik et al., 1989). The
above results confirm the statistical fitness of the path
analysis employed in this study.
Discussion and Policy Implications
In push and pull factors of destination selection, pull
has been given a different connotation during the pan-
demic as those factors that discourage a tourist from
making a favourable decision. The push factors are
those which encourage tourists to make a favourable
decision. Pull factors in this study are expenses and en-
durance, and push factors are environment, ethnicity
and entertainment. In this study, it has been observed
that the tourist’s value utility on the variable entertain-
ment is less, as other powerful factors influence their
destination selection. The tourists visiting a destina-
tion are willing to spend money to experience the cli-
mate and culture, but from the entertainment point of
view, they are cost conscious. The other attractive fea-
tures are festivals and events happening in the desti-
nation. The pull factors affecting the decision-making
are the ease of currency exchange and the food and its
quality in the destination.
Considering the covid-19 pandemic, the exist-
ing style of branding tourist places should be recon-
sidered by introducing innovative strategies. It is re-
ported that travelling culture has changed a lot as peo-
ple tend to prefer one-day travel, home picnics, etc.
(Roy & Sharma, 2021). This trend forces policymakers
to give more priority to local tourists than foreigners,
184 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
at least during the pandemic period. However, this
can be used as a supportive strategy and may need to
be a more sustainable model in the long run. Many
experts are of the opinion that the industry cannot
flourish without foreign exchange earnings (Jaipuria
et al., 2021). The destinations should plan unique sell-
ing propositions for the industry to attract foreign visi-
tors. The destinations can be projected as a place of re-
sponsible tourism post covid-19 (Sahebi et al., 2022;
Gamil, 2022; Hosta & Plevnik, 2022).
Since the study results support the utility theory
of Lancaster (1966, 1971) by agreeing that consumers
derive utility not from the actual contents of the bas-
ket but from the characteristics of the goods in it,
efforts should be made by various stakeholders, in-
cluding tour operators, local tourism centres, hotels
and resorts to have a holistic approach while market-
ing a destination. Since this study has been done in
Kerala, i.e. the southernmost state of India known as
‘God’s own Country,’ the findings have implications
for other, similar, tourist destinations worldwide. It is
reported that rather than leisure, other aspects, such
as culture, tradition, climate, etc., play an important
role in attracting travellers. covid-19 has created an
opportunity for a destination like Kerala to promote
our traditional ayurvedic resorts, nature, festivals, etc.
From this, we should design exclusive strategies for
Ayurveda as our literature pointed out that health and
well-being are likely to become the selling points post
covid-19 (Santos et al., 2020; Wen, 2020; Buckley &
Westway, 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2021).
In Kerala, festivals and events play a major role in
attracting tourists, so the tourism department should
make strategies to draw up a marketing communica-
tion campaign targeting the same. Efforts should be
made to highlight the culture of Kerala, and since this
southern state has a rich history, this can be showcased
to international tourists. Since Kerala is known for its
greenery and, during the monsoon season, the state’s
beauty grows manifold, monsoon tourism can also be
highlighted to attract tourists. The above featuresmust
be marketed by highlighting how the destinations are
prepared to ensure the health and safety of the visitors.
The hotels and resorts should focus on providing
good quality food to the tourists, including catering
to the host’s preferences, in this case, the international
tourists. Wayside eateries should also focus on this
aspect. The currency exchange organizations can also
play amajor role in providing their services and acting
as a reference point for the destinations. Overall, Ker-
ala, other than focusing itself as ‘God’s Own Country,’
should also offer itself as a tourist destination that is
safe and relatively less costly. Better value propositions
need to be offered at optimum cost. Kerala is known
for beaches, backwaters and mountains, and efforts
should be made to highlight the same, and offerings
should be customized based on the requirements of
the tourists. The physical contact points can be min-
imized by migrating to digital platforms like online
ticket booking, electronic tickets, accepting digital
payments, advanced slot booking, customized travel
facilities, etc., which would help to enhance travellers’
confidence during the pandemic period.
Conclusion
The idea of this paper is based on Lancaster’s origi-
nal work on the consumer analysis-product charac-
teristics approach (1966, 1971). Lancaster has already
articulated that consumers derive utility based on the
characteristics of goods offered in a basket rather than
the actual content. In this context, this work supports
that the tourists weigh satisfying their emotional needs
over the obstacles such as cost and safety. The pro-
posed theoretical model points out that if the health
and safety measures of the government are liberal;
more tourists are expected to visit destinations for en-
tertainment and to explore the culture and environ-
ment. However, if the health and safety measures are
stringent, only financially sound visitors will attempt
to explore the destinations. To tap this opportunity, the
destinations should be preparedwith unique packages
exclusively designed for an elite group of customers.
This quadrant of the theoretical model agrees with the
suggestions proposed by Roy and Sharma (2021) and
Zheng et al. (2021).
The last quadrant of the proposed model signi-
fies how pull motives operate during the pandemic.
If the financial position of the tourist is weak and the
health and safety measures of the destination are at
their maximum, then it is expected that the tourist
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 185
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
may turn down their travel plan. The expense of travel,
stay, cost of covid testing, hotel isolation expenses,
money spent on quarantine, additional expenses on
account of avoidance of public transportation, etc.,
may need to be more affordable to financially weak
travellers (Kaushal & Srivastava, 2021). Based on this
notion, expenses and endurances act as themajor pull-
back factors in destination selection.
The suggested model’s major limitation is that it
can be used to frame strategies only in a crisis where
the government or local authorities impose numerous
restrictions on travel and stay.However, in an ordinary
situation, the pull factors cannot act as a constraint for
waning the travel decision by the tourist. Secondly,
the data used for the study include tourists who have
either visited or booked to visit three tourist destina-
tions in Kerala, viz., Thangassery, Kuttanad, and Ku-
marakom before covid-19 restrictions. Their post-
travel plan should have been tracked based on this
model. The above shortfalls point towards the scope
of some future research on topics like:
• Devising a strategic business model for destina-
tion selection post covid-19.
• How to create a usp (Unique Selling Proposi-
tion)model for the tourismbusiness post covid-
19.
References
Abbas, A., Mubeen, R., Terhemba Iorember, P., Raza, &
S., Mamirkulova, G. (2021). Exploring the impact of
covid-19 on tourism: Transformational potential and
implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and
leisure industry. Current Research in Behavioral Science,
2(10228), 100033.
Ahmed, Z. (1991). The influence of the components of a
state’s tourist image on product positioning strategy.
Tourism Management, 12(4), 331–340.
Alhemoud, A. M., & Amstrong, E. G. (1996). Image of
tourism attractions in Kuwait. Journal of Travel Research,
34(4), 76–80.
Anderson, J. C., &Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tour-
ism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 11–15.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S.-L., & Santos, J. (2003). The
relationship between destination performance, overall
satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct seg-
ment. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 17(1), 149–165.
Barkin, D. (1996). Ecotourism: A tool for sustainable devel-
opment in an era of international integration? In J. A.
Miller & E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.), The Ecotourism Equa-
tion: Measuring the Impacts (pp. 263–272). Yale Univer-
sity.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of
structural equation modeling in marketing and con-
sumer research: A review. International Journal of Re-
search in Marketing, 13(1), 139–161.
Behsudi, A. (2020, December). Tourism-dependent econo-
mies are among those harmed themost by the pandemic.
Finance and Development. https://www.imf.org/external
/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/12/pdf/impact-of-the-pandemic
-on-tourism-behsudi.pdf
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Bjork, P., & Raisanen, H. K. (2016). Local food: A source for
destination attraction. International Journal of Contem-
porary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 177–194.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent vari-
ables.Wiley.
Boomsma,A. (1982). The robustness of lisrel against small
sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Jöreskog
& H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation:
Causality, structure, prediction (pp. 149–173). North-
Holland.
Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions,
and starting values in lisrel maximum likelihood es-
timation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229–242.
Buckley, R., & Westway, D. (2020). Mental health rescue ef-
fects of women’s outdoor tourism: A role in covid-19
recovery. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 103041.
Chang, H., & Kim, M. (2022). covid-19 public health strat-
egy implementation for the hospitality industry in Tai-
wan. Academica Turistica, 15(1), 149–161.
Cohen, E. (1972). Toward sociology of international tourism.
Social Research, 39(1), 164–82.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Correia, A., & Pimpao, A. (2008). Decision making pro-
cesses of Portuguese tourist travelling to South America
andAfrica. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 2(4), 330–373.
186 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An exami-
nation of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 78(1), 98–104.
Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacations.An-
nals of Tourism Research, 16(4), 408–424.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Damijanić, A. T. (2020). Travel motivations as criteria in the
wellness tourismmarket segmentation process.Academ-
ica Turistica, 13(2), 201–215.
Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184–194.
Das, S. S., & Tiwari, A. K. (2020). Understanding interna-
tional and domestic travel intention of Indian travellers
during covid19 using a Bayesian approach. Tourism
Recreation Research, 46(1), 228–244.
Devesa, M., Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. (2010). The role of
motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in
rural tourism. Tourism Management, 31(4), 547–552.
De Vos, J. (2020). The effect of covid-19 and subsequent
social distancing on travel behavior. Transportation Re-
search Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 5, 100121.
Di Renzo, L., Gualtieri, P., Cinelli, G., Bigioni, G., Soldati,
L., Attinà, A., Bianco, F. F., Caparello, G., Camodeca, V.,
Carrano, E., & Ferraro, S. (2020). Psychological aspects
and eating habits during covid-19 home confinement:
Results of ehlc-covid-19 Italian online survey. Nutri-
ents, 12(7), 2152.
Eadington,W. R., & Smith, V. L. (1992).Tourism alternatives:
Potentials and problems in the development of tourism.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Edward, M., & George, B. P. (2008). Tourism development
in the State of Kerala, India: A study of destination at-
tractiveness. European Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1),
16–38.
Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences be-
tween prospective first-time and repeat visitors to the
lower Rio Grande valley. Journal of Travel Research,
30(2), 10–16.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Sta-
tistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behavior Re-
search Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
Freire, J. R. (2011). Branding Lisbon: Defining the scope of
the city brand. In K. Dinnie (Ed.), City branding (pp.
169–174). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 39–
50.
Gamil, R. E. (2022). Exploring travel behaviour post-covid-
19: Towards a more responsible tourism.Academica Tur-
istica, 15(2), 205–216.
Gatsonis, C., & Sampson, A. R. (1989). Multiple correlation:
Exact power and sample size calculations. Psychological
Bulletin, 106(3), 516–524.
Gilbert, D., & Terrata, M. (2001). An exploratory study of
factors of Japanese tourism demand for the uk. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
13(2), 70–78.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation for-
mation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283–304.
Goffi, G., & Cucculelli, M. (2014). Components of destina-
tion competitiveness: The case of small tourism desti-
nations in Italy. International Journal of Tourism Policy,
5(4), 296–326.
Golets, A., Farias, J., & Pilati, R. (2021). covid-19 pandemic
and tourism: The impact of health risk perception and
intolerance of uncertainty on travel intentions. Current
Psychology, 42(3).
Hair, J. F., Black,W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt,M. (2014).
Aprimer on partial least squares structural equationmod-
eling. Sage.
Hanqin, Z. Q., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of mainland
Chinese visitor’ motivations to visit HangKong.Tourism
Management, 20(5), 587–594.
Hitchcock, M. (1999). Tourism and ethnicity: Situational
perspectives. International Journal of Tourism Research,
1(1), 17–32.
Horna, J. L. A. (1989). The leisure component of the parental
role. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(3), 228–241.
Hosta, M., & Plevnik, M. (2022). Inspiring breathwork re-
treats in the post-covid-19 period.Academica Turistica,
15(1), 123–133.
Hotle, S., Murray-Tuite, P., & Singh, K. (2020). Influenza risk
perception and travel-related health protection behav-
ior in the us: Insights for the aftermath of the covid-19
outbreak. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Per-
spectives, 5, 100127.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications. Sage.
India Today. (2017, January 3). This is why Kerala has ranked
8 on the ‘12 destinations to watch in 2017’ list. https://www
.indiatoday.in/travel/travel-buzz/story/kerala-destination
-india-abta-tourism-travel-liftr-952889-2017-01-03
Irwin, N. (2020, April 16). It’s the end of the world economy
as we know it. New York Times. https://www.nytimes
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 187
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
.com/2020/04/16/upshot/world-economy-restructuring
-coronavirus.html
Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will research on leisure constraints
still be relevant in the twenty-first century? Journal of
Leisure Research, 32(1), 62–68.
Jafari, K., Özduran, A., & Saydam, M. B. (2021). Hospitality
and tourism industry amid covid-19 pandemic: Voices
from small Mediterranean town. International Hospital-
ity Review. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IHR-07-2021-0054
Jaipuria, S., Parida, R., & Ray, P. (2021). The impact of
COVID-19 on tourism sector in India. Tourism Recre-
ation Research, 46(2), 245–260.
Jun, J., Kyle, T. G., & Mowen, J. A. (2009). Market segmen-
tation using perceived constraints. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 26(1), 35–55.
Karl, M., Reintinger, C., & Schmude, J. (2015). Reject or se-
lect: Mapping destination choice. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 54(3), 48–64.
Kaushal, V., & Srivastava, S. (2021). Hospitality and tourism
industry amid covid-19 pandemic: Perspectives on
challenges and learnings from India. International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102707. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102707
Kavya Lekshmi, R. S., & Mallick, H. (2020). Contribution of
international tourism to economic growth of Kerala: A
subnational-level analysis in India. Journal of Policy Re-
search in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 14(2), 165–182.
Kerala Tourism. (2020). Kerala tourism statistics 2020 high-
lights. https://www.keralatourism.org/tourismstatistics
/tourist_statistics_202020220530122214.pdf
Kerala Tourism. (2021). Kerala tourism statistics 2021 high-
lights. https://www.keralatourism.org/tourismstatistics
/tourist_statistics_202120220530122636.pdf
Kim, K., Jogaratnam, G., & Noh, J. (2006). Travel decisions
of students at a us University: Segmenting the interna-
tional market. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 345–
357.
Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motiva-
tions by nationality and destinations. Tourism Manage-
ment, 23(3), 221–232.
Lancaster, J. K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory.
Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.
Lancaster, J. K. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach.
Columbia University Press.
Lo, A. S., & Lee, C. (2011). Motivations and perceived value
of volunteer tourists fromHong Kong. TourismManage-
ment, 32(2), 326–334.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems.Annals of Tour-
ism Research, 17(3), 367–387.
Levy, D. E., & Lerch, P. B. (1991). Tourism as a factor in devel-
opment: Implications for gender and work in Barbados.
Gender and Society, 5(1), 67–85.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M.
(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size
for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Meth-
ods, 1(2), 130–149.
McCarville, R. E., & Smale, B. A. (1993). Perceived con-
straints to leisure participation within five activity do-
mains. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
11(2), 40–59.
Mohsin, A., & Alsawafi, A. M. (2011). Exploring attitudes of
Omani students towards vacations. Anatolia, 22(1), 35–
46.
Morley, C. (1992). A microeconomic theory of international
tourismdemand.Annals of TourismResearch, 19(2), 250–
267.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind,
S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-
fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological
Bulletin, 105(3), 430–445.
Nallathiga, R. (2006). Integrating entertainment, tourism,
heritage and culture into the development of cities: A
case for Mumbai. itpi Journal, 3(3), 67–72.
Neal, J. D. (2003). The effect of length of stay on travelers per-
ceived satisfactionwith service quality. Journal ofQuality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 167–176.
Okoroafo, S. C. (1995). Tourism marketing and management
handbook (Student ed.). Prentice Hall.
Pandey,K.,Mahadevan,K., & Joshi, S. (2021). Indian tourism
industry and covid-19: A sustainable recovery frame-
work in a post-pandemic era. Vision. https://doi.org/10
.1177/09722629211043298
Papatheodorou, A. (2001). Why people travel to different
places. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 164–179.
Phau, I., Lee, S., & Quintal, V. (2013). An investigation of
push and pull motivations of visitors to private parks:
The case of Araluen Botanic Park. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 19(3), 269–284.
Pokharel, R., Poudel, J., & Grala, R. K. (2018). Impact of eco-
nomic factors and a political conflict on international
tourism demand in Nepal: A vector error correction
model. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 8(1), 18–
41.
Pradana, M., Syahputra, S., Wardhana, A., Kartawinata, B.
R., & Wijayangka, C. (2020). The effects of incriminat-
ing covid19 news on the returning Indonesians’ anxi-
ety. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(8), 656–661.
Prayag, G., & Hosany, S. (2014). When middle east meets
188 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Potti et al. Re-Examining the Push-Pull Model in Tourists’ Destination Selection
west: Understanding the motives and perceptions of
young tourists from United Arab Emirates. Tourism
Management, 40(1), 35–45.
Ropovik, I. (2015). A cautionary note on testing latent vari-
able models. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1715.
Roy, G., & Sharma, S. (2021). Analyzing one-day tour trends
during covid 19 disruption: Applying push and pull
theory and text mining approach. Tourism Recreation
Research, 46(2), 288–303.
Rugg, D. (1973). The choice of journey destination: A theo-
retical and empirical analysis. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 55(1), 64–72.
Ryan,C., &Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisuremotiva-
tion scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1),
169–184.
Sahebi, A. G., Kordheydari, R., & Aghaei, M. (2022). Effect
of perception of covid-19 crisis management on desti-
nation image and intention to visit.Academica Turistica,
15(3), 291–305.
Saito, C. S., & Strehlau, V. I. (2018). Tourist destination
choice: A bibliometric study. Review of International
Business, 13(1), 17–31.
Sangpikul, A. (2008) Travel motivations of Japanese senior
travelers to Thailand. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 10(1), 81–94.
Santos, A., Gonzalez, C., Haegeman, K., & Rainoldi, A.
(2020).Behavioural changes in tourism in times of covid-
19. Publications Office of the European Union.
Scott, D., &Munson,W. (1994). Perceived constraints to park
usage among individuals with low incomes. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 12(1), 79–96.
Searle, M. S., & Jackson, E. L. (1985). Socioeconomic vari-
ations in perceived barriers to recreation participation
among would-be participants. Leisure Sciences, 7(2),
227–249.
Senbeto, D. L., & Hon, A. H. (2020). The impacts of so-
cial and economic crises on tourist behaviour and ex-
penditure: An evolutionary approach. Current Issues in
Tourism, 23(6), 740–755.
Sharma, G., Thomas, A., & Paul, J. (2021). Reviving tourism
industry post-covid-19: A resilience-based framework.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100786.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling
vacation destination choice decisions: A behavioral ap-
proach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2),
57–75.
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Segment-
ing the Japanese tour market to Turkey. Journal of Travel
Research, 41(3), 293–304.
Song, H., Wong, K. K. F., & Chon, K. K. S. (2003). Modelling
and forecasting the demand for Hong Kong tourism.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(4),
435–451.
Tasci, A.D.A., &Knutson, B. J. (2004). An argument for pro-
viding authenticity and familiarity in tourism destina-
tions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 17(1),
73–82.
Times of India. (2021, January 15). Tourism sector in Kerala
suffered a loss of up to Rs 25,000 crore. https://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram
/tourism-sector-in-kerala-suffered-a-loss-of-up-to-rs
-25000-crore/articleshow/80277809.cms
Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. R. (1993). Motivation of plea-
sure travel and tourism. In M. Khan, M. Olsen, & T. Var
(Eds.), vnr’s encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism (pp.
798–810). Wiley.
Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull
factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 844–846.
Wen, J., Kozak, M., Yang, S., & Liu, F. (2020). covid-19:
Potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel.
Tourism Review, 76(1), 74–87.
Witt, P. A., & Goodale, T. L. (1981). The relationships be-
tween barriers to leisure enjoyment and family stages.
Leisure Sciences, 4(1), 29–49.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2018). Travel and tour-
ism power and performance report.
Yang, Y., Peng, F., Wang, R., Guan, K., Jiang, T., Xu, G., Su, J.,
& Chang, C. (2020). The deadly coronaviruses: The 2003
sars pandemic and the 2020 novel coronavirus epi-
demic in China. Journal of Autoimmunity, 109, 102434.
Yıldırım, M., Geçer, E., & Akgül, O. (2020). The impacts
of vulnerability, perceived risk, and fear on preven-
tive behaviours against covid-19. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 26(1), 35–43.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects
of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A
structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.
Yuan, S., &McDonald, C. (1990).Motivational determinants
of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research,
24(1), 42–44.
Zheng, D., Luo, Q., & Ritchie, B. (2021). Afraid to travel after
covid-19? Self-protection, coping and resilience against
pandemic ‘travel fear.’ Tourism Management, 83, 104261.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 189

Original Scientific Article
The Value of Digital Innovation for Tourism
Entrepreneurs in Rural Iceland
Magdalena Falter
University of Iceland, Iceland
maf29@hi.is
Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson
University of Iceland, Iceland
gtj@hi.is
The aim of this paper is to explore digital innovation and entrepreneurial dynamics
in rural areas in Iceland. More specifically, the main objective is to describe the cur-
rent significance digital innovation has for rural tourism entrepreneurs in Iceland.
The goal of this study is hence to investigate if and how digital innovation becomes
meaningful for rural tourism entrepreneurs in Iceland. Apart from answering the
question of ‘what is going on on the ground,’ the aim is to describe the level of in-
volvement of rural businesses and entrepreneurs in innovation, digital application
and technology. Despite the global political discussion about smart tourism and the
necessity of digital innovation in the tourism industry, the study revealed that inno-
vation and digitalisation are not necessarily interrelated in the understanding of the
rural Icelandic tourism entrepreneurs. The research is an exploratory study and is
based on qualitative methodology. Information has been gathered through 34 semi-
structured interviewswith tourism entrepreneurs andmembers of their support sys-
tem in rural Iceland. The research provides knowledge about the status and the value
of digital innovation for rural tourism entrepreneurs in Iceland. The study further-
more contributes to gaining understanding about the missing link between policy
and practice and thus adds both practical and scientific value to the body of litera-
ture.
Keywords: lifestyle entrepreneurship, Iceland, smart tourism, digital innovation,
rural entrepreneurship
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.191-204
Introduction
This article explores the dynamics of digital inno-
vation among rural tourism entrepreneurs based on
a case study in Iceland. We are particularly inter-
ested in how rural tourism entrepreneurs understand
and work with digital innovation and perceive its
value, and their experiences of support mechanisms
intended to boost innovation. Applied digitalisation is
currently a highly discussed topic in policy and busi-
ness in Icelandic and international contexts (Hjalager,
2014; Stjórnarráð Íslands, 2018; Williams et al., 2020;
Zavratnik et al., 2018; Falter et al., 2022). In the tourism
industry, digitalisation typically manifests as ‘smart
tourism.’ However, despite an open-mindedness to-
wards digitalisation, tourism practitioners frequently
remain sceptical about adopting smart approaches
in practice (Liburd et al., 2017). Tourism’s economic
role has rapidly increased globally over the past cou-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 191
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
ple of decades,1 and innovation and entrepreneurship
have received increased attention in tourism research.
Moreover, the covid-19 pandemic has highlighted
the need for innovation in the tourism industry (Ti-
wari et al., 2021). In light of this, it is concerning that
the literature on rural innovation reveals a gap be-
tween rural and urban areas concerning the appli-
cation of (digital) innovation (Mayer et al., 2016). In
Iceland, most tourism businesses are small or micro-
sized (smies), many of which can be categorised as
lifestyle businesses. Such businesses are not limited
to rural areas, potentially affecting innovation in the
sector. Lifestyle entrepreneurs have been criticised for
showing restraint towards technological progress and
a lack of interest in profit maximisation (Ioannides &
Petersen 2003; Peters et al., 2009).
Our objective is to explore the value of digital inno-
vation for rural tourism entrepreneurs in Iceland and
identify how they understand and apply innovation
in practice. We focus on the value of innovation from
the perspectives of entrepreneurs with different oper-
ations and business goals and the challenges they face
when engaging in innovation. This paper begins with
a brief overview of innovation research in tourism
and subsequently explores how tourismoperators per-
ceive digitalisation in the tourism industry. This study
demonstrates that smart tourism’s value differs sig-
nificantly within the Icelandic tourism industry. The
findings indicate black-and-white thinking regarding
digital applications in tourism. Business-oriented en-
trepreneurs are likely to perceive digital applications as
valuable, while thosemore alignedwith their business’
lifestyle values tend to reject them due to concerns
about ‘robotising’ their interactions with tourists. This
paper identifies a communication gap between sup-
port systems and the tourism industry, which hinders
innovation in rural tourism. We conclude this paper
by making recommendations for further research.
Literature Review
Innovation in the Context of Tourism
Although innovation is frequently discussed in cur-
rent tourism entrepreneur literature (Hansen et al.,
1 https://www.unwto.org/why-tourism
2019; Jaafar et al., 2015; Romão, 2020; Sørensen &
Hjalager, 2020; Tuomi et al., 2020; Williams et al.,
2020; Zach et al., 2020), it is often considered ‘too
fuzzy a concept to be measured and accounted for’
(oecd, 2018, p. 1). The classic Schumpeterian ap-
proach (Schumpeter, 1999) describes innovation, in
the sense of idea and value creation, as the quin-
tessence of entrepreneurial activity. Within this ap-
proach, technological change and productivity growth
are closely connected (Ruttan, 1959). The oecd de-
fines innovation as more than developing ideas and
creating prototypes and inventions (oecd, 2018) and
identifies implementation, knowledge, novelty, and
value creation (p. 48) as four essential dimensions
of innovation. As the oecd observes, global govern-
ment initiatives have called for innovation to boost
economies and strengthen communities. Due to tour-
ism’s continued growth and potential economic value,
innovation in this sector has become the focus of pub-
lic administrations globally (Hjalager et al., 2018; Ro-
driguez et al., 2014). Furthermore, in the case of Ice-
land, innovation is seen as an essential driver of re-
gional development, not least in the context of tourism.
Recent efforts by public authorities to establish sup-
port systems for innovative development in tourism
have highlighted this political interest (Stjórnarráð Ís-
lands, 2018).
Tourism is not an easily defined sector and is af-
fected by sectors that are not linked to it at first ap-
pearance (Hjalager, 2015). For example, eu transna-
tional corporations, such as infrastructure provision,
and the principles of consumer protection, are also
linked to tourism and shape the sector subliminally.
Hence tourism innovation is often a combination or
variation of existing innovative services rather than
a ‘breakthrough innovation’ (Zach, 2016, p. 273). In-
novation outside the tourism sector affects tourism,
and, to some extent, tourism innovation is a response
or consequence of external changes (Hjalager, 2015).
As in other sectors, tourism innovation is considered
essential for responding to fast-changing global com-
petition (Sørensen & Hjalager, 2020). Businesses need
strategies fostering innovative behaviour that even-
tually leads to business improvement to maintain a
competitive advantage in the global tourism market
192 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
(Hansen et al., 2019; Ottenbacher, 2007). Perceived
service innovation can positively impact customer ex-
perience (Teng & Chen, 2021). In this regard, Hjalager
(2015) argues that the role of innovation is increasing
in successfully operating tourism businesses.
This article focuses on digital innovation in the
context of rural tourism entrepreneurship. The chang-
ing trend towards increased application of digitalisa-
tion in the service industry has started to affect and
change dynamics in tourism and hospitality services
(Tuomi et al., 2021). The goal is to support the busi-
ness’ efficiency by increasing customer service and
cutting costs through automated processes. Examples
include automated check-ins, room service and lug-
gage storage or artificial intelligence-supported learn-
ing (Tuomi et al., 2020).
Although the covid-19 pandemic has increased
the attraction of the countryside (French, 2022), there
are few examples addressing such digital pilot ap-
proaches in rural areas. Nevertheless, rural areas are
confronted with the consequences of ongoing change
and the transition towards a more technology-driven
development. Innovation is imperative for rural areas’
resilience and ability to adapt to change to counteract
rural-urban migration and promote an attractive liv-
ing andworking environment (French, 2022). The suc-
cessful implementation of rural innovation depends
on the actors involved, a network that French (2022)
refers to as an ‘innovation ecosystem’ (p. 4), and po-
litical support (Mann & Miller, 2022). According to
Mann and Miller (2022), academia’s overarching fo-
cus on urban innovation creates a false image of rural
areas having little innovation potential. However, due
to the lack of access to resources, infrastructure and
networks compared to urban areas, rural innovation
occurs on different levels and is rarely directly compa-
rable to urban innovation (Mann & Miller, 2022).
Hjalager et al. (2018) relate the discussion of ru-
ral innovation to tourism, pointing out that it has a
certain ambiguity. The typical rural tourist seeks au-
thentic and back-to-basics experiences (Hjalager et al.,
2018). However, rural tourism must simultaneously
meet global tourism expectations and provide a cer-
tain standard of comfort andmodernisation to remain
attractive to future customers. Such expectations can
place rural tourist entrepreneurs in a paradoxical po-
sition when deciding whether to become innovatively
active.
Innovation Obstacles and Lifestyle Entrepreneurship
Rosalina et al. (2021) differentiate between internal
and external challenges to entrepreneurial innovation.
Political issues and dependence on government sup-
port are examples of external innovation hindrances
(Rosalina et al. 2021). Cooperation between the state
and private businesses is frequently regarded as fun-
damental for effective response to competition in the
fastgrowing tourism sector (Rodríguez et al., 2014).
Innovation policies and support systems aim to re-
duce entry barriers and effectively implement tourism
innovation. However, Rodríguez et al. (2014) criticise
public institutions’ tendency to implement innovation
strategies for actors in the tourism industry instead of
collaborating with them. Top-down approaches with-
out incorporating the private sector have failed to fulfil
companies’ needs when implementing innovation.
Rural tourismentrepreneurs also face internal chal-
lenges that can negatively influence innovation, such
as their tendency to be ‘late bloomers’ when adopt-
ing and implementing innovation (Rodríguez et al.,
2014). In light of digital innovation’s increasing role
in tourism (Işık et al., 2019; Hjalager, 2015), this re-
straint can affect their level of business improvement
and market advantage. The covid-19 pandemic pro-
vided an opportunity to respond to the global trend
of increasing digitalisation (Sigala, 2021). The hesitant
and late adoption of digital innovation in the tourism
sector is rooted in further internal innovation hin-
drances. Possible reasons include lack of time and fi-
nancing, insufficient knowledge and a fear of risk and
change (Rodríguez et al., 2014; Rosalina et al., 2021).
Another common feature of the tourism industry
is hesitation to collaborate with other tourism firms
due to rivalry and fear of competition (Rodríguez et
al., 2014). Tourism companies’ reluctance to collabo-
rate and share knowledge at the government and pri-
vate sector levels impedes innovative development in-
ternally and externally (Işık et al., 2019). Zach (2016)
emphasises the benefits of collaboration, especially for
smies. Compared to larger tourism companies, these
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 193
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
businesses have limited innovation possibilities due to
their small size, financial framework and workforce
(Zach, 2016). An understanding of innovation is es-
sential for its implementation and enhancing business
performance (Martínez-Román et al., 2015).
However, limited knowledge, lack of collaboration
and failure to adopt new technologies are said to be
typical characteristics of lifestyle entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship is commonly defined as ‘the pursuit
of opportunity beyond resources controlled’ (Eisen-
mann, 2013), often concerning the willingness to take
risks (Gunnarsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2016) and the
underlying rationale of economic gain and business
growth (Peters et al., 2009). Entrepreneurs are consid-
ered to have a key role in innovation and the develop-
ment of technology and smart processes (Williams et
al., 2020).
Unlike conventional entrepreneurs, lifestyle en-
trepreneurs’ business goals are not necessarily growth-
oriented and are often driven by various motivations
(Peters et al., 2009; Jóhannesson, 2012; Ateljevic &
Doorne, 2000). According to Hjalager et al. (2018), the
rural tourism industry attracts lifestyle entrepreneurs
who pursue the idea of turning a hobby into a ca-
reer instead of profit maximisation (Hjalager et al.,
2018; Peters et al., 2009). They have been criticised
for ‘primarily following a dream, often with no ex-
perience, training or expertise in these areas’ (Peters
et al., 2009, p. 6). Further criticism has been voiced
regarding lifestyle entrepreneurs’ aversion to apply-
ing new technologies and their lack of management
skills and interest in collaborating and networking
(Peters et al., 2009; Gunnarsdóttir & Jóhannesson,
2016). Conversely, lifestyle entrepreneurs are said to
foster the development of innovative (niche) products
and their distribution in the wider industry (Ateljevic
& Doorne, 2000).
Dias et al. (2022) argue that lifestyle entrepreneur-
ship in the rural context is an essential driver of inno-
vation. Theymaintain that lifestyle entrepreneurs’ em-
beddedness in communities increases knowledge and
network formation on a local scale. The authors also
observe that entrepreneurs’ attachment to surround-
ing nature positively affects innovative value creation
(Dias et al., 2022).
Digitalisation and Smart Tourism in Rural Areas
Thediscussion concerning digital innovation and tour-
ism frequently manifests as smart tourism in the cur-
rent body of tourism innovation literature and is in-
creasingly gaining global government attention (Hja-
lager et al., 2018; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Zavratnik et
al., 2018). The level of digitalisation in the tourism
industry has increased due to extensive technologi-
cal development (Tuomi et al., 2020). In digital in-
novation, a distinction is frequently made between
smart tourism and e-tourism (Kazandzhieva & San-
tana, 2019). E-tourism focuses on providing digital
connections and is typically used in e-marketing and
online booking systems. It is the foundation of smart
tourism (Gretzel, Sigala et al., 2015). In contrast, smart
tourism has a broad scope of involved technologies,
is based on icts (Jovicic, 2019; Roopchund, 2020)
and is described as ‘technical, data-driven, system-
oriented and service-dominant’ (Liburd et al., 2017, p.
4). It is a meaning-enriched and context-driven appli-
cation of technology (Gretzel, Reino et al., 2015). The
link to virtual reality, artificial intelligence (ai) (Del
Chiappa & Baggio, 2015) and social media indicates
that tourism innovation is user-driven and responds
to the needs of ‘smart tourists.’ These ‘travellers 2.0’
(Magasic & Gretzel, 2020, p. 5) demonstrate changed
tourism behaviour following digitalisation. This new
form of traveller is also referred to as a ‘digital na-
tive,’ emphasising the omnipresence of emerging tech-
nologies in daily applications (Skaletsky et al., 2017).
Practical examples include the application of ai, on-
line streaming, the use of apps and mobile market-
ing, for example, cloud-based training programmes
for the hospitality sector (Roopchund, 2020). Specif-
ically, smart tourism replaces conventional informa-
tion channels, such as tourist guidebooks, with smart-
phones and other digital devices (Mieli & Zillinger,
2020).
However, Ren et al. (2018) argue that smart tourism
remains an indistinct and weakly defined concept
from the perspective of tourism actors (Gretzel, Sigala
et al., 2015). Therefore, despite an open-mindedness
towards digitalisation, tourism practitioners often re-
main sceptical about how to adopt smart approaches
in practice (Liburd et al., 2017). Ren et al. (2018) stress
194 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
that it is important to ‘not see smart tourism as driven
exclusively by technological developments and data’
(p. 135) but as an amalgamation of digital and social
attributes. They see smart tourism as a combination
of skills and resources that neither focuses solely on
technology and big data nor exclusively on social ap-
proaches. Zach et al. (2020) point out that the decision
to adopt a new strategy, such as smart tourism, ‘hap-
pens between becoming aware and forming an under-
standing of the innovation’ (p. 3). Hence, the ability
to see value in smart tourism requires a basic under-
standing of what it implies. The lack of concrete ideas
about how to apply smart tourism in practice could
lead to the digital exclusion of those unwilling or in-
capable of making use of technological changes un-
derpinning smart tourism. In the near future, tourism
companies will likely require more it and digital ap-
plication knowledge (oecd, 2022).
Smart development is more challenging in rural
than urban areas (Zach et al., 2020). One reason is
that rural areas often lag behind regarding the infras-
tructure necessary to use or develop digital solutions
(Mayer et al., 2016). Moreover, rural areas are associ-
ated with high transportation costs, low levels of inno-
vation and fewer creative minds (Gibson, 2010). An-
other reason is the differences in access to digital ap-
plications among individuals. Varying levels of digital
involvement produce social division, intensifying the
so-called digital divide (Gunkel, 2003). The less peo-
ples’ knowledge and involvement in technological de-
velopment, the less attracted they are to the idea of
applying digitalisation. Hence, rural areas often face
a downward spiral since information is increasingly
provided through digital channels. Those who lack ac-
cess to technology become even more disadvantaged
(Rooksby et al., 2002) andwary of technology, asman-
ifested in technophobia, a feeling of anxiety towards
digitalisation and technology (Tussyadiah et al., 2020).
Case Study: Digital Innovation In The Icelandic
Tourism Industry
Tourism in Iceland, Organisational Structure and
Support for Innovation
In past decades, Iceland has become a popular tourist
destination. Tourism has become one of Iceland’smost
significant economic pillars, with 2,013,190 arrivals
at the international airport in Keflavík in 2019 (Fer-
ðamálastofa, 2020b). Before the covid-19 pandemic,
tourism’s share of foreign exchange earnings was 42
(Ferðamálastofa, 2018) among the highest in oecd
countries.2 The country’s landscape andnatural attrac-
tions are the main incentives for travelling to Iceland.
TheMinistry of Culture and Business Affairs (Depart-
ment of Tourism) is in charge of the development and
execution of Icelandic tourism policy and of coordi-
nating various tourism collaboration partners, includ-
ing the Icelandic Tourist Board. Iceland is divided into
seven regions, each with its own dmo supported by
public authorities.3 The dmos are in charge of mar-
keting their regions as tourism destinations, and they
collaborate with municipalities and member compa-
nies in tourism development. The Tourism Strategy
2021–2030 (Ferðamálastofa, 2021) was developed un-
der the auspices of the Ministry. It demonstrates an
ongoing emphasis on tourism as a tool for develop-
ing rural areas. In summary, the tourism strategy aims
to achieve a ‘profitable and competitive tourism in-
dustry in harmony with the country and its people’
(p. 3). Its focus is on enhancing the visitor experience
and the quality of life for locals. Its purpose is to in-
crease sustainability and effectiveness regarding the
‘community,’ ‘economy’ and ‘environment.’ The strat-
egy emphasises responsible tourism by applying tech-
nological and innovative approaches (p. 5). Tourism
also features in the Icelandic Strategic Regional Devel-
opment (Stjórnarráð Íslands, 2018, p. 16) plan, which
aims to ‘boost tourism services in rural areas.’ Regard-
ing implementing the measures described in the plan,
public authorities in Iceland collaborate with various
private initiatives that carry out training programmes
for tourism businesses to increase access to innova-
tion and digital development. The tourism sector’s or-
ganisational structure largely consists of smies, of-
ten characterised by lifestyle entrepreneurs, with a few
large companies. Despite increased digital activity in
the Icelandic tourism industry, the level of digital ap-
plications is relatively low. Many smies lack a con-
2 https://data.oecd.org/industry/tourism-gdp.htm
3 https://www.visiticeland.com/the-regions/
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 195
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
crete social media strategy and the motivation to un-
dertake further education in digital marketing (Fer-
ðamálastofa, 2020a).
Methodology
This study is based on qualitative fieldwork under-
taken by the first author. In total, 34 tourism entre-
preneurs were interviewed, of which 17 were tour or
activity operators, nine were accommodation estab-
lishment operators, and eight were catering business
operators. The interviewees’ ages ranged from 30 to 70
years. Most of the businesses were smies and family-
run. Althoughmost of themwere open all year round,
their peak operation period was the summer. The
number of employees varied between seasons, from
no additional employees in winter months to 40 em-
ployees in the high season.
A snowball technique was used to select intervie-
wees throughout Iceland from July 2020 until March
2021. Snowball sampling, also called network chain
referral (Lawrence Neuman, 2014), refers to the met-
aphor of a snowball that gains volume when rolled
in the snow. The snowball sampling technique be-
gins by approaching one or a few people and increases
the number of contacts based on these initial inter-
actions (Lawrence Neuman, 2014). Since Iceland does
not have a formal list of rural tourism innovation net-
workmembers, snowball sampling allowed us to grad-
ually widen our network and approach actors in this
informal network. Most of the interviews were con-
ducted along the South Coast (12), followed by East
Iceland (7), North Iceland (6), West Iceland (5), the
Westfjords (3) and Reykjanes (1). The interviews were
recorded, transcribed and analysed using grounded
theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1994), and themes were
identified through open and axial coding rounds.
Although the entrepreneurs interviewed in this
study were all smies, their business aims varied sig-
nificantly. The vast majority were classified as lifestyle
entrepreneurs. The rest hadmore economic and global
perspectives on the tourism sector; hence, they could
be classified as growth and business-oriented entre-
preneurs, whose business goal is economic growth and
scalability. The identified key themes were, firstly, how
the interviewees understand and apply innovation in
their businesses, focusing on innovation during the
covid-19 pandemic, including perceived innovation
hindrances. Secondly, the analysis focused on digital
innovation, how the interviewees apply it and, notably,
how they perceive smart tourism.
Analysis
Definition of Innovation
In tourism, the innovation process is described as
complex, resulting in additional difficulties for smies
(Dias et al., 2022; Zach, 2016). As previously discussed,
innovation has become a buzzword in the global tour-
ism sector (Hjalager, 2010). To gain understanding,
it is essential to obtain insights into how innovation
manifests in practice. We attempted to elicit intervie-
wees’ understanding of how they apply innovation by
asking them to illustrate or describe innovation. We
observed that althoughmany of the entrepreneurs ini-
tially associated innovation with ‘something new’ or
‘unique,’ most of them perceived it as ‘doing existing
things in a new way.’ Hence, most of the interviewees
saw innovation as an improvement or ‘twist’ on exist-
ing products or processes instead of initiating some-
thing ‘ground-breaking.’
For many of the interviewees, innovation means
to actually do something and bring the idea-finding
process further towards implementation. Identifying
oneself with the implemented innovation (‘with heart
and soul’) was a frequently mentioned aspect. Two
entrepreneurs argued that innovation occurs ‘out of
need;’ great ideas are more likely to happen under
pressure. In six of the cases, the term ‘innovation’ was
unclear and required further explanation or transla-
tion into Icelandic.
Innovation in Practice
Despite the interviewees’ overall agreement in defin-
ing innovation, the above definitions remain theo-
retical. Contrary to the literature’s emphasis on the
key role of technology in innovation processes, only
three entrepreneurs associated innovation with some-
thing digital. When asked what innovation means in
practice and how it manifests for them, most of the
entrepreneurs referred to their business as a whole
rather than identifying specific examples. They often
196 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
saw their innovation manifesting as a business idea
that was new to the area or executed in a way that had
never been tried before. Gastronomy entrepreneurs,
in particular, defined their innovation as using natural
materials and converting them into products that do
not yet exist in that form. Another connection to in-
novation was made through education, notably ‘rais-
ing awareness for sustainability in local food’ and Ice-
landic history:
Cause [sic] we are doing something new on a
very old foundation. So we are taking some-
thing that wasn’t really known. Because the Ice-
landers that come to us, they are always like,
‘Oh, I didn’t know you had caves here.’ [Tourism
Entrepreneur, South Iceland]
Only a few entrepreneurs gave examples of their
innovation in practice that matched their previous de-
scription of innovation. A restaurant owner in North
Iceland described innovation as something ‘whichwas
maybe behind, and you take it and put it in a new
dress.’ In practice, she ‘dressed up’ traditional rural
Icelandic food and served it as original meals in her
restaurant. She aimed to reveal old Icelandic tradi-
tions and combine them with contemporary tourism
requirements.
Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The field study was conducted from the summer of
2020 until the spring of 2022, when the tourism in-
dustry was significantly impacted by the covid-19
pandemic. In Iceland, tourism decreased by 75.8
compared to the previous year (Ferðamálastofa, 2021).
Many tourism companies suffered financial losses de-
spite government support.4 The most frequent busi-
ness response was to reduce services to a minimum.
All operational businesses shifted their focus to the
Icelandic market due to global travel restrictions, im-
plying a redefining of their marketing strategies. Sev-
eral interviewees stated that although they did not take
specific action to cope with the sudden effects of the
pandemic, they used the time to rethink their business
4 https://www.government.is/government/covid-19
philosophy. They explained that due to their small
business size, the daily workload required all their
time, resources and workforce during covid-free
years. Hence, restructuring the business had largely
been placed on hold:
And we started to realise how nice it is to not
constantly be stressed. That was a very impor-
tant experience for us, which eventually led
us to starting [sic] to restructure our business
model. [Lifestyle entrepreneur; tour operator,
North Iceland]
Several of the interviewed tourism entrepreneurs
adapted their services so that they could continue
to operate their businesses despite social gathering
restrictions and reduced numbers of tourists. They
reused their business resources in a different context.
For example, a tour operator in South Iceland tem-
porarily offered car cleaning services using the equip-
ment they used to clean their tourist trucks:
It was a brilliant idea because what couldwe do?
I mean, we did not have any travellers. Because
we had everything there. The best products and
equipment and all of the machines. [Tour oper-
ator, South Iceland]
Using existing resources was also a crucial cop-
ing strategy adopted by restaurant owners who sup-
plied packed rawmaterials typically used in their busi-
ness. Apart from the abovementioned restructuring of
(online) marketing strategies, only one entrepreneur
mentioned a digital coping strategy. He restructured
his restaurant and offered an online takeaway service.
Innovation Obstacles: The Gap Between Policy and
Practice
Most of the interviewees stated that they would like to
increase their innovation level within their business.
Lack of time and financial resourceswere themost fre-
quently named hindrances, as highlighted in the fol-
lowing quote:
Maybe when you are in a rural setting, you are
fighting a much harder life within your com-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 197
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
pany. You are the manager, the marketing man-
ager, the sales manager; you are the chef, you
probably have 100 jobs, so this [increasing inno-
vation] is something you always leave for later.
[Hotel owner, East Iceland]
This statement reveals that apart from the time
aspect, the rural setting further complicates innova-
tion development. In rural areas, tourism is more sea-
sonal, which is a challenge when hiring staff. Seasonal
staff turnover forces businesses to allocate resources
to teaching and training employees instead of focus-
ing on expansion. Hence, developing innovative ideas
is placed on hold to ensure day-to-day business op-
erations. Furthermore, the ‘countryside mindset’ was
a frequently named innovation hindrance. The entre-
preneurs differentiated between individuals and local
governments hampering innovative actions. Regard-
ing individual actions, one entrepreneur pointed out
a particular area’s unused tourism potential and criti-
cised the lack of private initiatives for developing it:
It is so funny because there are a lot of peo-
ple here that are talking about this kind of stuff:
‘Yeah, we need to find something to do and do
something.’ But nobody is doing that. Maybe it
is because everybody thinks people should do it
for them [laughs] and not themselves. [Tourism
entrepreneur, West Iceland]
Several entrepreneurs highlighted the difficulties
rural companies encounter when accessing venture
capital. They argued that in remote areas, banks de-
mand a long-term business plan and securities to en-
sure repayments. Due to the short tourism season,
many applicants cannot provide this; thus, they are
not granted a loan. However, the current Icelandic Re-
gional Development Plan refers to rural equalisation
regarding several measurements (Stjórnarráð Íslands,
2018). According to one interviewee, this development
is either too slow or non-existent:
Rural areas. They are not really on their fo-
cus plan. It’s very fancy to say, ‘we want to
strengthen the rural areas.’ You get a lot of votes,
and people are very positive and blah, blah,
blah, but they are not showing it by doing any-
thing. [Lifestyle tourism entrepreneur, East Ice-
land]
The local grant system was also criticised. Accord-
ing to one interviewee classed as a growth-oriented en-
trepreneur, non-scalable and non-innovative projects
with a low impact on the region’s economic develop-
ment predominantly receive local government sup-
port. The following quote emphasises criticism of this
lack of understanding of innovation on the part of au-
thorities:
I think with the governmental programmes,
when they are talking about innovation, they
are thinking about creating jobs for one. But
real innovation is when you have something
that really scales. [Growth-oriented tourism en-
trepreneur, South Iceland]
Further criticism towards the (local) government
was voiced, especially by entrepreneurs in the most
remote areas, the Westfjords and East Iceland, be-
cause they do not feel seen and supported by local and
national governments. Two business operators from
West Iceland criticised the lack of practical relevance
in government educational programmes and funding
for smies. They considered government support to be
too little and irrelevant. They also argued thatmentors
and lecturers lack the practical experience and insights
into the reality of the tourism industry required to
teach educational programmes. These entrepreneurs
criticised the missing link between policy and prac-
tice that hampers successful collaboration benefitting
both sides. They argued that tourism businesses and
the government work separately with little exchange:
The system is so broken. The companies and the
system, they are not talking together. This is just
like there is not anunderstanding between these
two groups, [of] what we are doing. [Tourism
Entrepreneur, West Fjords]
Entrepreneurs in the west and east of Iceland pre-
dominantly highlighted this perceived disconnection
198 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
from policy. However, several other entrepreneurs
from these regions had a very positive attitude towards
the government, as did entrepreneurs in the north and
south. According to one entrepreneur, government
support follows the ‘principle of demand and supply.’
Due to the lower entrepreneurial activity in rural areas
compared to the ‘innovation centre Reykjavík,’ fewer
requests are submitted to local governments. Hence
the likelihood of obtaining support increases. The fact
that companies and individuals are ‘more unique and
better known’ (Entrepreneur,West Iceland) in smaller
local communities improves this likelihood.
The Digital and Tourism: Smart Tourism
As demonstrated above, the current body of digital
tourism literature and tourism development leans to-
wards fostering digital innovation and smart tourism
strategies. In this case study, we observed that the in-
terviewed entrepreneurs held different opinions re-
garding the value of digitising and automating pro-
cesses in the tourism sector. Several entrepreneurs
associated smart tourism with digital marketing and
online booking, an area in which all the interviewees
demonstrated high levels of expertise. In contrast,
some interviewees did not perceive any usefulness in
smart tourism in the sense of automated processes
onsite and pointed out that they could not imagine
applying it in their own businesses. They associated
smart tourism features with urban areas, where trav-
elling is faster and more anonymous. They argued
that automated processes such as self-check-ins fit
‘the younger generation’ and considered themselves
digitally ‘old-fashioned.’ These entrepreneurs feel that
personal communication with guests is an essential
requirement of Icelandic tourism. Hence, they related
automation processes with a loss in personal services
and, thus, a decline in the offered experience:
But I find it quite sad; humans are lacking so
much interaction because of technical advances.
Covid has also highlighted the loneliness of be-
ing in a virtual world. [Lifestyle gastronomy en-
trepreneur, South Iceland]
These entrepreneurs also fear ‘missing touch with
the real world.’ Two entrepreneurs voiced concerns
that smart applications could attract mass tourism
and careless travellers. An entrepreneur from South
Iceland argued that her sole-trader business does not
fulfil the requirements for digital applications, and ex-
tra demand through online systems would exceed her
capacities.
In contrast, the entrepreneurs classed as growth-
oriented saw great value in smart tourism and ar-
gued that digital features improve service and save
capacities. This group is divided into those who find
smart tourismdevelopmentmeaningful in general and
those who find it relevant only in specific application
areas. Instead of fearing a loss of personal service
through digital applications, several entrepreneurs
see an opportunity to use smart tourism to improve
it. They anticipate that outsourcing time-consuming
processes will allow them to focus on communicating
with tourists, which positively contributes to improv-
ing their service and, hence, their product:
I don’t want you to stand behind the desk and
sell tickets; I want you to go on the outside. I
want you to greet the [guests]. And then I want
you to lead them to the ticket machine. Even-
tually, we will only have automatic ticket ma-
chines and will only have greeters. [Growth-
oriented entrepreneur, South Iceland]
These entrepreneurs see smart tourism as ‘the fu-
ture’ of Icelandic and global tourism and expect ‘eas-
ier business.’ Several of them criticised the slow digital
development in the Icelandic tourism sector and anx-
iously referred to the lack of digital awareness among
their colleagues. They criticised the ‘dinosaur’ mind-
set of those unwilling to apply digital innovation and
pointed out the lack of openness towards new trends
in Icelandic tourism, such as innovative paying sys-
tems. According to one growth-oriented interviewee,
tourism innovation in Iceland is predominantly driven
by large companies due to a lack of understanding in
the smies community:
They don’t understand the reason, and if I want
to help them to do digital innovation, they want
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 199
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
me to do Facebook ads. That’s their innovation.
[Growth-oriented entrepreneur, South Iceland]
Despite an expressed openness towards smart tour-
ism, most of the entrepreneurs do not consider smart
tourism features a fit for their business. A hotel owner
in East Iceland, who is very open towards digitalisa-
tion per se, observed that guests visiting remote rural
Iceland are looking for personal contact:
I like that for natural landmarks, it is good to
have these gates where you can just pay and
come in. Or for the toilets and stuff like that.
But my feeling is you are not coming to the end
of the world where we live, like people who live
in cities. This is surreal, that peaceful town. I
think that would be strange. [East Iceland]
Most of those entrepreneurs who do not consider
digital innovation a fit for their businesses see the fu-
ture in a combination of traditional and digital mea-
sures. Whether they find digitalisation useful, all the
interviewees share the common goal of increasing per-
sonal service and experience. Thus they see aspects of
smart tourism as a method of simplifying processes,
saving staff or providing touchless payment systems
through technological support without ‘robotising’
their business. For example, one hotel owner in East
Iceland supplies her rooms with iPads providing an
integrated booking system for the hotel’s and region’s
services. At the same time, she employs additional staff
at the service desk exclusively for personal customer
contact:
Of course, it costs something, but I really think
it is worth it because this is one way of doing
things more simple [sic] for my staff and also
doing something good for the environment. But
we have to be careful because I don’t want to
have a place where I don’t see the people. The
technology, it’s both positive and negative. [Ho-
tel owner, East Iceland]
Discussion and Conclusion
Lack of time and financial resources are the main ob-
stacles hindering small Icelandic tourism entrepre-
neurs from educating themselves about digital mar-
keting strategies (Ferðamálastofa, 2020a). Our above
observations support this finding: smies are too oc-
cupied with their daily work to study digital appli-
cations and decipher innovative projects. The en-
forced break during the covid-19 pandemic gave
them room to rethink their strategies and business
models and develop new approaches. This lack of time
raises the question of whether lifestyle entrepreneurs
can increase their level of innovation on a larger scale.
The interviewees also observed that financial restric-
tions indicate a gap between tourism reality and pol-
icy. Large funding applications require significant time
and labour commitments. It is evident that the inter-
viewees, who are already running businesses, cannot
meet grant requirements requiring the time-consum-
ing instigation of ground-breaking projects.
For the interviewees, applied innovation manifests
in various novelties or variations in their businesses.
However, these innovations tend to serve their specific
business and demonstrate little capacity for growth.
Due to increased competition in the Icelandic tourism
industry in previous years, innovation has become im-
perative for survival in the market, raising the ques-
tion of how tourism companies will cope in the fu-
ture. If they strive for non-scalable, local innovation
while global development aims for high-scalable, in-
ternational innovation, further research is needed to
investigate what this implies in practice. If lifestyle en-
trepreneurship reaches its limits in a future dominated
by digitalisation and automation, creative destruction
could result as entrepreneurs who do not jump on the
bandwagon disappear from the market.
The financial aspect of the innovation dynamic
seems to reproduce the rural divide. Entrepreneurs
in areas with short seasons and a modest flow of
tourists highlighted the difficult conditions for obtain-
ing loans. Banks are more likely to support tourism
projects close to the capital area because the steady
flow of tourists guarantees the ability to make repay-
ments. The lack of support in rural areas also hinders
tourism innovation. Again, tourism entrepreneurs
face a vicious circle, and the dynamics of innovation
come to a halt: the lack of financial resources support-
ing tourism innovation leads to a lack of innovative
200 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
projects. Hence a lack of investment results in a lack
of innovation.
At this point, rural innovation is facing a double-
edged sword. On the one hand, policy aims to fos-
ter rural tourism by boosting innovation (Stjórnar-
ráð Íslands, 2018). The considerable political inter-
est in tourism is largely due to its contribution to
the gdp. On the other hand, several entrepreneurs
state that the grants are difficult to obtain and too
small to implement innovative and creative change.
Further criticism of the mismatch between educa-
tion provision and tourism business needs indicates
another gap in demand and supply between tourism
entrepreneurs and the support system. As previously
discussed (Rodríguez et al., 2014), including tourism
actors in policy formulation and implementation is
essential for achieving desirable outcomes. The in-
terviewed smies perceived a lack of broad involve-
ment in the tourism policy framework. Tourism plans,
strategies and education appear to be developed for
tourism entrepreneurs rather than with them using a
top-down approach in collaborationwith a few strong,
large companies.
Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the ru-
ral tourism sector does not consist of a uniform group
but various businesses with different goals. We see the
need for more straight-forward and open conversa-
tion between tourism businesses and policymakers
to overcome this mismatch and establish more cus-
tomised bottom-up approaches. Therefore, acknowl-
edgement from the tourism support system that the
Icelandic tourism sector is not uniform is an essen-
tial precondition. The sector consists of various forms
of entrepreneurs with different business goals, rang-
ing from growth-oriented to lifestyle entrepreneur-
ship, and while most appear to be interested in in-
novation, its meaning and value for their businesses
differ. Hence, a vibrant innovation ecosystem in rural
Iceland requires a support system that considers these
companies’ individual characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses.
Uncertainty regarding the implications of smart
tourism was a recurring theme throughout the re-
search, influencing its perceived value for the intervie-
wees. Since most of themwere tour operators, caterers
or accommodation owners, they could not completely
digitise their core services. We often received the im-
pression that smart tourism and automation were di-
rectly associated with the image of heavy industry.
Most of the interviewees appeared to think in black-
and-white terms, either for or against smart tourism.
Since smart tourism seemed to symbolise industri-
alised robotic technology, some automatically associ-
ated it with decreased personal communication with
customers. Only a minority, predominantly growth-
oriented entrepreneurs, saw smart tourism features
as an opportunity to minimise necessary daily tasks
and focus on personal interactions with tourists. They
largely referred to smart tourism features as staff- and
time-saving tasks such as automated ticket sales or au-
dio guides. Despite scepticism and restraint towards
automated processes, digital marketing tools are cru-
cial for most of the interviewees. Since tourism op-
erators are highly proficient in digital marketing, al-
thoughmost are somewhat reserved concerning smart
tourism strategies, we would categorise the scale of
digital applications in Icelandic tourism as e-tourism
(Kazandzhieva & Santana, 2019). While e-tourism
uses digital channels to provide information, smart
tourism implies experiencing co-creation through
technology. Only two of the interviewees, whose busi-
nesses are based on co-creation and digital interac-
tion with tourists, matched the classification of smart
tourism providers. For the rest, the value of digital
innovation lies more in advertising and information
provision. As soon as the guests arrive, they focus on
personal interactions.
Regardless of the interviewees’ business intentions,
they all pursued the common goal of increasing per-
sonal customer service and positive experiences for
tourists. As discussed in the literature review, the global
digitalisation trend will lead to a changed and more
digitised tourism demand in the near future. As smart
applications gradually replace tourism leaflets, the fu-
ture of tourism will require a higher level of automa-
tion and digital possibilities. Since many of the in-
terviewees do not see a match between digitalisation
and remote Icelandic nature, wewonder how Icelandic
tourism businesses will react when tourists’ expecta-
tions change in the near future. Global tourism devel-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 201
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
opment is bipolar, with an enhanced requirement for
convenient travel and a high level of new technologies,
on the one hand, and a growing demand for authen-
tic rural and back-to-basics experiences, on the other.
Further research is needed to investigate the extent of
these future changes and their potential impact on the
rural tourism industry in Iceland and elsewhere.
As previously stated, tourism entrepreneurs who
strongly favoured smart tourism development voiced
heavy criticism, and in some cases even annoyance,
because they perceived digital development in the
Icelandic tourism industry as too slow. They espe-
cially criticised their industry peers’ indignation at in-
creasing their digital applications. Like Rooksby et al.
(2002), they observed a link between low levels of digi-
tal competence and understanding and the decreasing
likelihood of becoming digitally active and blamed in-
dividuals’ ‘fear of the unknown.’ We found these argu-
ments very similar to the common criticism of lifestyle
entrepreneurship: hindering economic growth.
Nevertheless, lifestyle entrepreneurs can also sig-
nificantly impact rural innovation development. Not-
withstanding the wariness towards digital applications
in their businesses, we did not receive the impression
that the interviewees were against applying digital fea-
tures. Several entrepreneurs who felt less technology-
aware often outsourced digital marketing, leaving an-
alytical work to experts. We identified significant con-
formity between their operational management, loca-
tion and guests’ (largely nature lovers seeking outdoor
activities and peace) requirements. The main concern
of tourism operators who did not see digital applica-
tions as meaningful was their fear of losing what they
described as the authentic tourist experience. Con-
cerns that smart tourists couldmiss being fully present
in the moment have also been addressed in academia
in the context of smart tourism development (Gretzel,
Reino et al., 2015).
Listening and responding to customer feedback
can provide a successful resource for increasing busi-
ness success (Hjalager, 2014). The importance of un-
derstanding customers became evident when explor-
ing the first research question about how innovation
is understood and applied. In contrast to the above-
stated emphasis on digital innovation in policy docu-
ments and literature, technology did not have a signif-
icant bearing on the meaning of ‘being innovative’ for
the interviewees. For lifestyle entrepreneurs, in partic-
ular, innovation meant adding new value in terms of
new for the area, the situation or the people involved.
Hence, despite remaining restrained about applying
digital innovation in their businesses, the interviewed
lifestyle entrepreneurs indicated significant interest in
and awareness of tourism innovation.
The aim of this paper was to explore the value of
digital innovation for rural tourism entrepreneurs in
Iceland and identify how they understand and apply
innovation in practice. The study offers some impor-
tant insights into the role of digital innovation in rural
tourism. It demonstrates how a lack of clear commu-
nication between tourism actors and authorities can
hinder innovative development of the industry. A lim-
itation of this study is that the sample group is rela-
tively small. To investigate the dynamics of digital in-
novation in Icelandic tourism on a bigger scale, fur-
ther research is needed. As previously mentioned, the
tourism industry in Iceland is not uniform and con-
sists of a variety of different actors. It would be inter-
esting to gather a bigger sample group of each type and
hence get deeper insights into the dynamics of each
type.
Acknowledgments
The Vísindasjóður Suðurlands and the University of Ice-
land Research Fund are thanked for supporting this
project. The first author especially wants to thank the
interviewees for their time and sharing their thoughts.
References
Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). ‘Staying within the fence:’
Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism? Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism, 8(5), 378–392.
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer
in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the effects of
a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 4(3), 145–150.
Dias, Á. L., Silva, R., Patuleia, M., Estêvão, J., & González-
Rodríguez,M.R. (2022). Selecting lifestyle entrepreneur-
ship recovery strategies: A response to the covid-19
pandemic. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 22(1), 115–
121.
202 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
Eisenmann, T. (2013, January 10). Entrepreneurship:Awork-
ing definition.Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org
/2013/01/what-is-entrepreneurship
Falter, M., Jóhannesson, G. T., & Ren, C. (2022). Hacking
Hekla: Exploring the dynamics of digital innovation in
rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 63(10), 328–347.
Ferðamálastofa. (2018). Tourism in Iceland in figures: Annual
Edition 2018. https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files
/ferdamalastofa/talnaefni/tourism-in-iceland-2018
_2.pdf
Ferðamálastofa. (2020a). Survey on digital marketing [Un-
published survey].
Ferðamálastofa. (2020b). Tourism in Iceland in figures: Sum-
mer 2020. https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files
/ferdamalastofa/Frettamyndir/2020/oktober/summer-
2020.pdf
Ferðamálastofa. (2021). Numbers of foreign visitors. https://
www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics
/numbers-of-foreign-visitors
French, C. (2022). Rural innovation redefined. In C. French
(Ed.), Building rural community resilience through inno-
vation and entrepreneurship (pp. 1–16). Routledge.
Gibson, C. (2010). Guest editorial: Creative geographies;
Tales from the ‘margins.’ Australian Geographer, 41(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180903535527
Gretzel, U., Reino, S., Kopera, S., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart
tourism challenges. Journal of Tourism, 16(1), 41–47.
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart
tourism: Foundations anddevelopments.ElectronicMar-
kets, 25(3), 179–188.
Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of
the digital divide. NewMedia and Society, 5(4), 499–522.
Gunnarsdóttir, G. P., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2016). Weav-
ing with witchcraft: Tourism and entrepreneurship in
Strandir, Iceland. In A. Viken & B. Granås (Eds.), Tour-
ism destination development: Turns and tactics (pp. 95–
112). Routledge.
Hansen, M., Hjalager, A. M., & Fyall, A. (2019). Adventure
tourism innovation: Benefitting or hampering opera-
tions? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 28,
100253.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2010). A review of innovation research in
tourism. Tourism management, 31(1). https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012
Hjalager, A.-M. (2014). Who controls tourism innovation
policy? The case of rural tourism. Tourism Analysis,
19(4), 401–412.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2015). 100 innovations that transformed
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 3–21.
Hjalager, A.-M., Kwiatkowski, G., & Østervig Larsen, M.
(2018). Innovation gaps in Scandinavian rural tourism.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2017.1287002
Ioannides, D., & Petersen, T. (2003). Tourism ‘non-entre-
preneurship’ in peripheral destinations: A case study of
small and medium tourism enterprises on Bornholm,
Denmark. Tourism Geographies, 5(4), 408–435.
Işık, C., Günlü Küçükaltan, E., Taş, S., Akoğul, E., Uyrun, A.,
Hajiyeva, T., Turan, B., Dibro, A. H., & Bayraktaroğlu,
E. (2019). Tourism and innovation: A literature review.
Journal of Ekonomi, 1(2), 88–154.
Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Lonik, K. A. T. (2015).
Tourism growth and entrepreneurship: Empirical analy-
sis of development of rural highlands. Tourism Manage-
ment Perspectives, 14, 17–24.
Jovicic, D. Z. (2019). From the traditional understanding of
tourism destination to the smart tourism destination.
Current Issues in Tourism, 22(3), 276–282.
Jóhannesson, G. T. (2012). To get things done: A relational
approach to entrepreneurship. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 12(2), 181–196.
Kazandzhieva, V., & Santana, H. (2019). E-tourism: Defini-
tion, development and conceptual framework. Tourism,
67(4), 332–350.
LawrenceNeuman,W. (2014). Social researchmethods:Qual-
itative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
Liburd, J. J., Nielsen, T. K., & Heape, C. (2017). Co-designing
smart tourism. European Journal of Tourism Research, 17,
28–42.
Magasic,M.,&Gretzel, U. (2020). Travel connectivity.Tourist
Studies, 20(1), 3–26.
Mann, J., & Miller, S. (2022). Exploring innovation cre-
ation in rural places through rural establishments. In
C. French (Ed.), Building rural community resilience
through innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 49–62).
Routledge.
Martínez-Román, J. A., Tamayo, J. A., Gamero, J., & Romero,
J. E. (2015). Innovativeness and business performances in
tourism smes. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 118–135.
Mayer, H., Habersetzer, A., & Meili, R. (2016). Rural-urban
linkages and sustainable regional development: The role
of entrepreneurs in linking peripheries and centers. Sus-
tainability, 8(8), 745.
Mieli, M., & Zillinger, M. (2020). Tourist information chan-
nels as consumer choice: The value of tourist guidebooks
in the digital age. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 20(1), 28–48.
oecd (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and De-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 203
Magdalena Falter and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson The Value of Digital Innovation
velopment). (2018). The measurement of scientific, tech-
nological and innovation activities: Oslo manual 2018:
Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on in-
novation (4th ed.). oecd Publishing.
oecd (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and De-
velopment). (2022). oecd Tourism Trends and Policies
2022. oecd Publishing.
Ottenbacher, M. C. (2007). Innovation management in the
hospitality industry: Different strategies for achieving
success. Journal of hospitality and Tourism Research,
31(4), 431–454.
Peters, M., Frehse, J., & Buhalis, D. (2009). The importance
of lifestyle entrepreneurship: A conceptual study of the
tourism industry. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cul-
tural, 7(3), 393–405.
Ren, C., Petersen, M. K., & Nielsen, T. K. (2018). Smart
tourism: A practice approach. In L. James (Ed.),Theories
of practice in tourism (pp. 132–148). Routledge.
Rodríguez, I.,Williams, A.M., &Hall, C.M. (2014). Tourism
innovation policy: Implementation and outcomes. An-
nals of Tourism Research, 49, 76–93.
Romão, J. (2020). Tourism, smart specialisation, growth, and
resilience. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102995.
Rooksby, E.,Weckert, J., & Lucas, R. (2002). The rural digital
divide. Rural Society, 12(3), 197–210.
Roopchund, R. (2020).Mauritius as a smart tourismdestina-
tion: Technology for enhancing tourism experience. In
B. Pati, C. Panigrahi, R. Buyya, & K.-C. Li (Eds.), Ad-
vances in intelligent systems and computing: Proceedings
of icacie 2018, Vol. 2 (pp. 519–535). Springer.
Rosalina, P. D., Dupre, K., &Wang, Y. (2021). Rural tourism:
A systematic literature review on definitions and chal-
lenges. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
47(9), 134–149.
Ruttan, V. (1959). Usher and Schumpeter on invention, inno-
vation, and technological change. The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 73(4), 596–606.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1999). La theorie du processus monetaire
et du fonctionnement du marche monetaire. Journal des
Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 9(1), 137–169.
Sigala, M. (2021). Rethinking of tourism and hospitality ed-
ucation when nothing is normal: Restart, recover, or re-
build. Journal of hospitality and Tourism Research, 45(5),
920–923.
Skaletsky,M., Pick, J. B., Sarkar, A., &Yates, D. J. (2017). Digi-
tal divides: Past, present, and future. In R. Galliers, &M.-
K. Stein (Eds.),The Routledge companion tomanagement
information systems (pp. 416–443). Routledge.
Sørensen, E. B., & Hjalager, A. M. (2020). Conspicuous non-
consumption in tourism: Non-innovation or the inno-
vation of nothing? Tourist Studies, 20(2), 222–247.
Stjórnarráð Íslands. (2018). Stefnumótandi byggðaáætlun
2018–2024 (ensk útgáfan). https://www.stjornarradid.is
/library/02-Rit-skyrslur-og-skrar/Byggdaaaetlun_2018
-2024_ENSKA.pdf
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodol-
ogy:Anoverview. InN.K.Denzin,&Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Sage.
Teng, H.-Y., & Chen, C.-Y. (2021). Restaurant innovativeness
and brand attachment: The role of memorable brand
experience. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
47(3), 827–850. https://doi.org/10.1177
/10963480211042065.
Tiwari, P., Séraphin, H., & Chowdhary, N. R. (2021). Impacts
of covid-19 on tourism edu-cation: Analysis and per-
spectives. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 21(4),
313–338.
Tuomi, A., Tussyadiah, I., Ling, E. C., Miller, G., & Lee, G.
(2020). X = (tourism_work) y = (sdg8) while y = true:
automate(x). Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102978.
Tuomi, A., Tussyadiah, I. P., & Stienmetz, J. (2021). Appli-
cations and implications of service robots in hospitality.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62(2), 232–247.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Zach, F. J., & Wang, J. (2020). Do travel-
ers trust intelligent service robots?Annals of TourismRe-
search, 81, 102886.
Williams, A. M., Rodriguez, I., & Makkonen, T. (2020). In-
novation and smart destinations: Critical insights. An-
nals of Tourism Research, 83, 102930.
Zach, F. (2016). Collaboration for innovation in tourism or-
ganizations: Leadership support, innovation formality,
and communication. Journal of hospitality and Tourism
Research, 40(3), 271–290.
Zach, F. J., Nicolau, J. L., & Sharma, A. (2020). Disruptive
innovation, innovation adoption and incumbent market
value: The case of Airbnb. Annals of Tourism Research,
80, 102818.
Zavratnik, V., Kos, A., & Duh, E. S. (2018). Smart villages:
Comprehensive review of initiatives and practices. Sus-
tainability, 10(7), 2559.
204 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Original Scientific Article
Archaeological Tourism Products:
Towards a Concept Definition
Katharina Zanier
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
katharina.zanier@ff.uni-lj.si
Tajda Senica
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
tajda.senica@zvkds.si
Archaeological site managers generally recognize the economic benefits of archae-
ological tourism, but many sites still have many unexploited development opportu-
nities. The importance of connecting different providers of products and services
is still too often overlooked. Despite several publications dealing with different as-
pects of archaeological tourism, we found that the definition of one main concept is
still missing: the definition of ‘archaeological tourism product.’ The paper is aimed
at establishing and explaining this very concept, by providing its definition and cat-
egorizing it into different types and components. We moreover point out principles
to be considered in its development and problems related to the loss of authenticity
which frequently emerge in its commercialization. Ultimately, our aim is to highlight
the importance of developing integral archaeological tourism products thatmeet the
needs andwants of tourists and at the same time ensure preservation and sustainable
management of archaeological heritage.
Keywords: archaeological tourism product, archaeological tourism, archaeological
park, archaeological route, sustainable development
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.205-220
Introduction
Archaeological tourism, or archaeotourism as it is also
called, is a growing branch of cultural tourism which
also helps to increase public awareness of archaeo-
logical heritage as well as its preservation (Egri, 2021,
p. 93). From a historical perspective, archaeological
tourism has a very long tradition. Early forms of ar-
chaeological tourism, or journeys aimed at visiting
the vestiges of the past, can be traced back to antiq-
uity, with a master example in the figure of Pausanias
and his Description of Greece (2nd century ad). Sim-
ilarly, the Grand Tour (mostly between the 17th and
early 19th century) can also be seen as an early form of
archaeological tourism (Melotti, 2007; Díaz-Andreu,
2020).
In more recent years, archaeological tourism de-
veloped as a specific discipline, with a rich theoretical
background (e.g. Melotti, 2011; Mihelić, 2011; Comer
& Willems, 2019; Timothy & Tahan, 2020) and with
its own fairs. TheMediterranean Exchange of Archae-
ological Tourism fair in Paestum has been organized
yearly since 1998 with the participation and exchange
of experiences among countries reaching beyond the
Mediterranean area and the Middle East.1 Since 2015,
1 www.borsaturismoarcheologico.it/en/partner/
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 205
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
another similar event, tourismA, has taken place every
year in Florence.2
At the time of the coronavirus epidemic, as even
more people began to retreat from the urban environ-
ment and into nature, where a large part of archae-
ological sites are located, we can assume that their
potentials have increased even more. This is also re-
lated to the fact that several cultural heritage institu-
tions, such as museums, architectural complexes, etc.,
which represent the main attractions for culturally in-
terested visitors, were at least partially closed to the
public (Geser, 2021, p. 6), while several archaeological
sites (which are mostly open-air) were not subjected
to restrictions. Although the managers of archaeolog-
ical sites recognize the advantages of archaeological
tourism, most of the sites still have considerable un-
tapped potential, especially in terms of connecting dif-
ferent providers of services necessary for a successful
touristic approach. This problem was tackled by the
ArcheoDanube project (Archaeological Park in urban
areas as a tool for Local Sustainable Development), in
the frame of which we performed the research pre-
sented in this paper. The project was co-funded by
the European Union (erdf, ipa, eni) in the frame of
the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme and
was joined by 15 partners3 from 11 different countries
(Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,Moldova, Roma-
nia, Serbia, and Slovenia). One of the main objectives
of the project was the development of archaeological
tourism in the Danube macro-region by improving
the management of archaeological heritage with spe-
2 www.tourisma.it/home-2/
3 These are: City Municipality Ptuj; Institute for the Protec-
tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia; First Hungarian Re-
sponsible Innovation Association; West-Pannon Regional
and Economic Development Public Nonprofit Ltd; Roma-
nian Academy Cluj branch, Institute of Archaeology and
History of Art; The National Museum of Unification Alba
Iulia; City of Vodnjan – Dignano; Association of Culture &
Work; BulgarianAssociation for Transfer of Technology and
Innovation; Regional Development Agency of the Pilsen Re-
gion; Sustainication;Museum of Srem;Municipality of Cen-
tar Sarajevo; City Hall of ChisinauMunicipality; Rousse Re-
gional Museum of History.
cial emphasis on archaeological parks (Anranter et al.,
2021; Drda-Kühn, 2021; Zanier & Ratej, 2021; 2022a;
2022b; Zanier et al., 2022; Egri, 2021, 2022; Danube
Transnational Programme, 2022).
Despite several valuable studies and publications
dealing with different aspects of archaeological tour-
ism, we found that a definition of the main concept is
still missing: the definition of ‘archaeological tourism
product.’ In fact, in the literature this concept has not
even been extensively presented or thoroughly anal-
ysed, although the term is frequently used. In this pa-
per,4 we therefore propose our own definition of ar-
chaeological tourismproducts, that we developed pro-
ceeding from already existing definitions of cultural
tourism products and considering a wide range of case
study examples, i.e. established archaeological attrac-
tions sold to tourists from all over Europe and beyond.
We also substantiate why we believe that archaeolog-
ical tourism products need to be considered as a spe-
cific concept, separated from cultural tourism prod-
ucts. We then define different types of archaeologi-
cal tourism products and identify, as well as explain,
their possible components. In the last part, we present
different steps for developing archaeological tourism
products and point out problems related to the loss of
authenticity which frequently emerges in their com-
mercialization.
Methodological Premise
Our aim is to propose a concept definition of archaeo-
logical tourism products and their systematization in
different types and components, which does not yet
exist in the literature. We started our research by re-
viewing the definition of (cultural) tourism products.
Since the definition of archaeological tourism prod-
ucts had to be newly established, we implemented a
comparative analysis of case studies. Firstly, we anal-
ysed the 10 pilot archaeological sites included in the
ArcheoDanube project (Zanier & Ratej, 2021, pp. 131–
4We attempted a first definition of ‘archaeological tourism
product’ in a short publication about archaeological tourism
(Egri, 2022, pp. 33–41) and we would take here the opportu-
nity to improve the definition itself and to better explain and
deepen the concept as well as related topics.
206 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
152).5 Since these archaeological sites are still develop-
ing their tourism potential and can still hardly be rec-
ognized as tourismproducts, wewidened our research
to nine already established archaeological tourism at-
tractions of the same Danube macro-region (Zanier
& Ratej, 2021, pp. 33–52).6 Both these steps were per-
formed through survey research, collecting the data
in the form of a questionnaire with the help of all
ArcheoDanube project partners. In addition, we col-
lected data about numerous case study examples from
all over Europe, 17 of which were selected as good
practices (Anranter et al., 2021).7 Furthermore, five
5 The sites are (listed in countries’ alphabetical order): the pre-
historic archaeological site Vranjače and the Harem of Kalin
Hadži Alija’s mosque (built in 1535 and demolished in 1947)
in Sarajevo for Bosnia andHerzegovina; the late antique and
medieval fortress in the ‘Horizon’ residential area at Balchik
in Bulgaria; the medieval town of Cherven and the rock-
hewn churches of Ivanovo not far from the city of Rousse,
also in Bulgaria; the open air museum ‘Park kažuna’ in Vod-
njan –Dignano for Croatia, displaying typical vernacular ar-
chitecture of the Istrian (and also broader Adriatic) area; the
medieval castle ‘Old Pilsen’ on the Hillfort Hůrka in Starý
Plzenec for the Czech Republic; the Iseum or temple of Isis
and the Romkert or ‘Ruin garden’ (with remains of the ‘Am-
ber Road,’ governor’s palace, public baths, Mercury sanc-
tuary and other buildings) in Szombathely, i.e. the Roman
town of Savaria in Hungary; the ‘Visterniceni archaeologi-
cal area’ with a bastion fortress built in the 1770s’in the city of
Chisinau inMoldova; the Alba Iulia fortress in the homony-
mous city in Romania, which includes fortifications from
different eras (a Roman camp, a medieval fortress and the
Austrian bastion fortification built in the 18th century); the
archaeological areas of theRoman townof Sirmium in Srem-
ska Mitrovica in Serbia; the ‘Archaeological Park Panorama’
(in development?) with underlying remains of the Roman
town of Poetovio in Ptuj for Slovenia.
6We considered Carnuntum in Austria, the Radnevo ar-
chaeological park in Bulgaria, the site of Pohansko and
the Archaeoskanzen Trocnov in the Czech Republic, the
Archäopark Vogelherd and the ArchaeoCentrum Bayern-
Böhmen/Čechy-Bavorsko in Germany, the Iseum in Szom-
bathely in Hungary and the archaeological parks of
Emona/Ljubljana and Simonov zaliv in Slovenia.
7 The following good practices were identified: the archaeo-
logical parks ofAguntumandCarnuntumaswell as the ma-
muz museum in Austria, the Neolithic settlement in Tuzla
archaeological attractions were selected as examples
of integral archaeological tourism products: these are
Salzwelten in Austria, Brijuni in Croatia, the Archäo-
park Vogelherd in Germany, the archaeological park
of Herculaneum in Italy, and Hadrian’s Wall Country
in the United Kingdom (Egri, 2021, pp. 64–75).
For the purpose of this paper, other case study
examples were analysed in order to cover the full
spectrum of integral archaeological tourism prod-
ucts. These are essentially the Selinunte Archaeologi-
cal Park and the archaeological site of Rome in Italy,
the Roman Emperors and Danube Wine Route, ar-
chaeological tours all over the world of the Archaeo-
logical Institute of America, DigVentures archaeolog-
ical excavation camps, the Archaeological Festival in
Biskupin in Poland, as well as the Castle Park Archae-
ological District andMoccasin BendNational Archae-
ological District in the United States.
The comparative analysis performed on the above-
mentioned case study examples converged into the
definition and systematization of archaeological tour-
ism products, which we present in this paper. Due to
the extensiveness of the research,we refer to the above-
quoted studies for details on the single case study ex-
amples and their analysis.
Definitions of (Cultural) Tourism Products
Archaeological tourism, which attracts tourists pri-
marily with the aimof acquiring new knowledge about
past human activity, is, of course, part of the broader
term ‘cultural tourism.’ As a result, when developing
in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the medieval town of Cherven in
Bulgaria, the Pavlov ArcheoPark in the Czech Republic, the
Fortress of Culture in Šibenik in Croatia, the archaeologi-
cal park of Bibracte in France, Xanten Archaeological Park
in Germany, the Gorsium-Herculia Archaeological Park in
Hungary, the archaeological park of Pompeii in Italy, the
Alba Carolina Fortress and the Museikon museum in Alba
Iulia in Romania, the Viminacium Archeological Park in
Serbia, the Pavilion for the presentation of archaeological re-
mains in Celje in Slovenia, as well as the LondonMithraeum
and the archaeological park of Vindolanda in the United
Kingdom. The aforementioned sites were also used to de-
fine specific success factors and a development strategy for
archaeological tourism (Drda-Kühn, 2021).
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 207
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
the new definition for archaeological tourism prod-
ucts, we can refer to already existing definitions of
cultural tourism products, and also of tourism prod-
ucts in general.
According to Medlik and Middleton (1973, p. 138),
a tourism product can be described as a group of ac-
tivities, services, and benefits combined from com-
ponents such as attractions, facilities and accessibility
that complete the entire tourism experience.
Copley and Robson (1996) define cultural tourism
products as anything that is offered to tourists at the
destination that can satisfy their needs.
Another definition, from Richards and Munsters
(2010, pp. 52–53), describes a cultural tourism product
offered by historic cities as a combination of:
1. the core product, being the cultural tourism sup-
ply (monuments, street patterns, museums, art
galleries, theatres, cinemas, routes, local culture,
cultural events) and the related specific cultural
tourist services, such as information and educa-
tion; and
2. the additional product, being the general tourism
product elements and the related tourist services
consisting of:
• general tourist facilities and services:
– tourist organizations and travel interme-
diaries: tourist information offices, tourist
associations, travel agencies, tour opera-
tors;
– accommodation suppliers: hotels, holiday
parks, camping sites;
– catering industry: restaurants, cafés, and
pubs;
– retail business: (souvenir) shops, outdoor
markets, banks;
• transportation infrastructure:
– accessibility, signposting, parking facili-
ties;
– private and public inner-city transporters:
taxi companies, city bus service, under-
ground.
Mckercher and Du Cros (2015, pp. 154–155) also di-
vided the concept of cultural tourism product into the
core product (themain attraction), the tangible product
(that converts benefits into something consumable for
tourists), and the augmented product (additional value
of the product for tourists).
Cultural tourism products can also be defined as a
packed-up presentation of cultural heritage thatmeets
all of the requirements of tourist demand in the desti-
nation while also providing high-quality support ser-
vices to ensure a positive overall experience (Mihelić,
2019, p. 80).
According to the World Tourism Organization
(2019, p. 18), ‘a tourism product is a combination of
tangible and intangible elements, such as natural, cul-
tural, and man-made resources, attractions, facilities,
services, and activities around a specific center of in-
terest which represents the core of the destination
marketing mix and creates an overall visitor experi-
ence including emotional aspects for the potential cus-
tomers. A tourism product is priced and sold through
distribution channels and it has a life-cycle.’
Our Definition of Archaeological Tourism Product
From the review of various definitions of (cultural)
tourism products, especially on the basis of Richards
andMunsters (2010, pp. 52–53) and theWorldTourism
Organization (2019, p. 18), and considering the com-
parative assessment of all the above-mentioned case
study examples, we suggest defining an archaeological
tourism product as follows:
An archaeological tourismproduct is composed
of the main archaeological attraction or a group
of such attractions, which represents the core of
the destination, as well as of assets and services
such as information, interpretation, and educa-
tion, accessibility to the destination, accommo-
dation facilities, and other services that satisfy
the needs of tourists at the destination and cre-
ate an overall visitor experience in accordance
with the principles of authenticity and sustain-
ability.
In other words, an archaeological tourism product
is composed of:
• the archaeological core product, being the archae-
208 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
ological tourism supply to be used in a sustain-
able way (archaeological parks, sites, or monu-
ments as well as archaeological theme parks; ar-
chaeological trails and routes; archaeologicalmu-
seums and archaeological open-airmuseums; liv-
ing history and experimental archaeology events;
archaeological excavations and other archaeolog-
ical research activities open for the public; spe-
cific cultural tourism services such as informa-
tion, interpretation, and education); and
• the additional touristic product, being the general
tourist facilities and services (food and bever-
age; accommodation; transportation; shopping;
recreation, sport, wellness and entertainment;
tourist organizations and travel intermediaries).
Archaeological Tourism Products vs Cultural
Tourism Products
Most definitions emphasize information and educa-
tion as an essential part of the cultural tourismproduct
(e.g. Chiriko, 2020, p. 4). This is also especially impor-
tant for archaeological tourism products, but here the
field of interpretation has to be emphasized evenmore.
In order to be comprehensible to the average visitor,
archaeological attractions need a more extensive and
high-quality interpretation than other cultural desti-
nations.
External factors such as politics, the economy, as
well as social and cultural aspects have an impact on
the development of cultural tourism products and the
same is also valid for archaeological tourism products,
as they are based on long-termmanagement of archae-
ological attractions.8 Preservation and conservation
of archaeological heritage is particularly demanding.
Archaeological remains are injured and fragile relics,
with special needs in relation to conservation and pro-
tection procedures, if we would like to display them.
They are not usable as they are, unlike other types of
cultural heritage (e.g. a castle that can be renovated
and used in a similar way as it was designed for); a
new usage concept has to be designed (Zanier, 2016, p.
8 On the special needs of archaeological heritagemanagement
cf. e.g. Breznik (2014a, 2014b), Pirkovič (2018; 2022), Egloff
(2019), and Zanier and Ratej (2022a; 2022b).
79; 2017, p. 29). It is also important to consider that an
increased number of visitors can seriously threaten the
preservation of archaeological remains; on the other
hand, any restriction of visits can lead to negative reac-
tions fromvisitors. Archaeological sites are also threat-
ened by looting and vandalism, so security systems are
essential in the frame of archaeological tourism prod-
ucts.
The principle of authenticity also has to be espe-
cially stressed in relation to archaeological tourism
products. Archaeological sites adhere to the concept
of ‘ruins,’ and any reconstruction can be misleading,
i.e. lead to confusion for the uninformed visitor. The
balance between authenticity, interpretational supple-
ments, and conservation/protection measures is very
difficult to achieve in archaeological sites.
Because of all the above-mentioned peculiarities,
research, staff training, and specialization seem to be
even more important within archaeological tourism
products. The same is valid for cooperation and ex-
change with all stakeholders involved in developing
the product.
We constantly come across examples of cultural
heritage managers focusing on tangible assets rather
than understanding how to provide quality tourism
experiences. It is crucial that archaeological heritage
managers also understand the needs and desires of
tourists, so that their archaeological tourism products
can be shaped to meet those needs and desires while
also meeting management goals, such as heritage pro-
tection and conservation (Comer & Willems, 2019;
Mckercher & Du Cros, 2015).
Types of Archaeological Tourism Products
As mentioned above, archaeological tourism is part of
cultural tourism, which is classified under special in-
terest tourism. Cultural tourists, among whom we also
include those who seek archaeological attractions, are
not attracted by heritage in general, they are searching
for travel experiences that will help them understand
other cultures, and therefore they are seeking the in-
formational and educational element of the tourism
product, which is one of the main motives for their
tourism consumption. Although cultural tourists want
to have a sense of independence when travelling, they
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 209
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
Types of
archaeological
tourism
products
Archae-
ological
parks
Archae-
ological
routes
Organized
archae-
ological
tours
Archae-
ological
heritage dis-
tricts/reg.
Archae-
ological
festivals
Archae-
ological
excavation
camps
Figure 1 Types of Archaeological Tourism Products
tend to demand tourismproducts or services that offer
compelling high-quality experiences, and which are
integrated into a comprehensive service. Such travel
arrangements consist of a set of partial tourist services
(that include accommodation and transportation fa-
cilities) which are further subdivided into individual
services (Brezovec & Nemec Rudež, 2009, p. 133). By
understanding why tourists visit archaeological desti-
nations, providers of archaeological tourism products
and services can shape the whole experience in such a
way as to better satisfy the needs and desires of tourists
and thus meet the market demand.
Archaeological tourismproducts are also verymuch
dependent on the specific conformation of the archae-
ological tourism supply itself. As a result, we propose
to classify integral archaeological tourism products
into several different types, as listed in Figure 1.
The first type of archaeological tourismproduct are
archaeological parks,which can be considered integral
tourism products if, in addition to their main archae-
ological attraction, they also offer additional services
and products to better satisfy the needs and wants of
their visitors. A good example of such archaeological
park being an integral archaeological tourism prod-
uct is Selinunte in Sicily, which is considered one of
the largest archaeological parks in Europe, where vis-
itors can choose from a variety of products and ser-
vices such as different kinds of tours and excursions
that also take into account other attractions in the
area. A variety of information about the transportation
and accommodation facilities, events, sports, nightlife,
nearby beaches, and culinary services is provided on
site, and comprehensive information about other local
providers is also given.9
An archaeological route can also be a type of ar-
chaeological tourism product that connects different
sites and tourism and other service providers that can
be promoted under a common brand which helps
with product visibility and its competitive advantage.
This type of integration can also contribute to the bet-
ter economic development of the wider region. Most
tourists go on such trips individually, therefore it is
even more important to provide them with all neces-
sary information (besides information about archaeo-
logical attractions and sites, they may also need other
basic information about nearby markets, restaurants,
accommodation facilities, public transportation ser-
vices, information centres, petrol stations, and emer-
gency and healthcare facilities). The Roman Emper-
ors and DanubeWine Route, which connects multiple
providers, archaeological sites, and vineyards from 10
European countries, is a good example of such an ar-
chaeological tourism product. It includes various ar-
chaeological sites, attractions, buildings, and locations
associated with the Roman period.10
Guided archaeological tours are another type of ar-
chaeological tourism product that integrate additional
products and services and are adapted for different
target groups. Usually, they include transportation, ac-
commodation, escort and local guides, entrance fees
for museums or parks, meals, tourist taxes, and travel
insurance packages. The Archaeological Institute of
America, for example, offers a diverse range of orga-
nized archaeological tours to archaeological destina-
tions around the world.11
9 https://en.visitselinunte.com/archaeological-park/
10 www.romanemperorsroute.org/
11 www.archaeological.org/programs/public/tours/
210 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
Public archaeological excavation camps can also
represent integral tourism products, if they offer addi-
tional services such as transportation and accommo-
dation services. These types of archaeological prod-
ucts are more common in developing countries, par-
ticularly in the field of volunteer tourism, which is
usually a less profitable form of tourism for the desti-
nation. In general, volunteer tourists are also known
for spending significantly less than ordinary cultural
tourists. The motives of tourists who take part in vol-
unteer work at archaeological sites can, in addition to
having a unique experience or understanding more
about other cultures and the human past, be their
devotion to helping other communities or deepen-
ing their knowledge of foreign languages (Timothy
& Tahan, 2020, p. 10). There are examples where, in
exchange for volunteer work on their archaeological
sites,managers offer paid accommodation to their vol-
unteers, and sometimes they also havemeals included.
The DigVentures platform from the United Kingdom
has a list of different archaeological sites from which
tourists can choose and apply for their volunteerwork.
They also organize other courses in relation to ar-
chaeology and provide other general information that
tourists may need or desire in the consumption pro-
cess.12 Vindolanda in the United Kingdom is also a
very well-known example in this regard, where the fo-
cus is on the volunteer excavation programme. The
site is managed and owned by the Vindolanda Trust
which is an independent charity that raises its income
from contributions and donations of the general pub-
lic and its visitors (Birley, 2018). Archaeological exca-
vation camps in Vindolanda are organized every year
and attract many volunteer tourists from all around
the world. Volunteer positions for camps are filled
months in advance and so far, with their help, archae-
ologists have already uncovered 24 of their archae-
ological site, so they predict that they have another
150 years of excavations left. This kind of archaeolog-
ical excavation camp is a good example of interactive
involvement of tourists, which raises awareness and
educates them about the historical significance and
vulnerability of the site (Anranter et al., 2021).
12 www.digventures.com/projects/
Another type of integral archaeological tourism
products are archaeological festivals that connectmany
different providers and include additional services and
products. The target groups of these kinds of staged
festivals aremostly families with children and individ-
uals. They can include animation, various workshops
both for children and adults, theatrical and musical
performances, information points, playground areas,
food and beverage areas, toilet facilities, souvenir stalls
with products from local vendors, and much more.
Two good examples are a year-long festival called the
1900 Festival in the United Kingdom that is organized
along Hadrian’s Wall.13 Another one is the Archaeo-
logical Festival in Biskupin in Poland, which has been
organized since 1995 andwhose archaeological reserve
is also one of the largest in Europe. Within these fes-
tivals, many different kinds of activities are organized,
which attract thousands of visitors.14
We add to this overview an, in the archaeologi-
cal field, somehow unusual definition: the archaeo-
logical heritage district or region,15 which can be de-
scribed as an extensive area that exhibits a degree of
cultural homogeneity in a particular period (Darvill,
2009). Products consisting of archaeological districts
or regions containing several archaeological attrac-
tions (archaeological sites, archaeological museums,
archaeological events, etc.) normally also include other
services, such as overall travel organization (travel
packages offered by travel agencies), travel services
(transport, guidance, and supply), and other services
within the archaeological district or region (accom-
modation, restaurants and bars, animation, shops,
etc.). A good example of an archaeological heritage
region is Hadrian’s Wall Country in the United King-
dom, which shows how different service and product
providers can connect and promote each other at the
13 https://1900.hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/events/
14 https://www.biskupin.pl/zwiedzanie/#kalendarium
15 The definition of ‘archaeological district’ in particular is not
very common and relates to the more usual definitions of
‘cultural district’ (cf. e.g. Wynne, 1992; Brooks & Kushner,
2001; Santagata, 2002; Nuccio & Ponzini, 2016) and ‘his-
toric or heritage district’ (cf. Ginting&Vinky Rahman, 2016;
Saleh El-Basha, 2021), both used especially in urban studies.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 211
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
same time.16 This is one of the best examples from the
marketing point of view, as it increases the visibility of
the region as a whole. Archaeological districts include
extensive areas with a cohesive group of sites. For ex-
ample, Castle Park Archaeological District and Moc-
casin Bend National Archaeological District, which
are both located in the United States of America, rep-
resent the history of human habitation through dif-
ferent periods (History Colorado, 2022; National Park
Service, 2022).
These are, in our opinion, themain types of archae-
ological tourism products that can be offered to the
public for consumption; every other combination of
archaeological attraction with products and services,
that satisfy the needs and wants of tourists, meeting
the definition explained previously, can also be defined
as an archaeological tourism product.
How to Compose an Archaeological
Tourism Product
When designing a cultural or archaeological tourism
product, it is essential to be aware that cultural tourists
consume these products because they want to fulfil an
inner need. Archaeological tourism demand is akin
to heritage tourism demand in general, since cultural
tourists’ motives for travelling also include curiosity to
learn about other cultures and tomeet their special in-
terests, hence the educational component. On the one
hand, cultural tourists want to have a sense of indepen-
dence, but simultaneously they want their experience
to be guided and at the same time authentic. Thismust
be taken into account in the development of a cultural
tourismproduct as well as when developing an archae-
ological tourism product. One of the most important
aspects of a product is its consumption to satisfy the
needs, wants, and desires of tourists, which helps the
managers in achieving their long-term financial goals
and other goals such as education, and cultural her-
itage conservation and protection for future genera-
tions. It is crucial that the target groups of the product
are clearly identified and that the product is adapted to
their needs (Timothy & Tahan, 2020).
16 www.hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/
The commodification or transformation of assets
into archaeological tourism products is an important
step in archaeological tourism that can be offered to
tourists for sustainable tourism consumption. Because
of its complexity, scale, location, and setting, each cul-
tural heritage asset is unique; therefore, it is particu-
larly important that the managers of the archaeologi-
cal sites implement sustainable development andman-
agement and that they preserve the authenticity of the
site. Otherwise, the consequences can be irreversible
(Kotler & Turner, 1989, p. 435; Mckercher & Du Cros,
2015).
As alreadymentioned, archaeological tourismprod-
ucts are composed of different assets and services.
Some are related to the archaeological core product,
others to the additional touristic product. Archaeo-
logical tourism products are compound entities and
only appropriate components can be composed into
a sound ensemble. The thematic link should be re-
spected in most components of the archaeological
tourismproduct. But it can be also of advantage to seek
new, unexpected, surprising combinations in order to
awaken the attention and curiosity of the visitors as
well as their emotions, such aspect being continuously
more emphasized in recent tourism research (Buda et
al., 2014; Scott et al., 2017; Mitas & Bastiaansen, 2018;
Skavronskaya et al., 2019; Skavronskaya et al., 2021).
Multi-sensoriality is another important principle,
which is highlighted in recent works on the tourism
experience and tourism marketing (Isacsson et al.,
2009; Agapito et al., 2013; Meacci & Liberatore, 2018;
Gómez-Suárez & Yagüe, 2021) and we also recom-
mend it for archaeological tourism products, where
it seems even more important to bring to life the lost
multi-sensorial reality of the past (Melatti, 2011, pp.
9–10).
As we have already stressed, interpretation is espe-
cially important in archaeological tourism products,
and in this context, it is also important to take into
account people with different disabilities. In the same
way, they have to be considered in relation to all other
facilities and services of the product.
We can certainly expect that archaeological tour-
ism products will also increasingly evolve in the di-
rection of digital technology, which is especially useful
212 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
for the interpretation of archaeological attractions. For
example, archaeological virtual tours of sites or mu-
seums have already been included by many destina-
tions in their offer and help to enhance visitors’ expe-
riences. Particularly during the coronavirus epidemic,
when travelling to other destinations was significantly
more difficult due to strict regulations, the demand for
such products and services increased.
The networking of different providers and the com-
bination of different products and services into in-
tegral archaeological tourism products, which meet
the demand of cultural tourists at the destination, can
help with product differentiation and in increasing the
competitiveness when marketing this type of prod-
ucts.
In the following paragraphs, we identify possible
components of an archaeological tourism product as
also illustrated in Figure 2.Wefirstly highlight assets of
the archaeological core product and then its services.
Lastly, we discuss assets and services of the additional
touristic product.
Assets of the Archaeological Core Product
The basic component of an archaeological tourism
product is a place of archaeological relevance (the
archaeological destination) or a group or series of
such places, connected by spatial, thematic, cultural
or chronological relations, together composing a uni-
tary itinerary or cultural district or region, telling us
one story of our past. Such places can conform to
different types of archaeological sites, archaeological
monuments, archaeological trails (as well as routes),
archaeological parks, archaeological theme parks, ar-
chaeologicalmuseums, archaeological open-airmuse-
ums, or other museums with archaeological content.
These places have to be publicly accessible and need to
have at least minimal visitor infrastructure and equip-
ment. To understand archaeological remains, despite
their fragmentary nature, especially equipment for the
clarification and illustration of their contents, original
state and meaning, i.e. non-personal interpretation, in-
formation, and education media, seems to be essential
for all mentioned types of assets.
Some of the above-mentioned assets need some
explanation, as even at this level there is no universal
Possible components of the archaeological core product:
• Archaeological parks
• Archaeological trails and routes
• Archaeological sites
• Archaeological monuments
• Archaeological museums
• Archaeological open air museums
• Archaeological theme parks
• Archaeological excavations and other organized forms
of research activities
• Archaeological living history and re-enactment events
and activities
• Experimental archaeology events and activities
• Personal interpretation, information and education media
• Non-personal interpretation, information and education media
Possible components of the additional tourism product:
• Food and beverage
• Accommodation
• Transportation
• Shopping
• Recreation, sport, wellness and entertainment
• Tourist organizations and travel intermediaries
Archaeological
tourism product
Thematic
soundness
Multi-sensoriality
Sustainability
Authenticity
Inclusion
Figure 2 Components of an Archaeological Tourism
Product
terminological consensus. One example is the already
mentioned archaeological parks. They can represent
integral archaeological tourism products in their own
right, if they include a complete range of tourism ser-
vices. Otherwise, they can represent one of the compo-
nents of a bigger, composed product. But what specif-
ically are archaeological parks? The term has various
uses (Breznik, 2014b; Jurak, 2020). After reviewing
various definitions in recent international doctrinal
documents (icomos, 2015, 2017), based on the defini-
tion in the Croatian legislation (Zakon o zaštiti i oču-
vanju kulturnih dobara, 2020, article 6), we propose
to define ‘archaeological park’ as follows: ‘An archaeo-
logical park is a researched, protected, and presented
archaeological site or its part, that includes informa-
tive and didactic components of presentation and in-
terpretation in order to raise awareness of the impor-
tance of archaeological heritage’ (Zanier, Ratej, 2021,
p. 154).
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 213
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
A term mistakenly frequently used as a synonym
for archaeological park is archaeological open-air mu-
seum. This category is defined by the charter of the
InternationalAssociation of ArchaeologicalOpen-Air
Museums:17 ‘An archaeological open-air museum is a
non-profit permanent institution with outdoor true-
to-scale architectural reconstructions primarily based
on archaeological sources. It holds collections of intan-
gible heritage resources and provides an interpretation
of how people lived and acted in the past; this is ac-
complished according to sound scientific methods for
the purposes of education, study, and enjoyment of its
visitors.’ Archaeological open-air museums therefore
are not necessarily located on an archaeological site,
but also at other places, and consist mostly of recon-
structions.
Areaswithout archaeological remains that are open
to the public and exhibit outdoor collections of build-
ings, true to scale architectural reconstructions, and
artefacts, but intended for amusement and profit are
archaeological theme parks (Paardekooper, 2015).
The term archaeological trail is normally used for
physically existing paths crossing archaeological sites.
Archaeological routes or itineraries connect different
archaeologically interesting points (or poles of attrac-
tion), without presupposing the establishment of a
new, dedicated path.18 For their ability to connect var-
ious attractions and services, we have already men-
tioned routes between the possible types of archaeo-
logical tourism products, and frequently they perform
in fact as such.
Specific definitions for archaeological sites and ar-
chaeological monuments depend on each country’s leg-
islation. In Slovenia, an ‘archaeological site is the origi-
nal place of deposition and discovery of archaeological
remains.’ At the same time, ‘archaeological remains are
all things, and any traces of human activity from pre-
vious periods on the surface, in the soil and water, the
conservation and the study of which contribute to dis-
covering the historical development of mankind and
17 www.exarc.net/about-us/charter
18 For a review of different definitions of ‘cultural route,’ which
we consequently apply to the concept of archaeological
route, cf. Durusoy (2014, pp. 9–13).
its relation with the natural environment, for which
the main source of information is archaeological re-
search or discovery and for which it can be assumed
that they were under ground or under water for at
least 100 years and that they have characteristics of
heritage. Archaeological remains are also things re-
lated to cemeteries, as defined under the regulations
on war graves, and to war, together with the archaeo-
logical and natural context, which were under ground
or under water for at least 50 years’ (Zakon o varstvu
kulturne dediščine (zvkd-1), 2008, article 3). Protec-
tion is established with different gradations: registered
cultural heritage,monuments of local importance, and
monuments of national importance (Zakon o varstvu
kulturne dediščine (zvkd-1), 2008, articles 3, 8, 11), so
archaeological monuments (of local or national impor-
tance) represent the highlights of our archaeological
heritage.
The definition of archaeological museums is sim-
ilarly related to legal definitions concerned with the
establishment of protection of movable archaeological
finds, which are stored and presented to the public in
such museums. In Slovenia, ‘archaeological finds are
moveable archaeological remains, which have been
under the ground or underwater for at least 100 years.
Archaeological finds are also weapons, ammunition,
and other military equipment, military vehicles, and
vessels, or parts thereof, which were underground or
underwater for at least 50 years’ (Zakon o varstvu
kulturne dediščine (zvkd-1), 2008, article 3). But in
Slovenia, we do not have archaeological museums as
such, as this function is covered by the regional mu-
seums as well as by the National Museum. In other
countries, specialized museums for archaeology are
very common. Independently from the designation
of the institution, very successful synergies can be es-
tablished within a composed archaeological tourism
product by connecting archaeological sites and muse-
ums with archaeological content.
Services of the Archaeological Core Product
The archaeological core product is also composed
of activities and services of archaeological and ed-
ucational character. Typically, the above-mentioned
places dispose of services offered by specialized staff,
214 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
related to the explanation of its archaeological con-
tents. These are called personal interpretation, infor-
mation, and education media and they comprise dif-
ferent kinds of guided tours, workshops, and lectures.
The archaeological core product can also be based
on other activities of archaeological content, such as
public forms of archaeological excavations and other
organized forms of archaeological research activities
with the participation of the lay audience. These ac-
tivities allow visitors to participate in medias res, but
imply, of course, extensive preparation on the part of
the participants, as well as strict protocols and agree-
ments.
Further, lively participation of visitors can be as-
sured by living history events of archaeological char-
acter. These events seek to give observers and partici-
pants a sense of stepping back in time by using tools,
activities, and costume in an interactive presentation
of a specific archaeological culture or re-enactment of
a specific event related to archaeological periods. A lot
of experience has been accrued for this kind of events,
especially for later historical periods; it is clear that in
relation to archaeological periods the reconstruction
of several aspects can be problematic, because of in-
sufficient or fragmentary information. Intense prepa-
ration of the participants is therefore advised for these
events and can be part of a comprehensive learning or
research process.
Re-enactment can be also pushed to a very sen-
sitive, experienced form, which is called Live Action
Role-Playing or larp, where the participants portray
different and specific characters in accordance with an
agreed scenario, which can again be related more gen-
erally to an archaeological culture or a specific event
of relevance for an archaeological period.
Other activities and services related to the archae-
ological core product may include aspects of experi-
mental archaeology, which often implies the creation
of copies of structures and objects of a specific cul-
ture or period, based on archaeological evidence, us-
ing only appropriate technologies, tools and materi-
als. Living history and experimental archaeology can,
of course, be perfectly intertwined in order to recre-
ate comprehensive and informative experiences of the
past. Sometimes these fields are also connected to re-
search activities and help us to understand and recon-
struct specific facets of the past. Here we can point
out as an example experimental works on practical as-
pects of gladiatorial combat (Battaglia, 2002; Teyssier
& Lopez, 2007), typically performed in the frame of
popular living history events.
The Additional Touristic Product
As we are discussing archaeological tourism products
here, the touristic aspect should not fall short, either.
We must not forget that our visitors need some tradi-
tional touristic services. First of all, we have to reflect
on transportation means leading to our archaeolog-
ical destination or between a group of such destina-
tions composing an itinerary or cultural district, or
between our archaeological destinations and places
where other touristic services can be reached. We
should be able to offer our visitors different transport
options, from standard to more sportive or thematic
ones, and arrange facilities in accordance with them.
Also in this aspect, the main message or story related
to our archaeological tourism product can be reflected
by using appropriate means of transportation (e.g. in
use in the period represented by the archaeological
destination).
Food, beverage, and accommodation are, of course,
essential services for tourists and if we cannot provide
them within our archaeological destination, we need
to include suitable suggestions in our archaeological
tourism product. Fruitful collaborations are possible
with external providers and in this case a thematic re-
lation to the archaeological destination can also be eas-
ily assured (e.g. with recipes and lodging inspired by
the period or specific context illustrated by the spe-
cific archaeological destination). For example, near a
site related to the Roman military, a camping site in-
spired by Romanmilitary camps can be created, as was
tentatively established within the Claustra+ project in
Slovenia.19 Win-win solutions, which are favourable
for all partners involved, withmutual advertising and a
strong comprehensive visitor programme, can be eas-
ily established.
19 www.claustra.org/project-claustra/
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 215
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
Shopping is another service that seems to be indis-
pensable in such a frame and can also create an impor-
tant link to local economic development and creative
industries. In this case, too, it is not necessary to or-
ganize specific shops and products such as souvenirs
or other local artefacts at the archaeological destina-
tion itself. However, the production and sale of such
objects in affiliated or associated shops, where the link
to the archaeological destination is still recognizable,
should be encouraged.
An archaeological tourism product may also in-
clude other services related to recreation, sport, well-
ness, and entertainment. These activities can be per-
fectly in line with the topic of the archaeological des-
tination, or they can represent a welcome diversion.
Many of these activities can be easily combined with
the visit of the archaeological destination (e.g. running
or horse riding through extensive archaeological sites)
and can represent an added value for many visitors
who are not only interested in archaeology, but would
also like to experience something else. For example,
in Rome, Archeorunning was developed in 2016 and
represents a successful, registered trademark offering
running tours through the ancient remains and much
more.20 In several archaeological areas surrounding
Rome, riding tours also are available.21 Especially in
this segment, it is possible to integrate different ser-
vices in one, combining, for example, sport, recreation,
and transportation in one activity. Some of these activ-
ities canmatch specific functions and aspects of the ar-
chaeological destination and can help to immerse the
tourist in the experience, even if they are accomplish-
ing these activities in another context (e.g. combining
a visit to an ancient thermal area with a visit to a con-
temporary spa). Also, in this case, successful collab-
orations with external partners are possible and rep-
resent a way to anchor the archaeological destination
into the local economy.
Tourism organizations and travel intermediaries
have to be part of the product, promoting, boosting,
and selling it to the public. The best product cannot
reach the buyer without a professional seller.
20 www.archeorunning.com/en/
21 www.freedome.it/passeggiate-cavallo/roma/
Analysis and evaluation of the current state of local
archaeological heritage and tourist flows
Identification of needs, opportunities, goals
and stakeholders
Planning of the archaeological tourism product
and stakeholder consultation
Implementation of the archaeological tourism product
and stakeholder collaboration
Promotion and marketing of the archeological
tourism product
Feedback analysis and updating of the archaeological
tourism product
Figure 3 Steps for Developing an Archaeological
Tourism Product
Steps for Developing an Archaeological
Tourism Product
Hence, integral archaeological tourism products are
composed of an archaeological core product and an
additional touristic product, each having different
components which can be combined into a sound,
multi-sensorial ensemble representing for the tourist
a unique, comprehensive experience. All components
do not need to be covered by one entity; networking
with appropriate local partners which can benefit in
the same way from the archaeological tourism prod-
uct should be encouraged. The chosen components of
the product should be in line with its target groups
and offer them different options, also ensuring easy
adaptation and frequent updates. In all chosen compo-
nents, principles of sustainability and inclusion have
to be respected, otherwise the archaeological tourism
product will soon be burnt out.
For the development of an archaeological tourism
product we propose to follow a simple approach (Fig-
ure 3), derived from several models for cultural tour-
ism product development.
The first step includes the analysis and evalua-
tion of the current situation concerning the archae-
ological heritage and the present tourism flows, their
216 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
composition, and present satisfaction grade. A report
about these aspects with solid numeric data and clear
overviews represents a necessary requirement.
On the basis of this analysis the needs and the op-
portunities, both in relation to the specific local eco-
nomic and archaeological situation, should be iden-
tified. In accordance therewith, specific goals related
to the archaeological tourism product should be for-
mulated, while simultaneously also recognizing stake-
holders. All these data should be systemized in a con-
cise strategy.
Together with the stakeholders, the planning pro-
cess of the archaeological tourismproduct should then
be started, in line with already identified needs, op-
portunities, and goals, as well as current and coveted
target groups of the product. In this, synergies should
also be recognized. Special attention must be paid to
thematic soundness, multi-sensorial experiences, sus-
tainability, and inclusion. All possible components of
an archaeological tourism product should be consid-
ered. Solutions for all of the aforementioned aspects
should be envisaged in order to plan a truly compre-
hensive product. All measures and ideas must be sys-
temized and explained in a management plan related
to the whole archaeological tourism product, not only
to the archaeological destination.Within the manage-
ment plan, a realistic time schedule for the implemen-
tation of the tourism product must be defined, as well
as indicators that will allow the progress of the ar-
chaeological tourism product to be clearly tracked.
Responsibilities, a clear management structure, and
a decision-making process should also be defined. A
management agreement should be defined and signed
by all actively involved partners. Other stakeholders
should testify their interest and support within letters
of intent.
Then, the implementation of the plan should fol-
low, making the archaeological tourism product come
to life. Collaboration with partners and stakeholders
should be kept at an optimal level, including through
frequentmeetings. In relation to the staffworkingwith
the product, ambitious professionals, kept up to date
with training, are a must. Periodical reporting, espe-
cially in relation to the defined indicators, is necessary
for progress monitoring.
As a very important step in this process, promotion
and marketing of the archaeological tourism product
should be highlighted in a special way (cf. Chiriko,
2020; Sedmak, 2017), even if these activities represent
only one part of the implementation process of the ar-
chaeological tourism product.
Once the archaeological tourism product is imple-
mented, visitors must be monitored, including quan-
titative and qualitative information. Surveys aimed at
documenting more complex qualitative data and vis-
itor satisfaction are very important, but they should
be kept to a minimum, as they can bother visitors if
they are too long. In response to the visitor feedback
and new tourism trends, the archaeological tourism
product should be regularly updated with new activ-
ities and elements. Every product has a life cycle and
after the first boom, a period of stagnation and less in-
terest is normal, and has to be overcomewith improve-
ments and novelties, the importance of which we have
already highlighted above. At this point new needs,
opportunities and goals have to be defined and the
planning and implementation process can start once
again.
Archaeological Tourism Products and the Trap
of Consumerism
After encouraging the development of integral archae-
ological tourism products, it is necessary to also draw
attention to risks and problems. In our constantly
changing, liquid post-modern society, archaeological
heritage has also become a liquid concept, or in the
words of Marxiano Melotti (2011, p. 2): ‘Archaeologi-
cal parks are gradually taking on the features of theme
parks. Museums compete to draw in visitors by offer-
ing attractions which have little to do with traditional
archaeology. These are, however, marginal signs and
remain outside a far wider process. Such changes are,
in fact, keeping pace with other far more crucial trans-
formations. Archaeological tourism no longer neces-
sarily implies contact with an archaeological object.
It is possible to enjoy experiences of an archaeolog-
ical kind in contexts totally devoid of archaeological
monuments or archaeological finds.’ In the same way,
new forms of relative authenticity are also emerging
heavily in archaeological tourism (cf. e.g. the recon-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 217
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
struction of the Altamira cave, visited by hundreds
of thousands of visitors), of course accompanied by
a massive use of virtual reality. The very aim of ar-
chaeological tourism, to be a mechanism enabling the
preservation, valorisation, and dissemination of ar-
chaeological heritage, is falling short in several exam-
ples, either because of the effects ofmass tourism, con-
suming the fragile remains of the past, or by creating
sensational archaeological experiences made only of
reproductions, digital media, virtual reality, shopping,
and edutainment. Hyper-tourism, consumerism, and
relativization of authenticity risk distorting and con-
suming our archaeological destinations andwe should
not aim at that.
Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to present a new con-
cept within cultural tourism, i.e. the integral archae-
ological tourism product. To successfully meet the
needs and wants of tourists that visit archaeological
attractions it is essential that managers of archaeo-
logical attractions are aware of the importance of an
integral approach when developing their archaeolog-
ical tourism product, which is composed of the main
archaeological attraction and a group of assets and
services. The result of connecting different providers
and services into an integral archaeological product
improves the overall experience of tourists who will
return home with a positive impression and will more
likely revisit and recommend a destination to their
friends and family. Although economic competitive-
ness is not so often discussed in the field of archaeolog-
ical tourism, it is important, especially in terms of pro-
viding funds for maintenance and restoration of the
archaeological heritage itself, which is best achieved
by a self-funding approach through the thoughtful de-
velopment of an integral, authentic, and sustainable
archaeological tourism product.
References
Agapito, D., Mendes, J., & Valle, P. (2013). Conceptualizing
the sensory dimension of tourist experiences. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 62–73.
Anranter, M., Bíró, S., Davidović, J., Drda-Kühn, K., Efre-
mov,D., Egri,M., Gamper, J., Laki, F.,Manzin, A., Nenov,
N., Ratej, R., Rustoiu, G., Rustoiu, A., Sarić, A., Seemann,
M. E., Senica, T., Zsolt, S., Stollenwerk, T., Stoyanov, S.,
Sýkorová, B., Velikov, I., & Zanier, K. (2021).The Archeo-
Danube strategy for successful archaeological tourism:
Lessons learned from European good practices; t2.1 strat-
egy for the implementation of archaeological tourism.
https://www.interreg-danube.eu/uploads/media
/approved_project_output/0001/49
/ff715b30e74876a3c563e23731be97cb2b681997.pdf
Battaglia, D. (2002). Retiarius vs. secutor: Ricostruzione em-
pirica delle tecniche di combattimento e degli armamenti.
Ars Dimicandi.
Birley, A. (2018). The Vindolanda guide. Vindolanda Trust.
Breznik, A. (2014a).Management of an archaeological park.
Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Breznik, A. (2014b). Vrednotenje arheoloških najdišč za
upravljanje v obliki turističnega kompleksa arheološki
park. Studia universitatis hereditati, 2(1–2), 105–115.
Brezovec, A., & Nemec Rudež, H. (2009). Marketing v tur-
izmu: izhodišča za ustvarjalno razmišljanje in upravl-
janje. Fakulteta za turistične študije – Turistica.
Brooks, A. C., & Kushner, R. J. (2001). Cultural districts and
urban development. International Journal of Arts Man-
agement, 3(2), 4–15.
Buda,D.M., d’Hauteserre, A.M.,& Johnston, L. (2014). Feel-
ing and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 46,
102–114.
Chiriko, A. Y. (2020). Marketing cultural resources as a
tourism product. In S. A. R. Khan (Ed.), Tourism. In-
techOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/73322
Comer, D. C., & Willems, A. (Eds.). (2019). Feasible man-
agement of archaeological heritage sites open to tourism.
Springer.
Copley, P., & Robson, I. (1996). Tourism, arts marketing
and the modernist paradox. In M. Robinson, E. Nigel,
& C. Paul (Eds.), Tourism and culture: Image, identity
and marketing (pp. 15–34). British Education Publishers.
Danube Transnational Programme. (2022). Archeodanube:
Archaeological park in urban areas as a tool for local sus-
tainable development. https://www.interreg-danube.eu
/approved-projects/archeodanube
Darvill, T. (2009). The concise Oxford dictionary of archaeol-
ogy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Díaz-Andreu,M. (2020).A history of archaeological tourism:
Pursuing leisure and knowledge from the eighteenth cen-
tury to World War ii. Springer.
Drda-Kühn, K. (Ed.). (2021). The ArcheoDanube strategy for
successful archaeological tourism. https://www.zvkds.si
/sites/www.zvkds.si/files/u5/archeodanube_wpt2.1
_good_practices_report_final.pdf
218 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
Durusoy, E. (2014). From an ancient road to a cultural route:
Conservation and management of the road between Mi-
las and Labraunday. Institut Français d’Études Anatoli-
ennes.
Egloff, J. B. (2019). Archaeological heritage conservation and
management.Archaeopress Publishing.
Egri, M. (Ed.). (2021). Guidebook for designing Local Archeo
Plans. Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-
Napoca.
Egri,M. (Ed.). (2022).E-handbook for themanagement of en-
hancement projects on urban archaeological sites: Integra-
tion with a sustainable tourism. Institute of Archaeology
and Art History Cluj-Napoca.
Geser, G. (2021). Impact of covid-19 on archaeology and
cultural heritage. Salzburg Research. https://ariadne-
infrastructure.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/COVID
-19_impact-archaeology-and-cultural-heritage
_29Oct2021.pdf
Ginting, N., & Vinky Rahman, N. (2016). Preserve urban
heritage district based on place identity.Asian Journal of
Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1(1), 67–77.
Gómez-Suárez,M., &Yagüe,M. J. (2021).Making sense from
experience: How a sustainablemulti-sensory event spurs
word-of-mouth recommendation of a destination brand.
Sustainability, 13(3), 5873.
History Colorado. (2022). Castle Park Archaeological Dis-
trict. https://www.historycolorado.org/location/castle-
park-archaeological-district
icomos. (2015). Draft recommendations of the first interna-
tional conference of icomos on archaeological parks and
sites. https://whc.unesco.org/document/135364
icomos. (2017). Salalah guidelines for the management of
public archaeological sites. http://icahm.icomos.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/GA2017_6-3-3
_SalalahGuidelines_EN_adopted-15122017.pdf
Isacsson, A., Alakoski, L., & Bäck, A. (2009). Using multiple
senses in tourism marketing: The Helsinki expert, Eckero
Line and Linnanmaki amusement park cases. LaureaUni-
versity of Applied Sciences.
Jurak, A. (2020). Interpretacija arheološke dediščine in situ
na primeru arheoloških območij Poštela pri Mariboru
in Cvinger pri Dolenjskih Toplicah [Unpublished master
dissertation]. University of Ljubljana.
Kotler, P., & Turner, R. E. (1989). Marketing management.
Scarborough.
McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2015). Cultural tourism: The
partnership between tourism and cultural heritage man-
agement (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Meacci, L., & Liberatore, G. (2018). A senses-based model
for experiential tourism. Tourism & Management Stud-
ies, 14(4), 7–14.
Medlik, S., & Middleton, V. T. C. (1973). The tourist product
and its marketing implications.Heinemann.
Melotti, M. (2007).Mediterraneo tra miti e turismo: Per una
sociologia del turismo archeologico. cuem.
Melotti, M. (2011). The plastic venuses: Archaeological tour-
ism in post-modern society.Cambridge Scholars Publish-
ing.
Mihelić, S. (Ed.). (2011). Arheologija i turizam u Hrvatskoj.
Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu.
Mihelić, S. (2019). The curse of the betrothed: evaluating the
relationship between archaeology and tourism in Croa-
tia ad 2017. InD.C.Comer&A.Willems,A. (Eds.),Fea-
sible management of archaeological heritage sites open to
tourism (pp. 79–88). Springer.
Mitas, O., & Bastiaansen, M. (2018). Novelty: A mechanism
of tourists’ enjoyment. Annals of Tourism Research, 72,
98–108.
National Park Service. (2022).Moccasin BendNationalArche-
ological District. https://www.nps.gov/chch/learn
/historyculture/moccasin-bend-national-archeological-
district.htm
Nuccio, M., & Ponzini, D. (2016). What does a cultural dis-
trict actually do? Critically reappraising 15 years of cul-
tural district policy in Italy. European Urban and Re-
gional Studies, 24(4), 405–424.
Paardekooper, R. (2015). Archaeological open-air museums
in Europe. In R. Kelm (Ed.), Archeology and crafts: Ex-
periences and experiments on traditional skills and hand-
icrafts in archeological open-air museums in Europe; Pro-
ceedings of the vi. OpenArch-Conference in Albersdorf
(pp. 127–136). Husum.
Pirkovič, J. (2018). Uvod v sistematiko upravljanja arhe-
ološke dediščine. Varstvo spomenikov, 50, 69–97.
Pirkovič, J. (2022).Upravljanje arheološke dediščine. Založba
Univerze v Ljubljani.
Richards, G., & Munsters, W. (2010). Cultural tourism re-
search methods.Wallingford.
Saleh El-Basha, M. (2021). Urban interventions in historic
districts as an approach to upgrade the local communi-
ties. hbrc Journal Volume, 17(1), 329–364.
Santagata, W. (2002). Cultural districts, property rights and
sustainable economic growth. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 26(1), 9–23.
Scott, N., Gao, J., & Ma, J. (2017). Introduction: Creating
memorable experiences. In N. Scott, J. Gao, & J. Ma
(Eds.), Visitor experience design (pp. 3–12). cabi Pub-
lishing.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 219
Katharina Zanier and Tajda Senica Archaeological Tourism Products
Sedmak, G. (2017). Heritage marketing in tourism. Studia
Universitatis Hereditati, 5(1), 99–102.
Skavronskaya, L., Moyle, B., Scott, N., & Kralj, A. (2019).
The psychology of novelty in memorable tourism expe-
riences. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(21), 2683–2698.
Skavronskaya, L., Moyle, B., Scott, N., & Schaffer, V. (2021).
Novelty, unexpectedness and surprise: A conceptual
clarification. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(4), 548–
552.
Teyssier, E., & Lopez, B. (2005). Gladiateurs: des sources à
l’expérimentation. Errance.
Timothy,D. J., &Tahan, L.G. (Eds.). (2020).Archaeology and
tourism: Touring the past. Channel View Publications.
World Tourism Organization. (2019). unwto tourism defi-
nitions. unwto.
Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (zvkd-1). (2008).Urad-
ni list Republike Slovenije, (16). https://www.uradni-list.si
/1/objava.jsp?sop=2008-01-0485
Zakon o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih dobara. (2020).Narodne
novine Republike Hrvatske, (32). https://www.zakon.hr/z
/340/Zakon-o-zaC5A1titi-i-oC48Duvanju
-kulturnih-dobara
Zanier, K. (2016). The accessibility, use, fruition and enrich-
ment of immobile cultural heritage: A review of legisla-
tion in Slovenia, Croatia and Italy/Dostopnost, uporaba,
uživanje in obogatitev nepremične kulturne dediščine.
In I. Lazar (Ed.), as – Arheologija za vse: oživljanje arhe-
ološkega parka Simonov zaliv; priročnik projekta (pp. 78–
102). University of Primorska Press.
Zanier, K. (2017). The accessibility, use, fruition and enrich-
ment of immobile cultural heritage: A review of legis-
lation in Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. Studia Universitatis
Hereditati, 5(1), 29–47.
Zanier, K., & Ratej, R. (Eds.). (2021). Baseline study of the
ArcheoDanube project. Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediš-
čine.
Zanier, K., & Ratej, R. (2022a). Connecting public and urban
archaeology: Enhancement of urban archaeological her-
itage through local archeo plans. Ephemeris Napocensis,
32, 135–170.
Zanier, K., &Ratej, R. (2022b).Urbana arheologija za javnost:
arheološki parki in lokalni arheološki načrti. Arheo, 39,
151–186.
Zanier, K., Senica, T., & Dolinar, N. (2022). Presentation and
interpretation of public archaeological sites looking to-
wards sustainability and inclusion. Studia Universitatis
Hereditati, 10(2), 77–98.
220 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Original Scientific Article
Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk
and Intention to Travel: Malaysian Case
Jeetesh Kumar
Taylor’s University, Malaysia
jeetesh.kumar@taylors.edu.my
Shameem Shagirbasha
Great Lakes Institute of Management, India
shameem.s@greatlakes.edu.in
Rupam Konar
Taylor’s University, Malaysia
rupam.konar@taylors.edu.my
The current study aims to analyse the impact of destination image and perceived
risk on tourists’ intention to travel to urban cities of Malaysia during the covid-
19 pandemic. The study addresses the effects of risk and destination image on the
perception of destination risk and how the perceptions of destination risk impact
travel during the covid-19 pandemic by utilising the planned behaviour theory. A
total of 237 respondents participated in the current study.Warppls (7.0), a variance-
based structural equation modelling (sem) software, was used to test the research
model. The empirical results offer exciting insights into urban tourism services on
important factors to consider while designing safety measures and practical actions
to restore urban tourism. The study offers novel findings. First, the study empiri-
cally revealed the travel intentions of tourists travelling toMalaysia during the coro-
navirus situation. Second, the study’s findings exposed quantifiable insights to make
Malaysia a preferable tourist destination.
Keywords: covid-19, destination image, perceived risk, intention to travel, theory
of planned behaviour, Malaysia
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.221-232
Introduction
The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in amassive im-
mobilisation of productive activity, with severe eco-
nomic effects at the global level. Many problems have
emerged in themost vulnerable areas, including health
and safety issues, political changes, financial crisis, and
the tourism industry (Chang & Kim, 2022; Poulaki &
Nikas, 2021; Cakar, 2020). covid-19 continues to im-
pact national economies, businesses, health services,
and social life almost two years after it began. With
new highly infectious virus variants such as Omi-
cron, the unavailability of vaccines in poor economies,
and protests by anti-vaxxers in significant parts of the
population in industrialised countries, covid-19 en-
dures, affecting national economies, businesses, health
services, and social life (Gössling&Schweiggart, 2022).
The travel and tourism sector accounts for 10.3
(us$8.9 trillion) of global gdp and 28.3 of exports
of services at the worldwide level. In 2019, tourism
contributed 10.3 to the gdp and 14.7 of total em-
ployment creation in Malaysia (wttc, 2020). The
covid-19 pandemic has significantly impacted travel
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 221
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
decisions due to the limited availability of tourist des-
tinations and the occurrence of unfavourable travel
conditions (Kusumawati et al., 2021; Chang, 2009).
Several risks are involved in travel and tour, including
health, financial, social, and time risks (Fuchs & Re-
ichel, 2006). Any of the risks can directly be associated
with covid-19. In the current situation, tourists gen-
erally worry about health risks; the uncertainty of be-
coming covid-19 positive can lead to their decision
to choose a particular tourist destination (Poulaki &
Nikas, 2021; Chinazzi et al., 2020).
Most countries closed their borders during the
covid pandemic, although a handful opened them
for foreign travellers at that time. Travel outside one’s
country has reduced to such a number as to become
negligible. People opt for shorter distances, especially
those that can be reached by road. Several studies have
covered the intention to travel, but there is still a gap
in the research on the intention to travel during a pan-
demic while people have a high perception of risk
(Wen et al., 2020). This type of research is crucial as
it supports decision-making to stimulate tourism de-
mand (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). The most recog-
nised theories, goal intention (Gollwitzer & Sheeran,
2006) and the theory of planned behaviour (tpb)
(Ajzen, 1985), are adapted for current research. This
study seeks to understand the impact on the desti-
nation’s image, the perception of risks regarding the
tourist’s destination, and the intention to travel during
covid-19 to urban cities of Malaysia. Since Malaysia
is the most urbanised country in East Asia, the study
aims to analyse the impact of destination image and
perceived risk on the intention to travel to urban cities
ofMalaysia during the covid-19 pandemic. The find-
ings of this study can provide recommendations to
restore tourism and the development of security mea-
sures for tourism services.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Risk Aversion and Intention to Travel
Individuals generally avoid travelling after disease out-
breaks as they are highly averse to any risk accompa-
nied by infections (Novelli et al., 2018). Risk aversion
is also one of the critical factors for individuals’ travel
decision-making. Generally, risk-taking attitudes are
a significant element of human behaviour as this in-
fluences decision-making strategies and makes indi-
viduals deal with complex, ambiguous, uncertain out-
comes (Chan et al., 2020). Rogers (1975) has argued
in his protection motivation theory that individuals
adapt to protect themselves and thus depend on their
subjective risk perceptions and risk aversions regard-
ing a perceived health threat; in this case, it is covid-
19 infection. The literature has also shown gender dif-
ferences in risk aversion and travel visits; specifically,
females tend to be more risk aversive than males (Rit-
tichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009; Park & Reisinger,
2020).
Previous studies in similar disease outbreak sit-
uations have yielded different results. For example,
Lee et al. (2012) found people engaged in more adap-
tive behaviours to cope with the threats of the 2009
h1n1 influenza outbreak; however, on the other hand,
Cahyanto et al. (2016) found people stopped travelling
at the risk of aversive response to the Ebola outbreak
in the United States. Similarly, studies in the literature
witness a reduction in travel behaviour among people
due to covid-19 risk. For example, studies by Isaac
and Keijzer (2021), Li et al., (2020) and Neuburger and
Egger (2020) showed that passengers decline in their
intention to travel or postpone their trips due to higher
risk aversion or risk perception of a pandemic.
Boto-García and Leoni (2021) highlighted in their
study that social distancing norms in crowded desti-
nations make people cancel or postpone their travel
plans. Also, people with high infection rates or who
experienced covid-like symptoms are more risk-
aversive to travel. Research also indicates people pre-
fer ‘slow tourism’ (Wen et al., 2020) in response to
the pandemic risk aversion. We also must acknowl-
edge that some people are risk-averse, while others
are willing to take risks. From a behavioural research
perspective, analysing the reasons behind risk-related
decision-making will help us understand people’s in-
tention, in this case, to travel (Bauchner & Fonta-
narosa, 2020). Average individuals need higher risk
compensation to perform the behaviour (Trimpop,
1994). Pullanoet al. (2020) conducted a recent study in
France to understand risk aversion behaviour during
the lockdown and documented that senior people are
222 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
more risk aversive and avoid leisure travel and family
trips as insisted by the authorities. Along similar lines,
this study aims to understand people’s risk aversion
and travel intentions after the covid-19 outbreak in
Malaysia. Hence, we hypothesise,
h1 Risk aversion is positively related to the intention
to travel.
Risk Aversion and Perception of Destination Risk
The likelihood of unfavourable consequences and un-
certainty is well explored in the financial decision-
making and behaviour of tourists (Hasan et al., 2017).
Risk perceptions can be described as the personal
opinions of tourists about risk characteristics and se-
riousness in three categories: health security, moral
hazards and weather (Cui et al., 2016). In the tourism
context, risk perception has been explored for tourists’
fear, anxiety, and worry (Wolff et al., 2019). Health-
related risks in tourism, such as Ebola, h1n1, sars
(Jonas et al., 2011) and covid-19 (Nazneen et al., 2020;
Wen et al., 2020), are well investigated. However, few
studies have explored risk aversion and destination
risk perception among tourists after the covid-19
pandemic.
Hence, tourists with less concern about risk do not
prioritise safety and security while choosing the des-
tination for a visit. Recently, Prince and Kim (2021)
also explored the relationship between risk aversion
and perception of destination risk among tourists and
found supporting evidence to argue the risk aversion.
The tourist is likely to perceive the destination as risky.
In a nutshell, the risk aversion trait is associated with
destination risk perception. Hence, this study explores
the risk aversion and perception of destination risk in
travel intention, and we hypothesise,
h2 Risk aversion is positively related to perceptions
of destination risk.
Perceived Risk of Destination and Intention to Travel
Perceived risk is subjective; no matter how informed
or thorough the decision might be, it represents the
individual’s expectation of a negative outcome (Has-
san& Soliman, 2021). Studies have shown that the per-
ceived risk of a destination affects tourists’ travel inten-
tions, particularly in the context of health-associated
risks (Matiza, 2020; Carvalho, 2022; Poulaki & Nikas,
2021). Tourists’ decision-making is influenced by the
perception of risk associated with a destination (Kani
et al., 2017). For example, tourists with higher per-
ceived risk are less likely to intend to travel compared
to thosewith a lower perceived risk. Şengel et al. (2022)
argue that the perceived risk of a destination, espe-
cially during international travel, leads to avoidance
of that destination. This supports previous research
by Sonmez and Graefe (1998) who found that per-
ceived risk of a destination is a crucial predictor of
a tourist’s intention to travel. Destination risk per-
ception can influence tourist intentions to travel or
avoid specific destinations (Silva et al., 2011). How-
ever, few studies have examined destination-specific
risk perception and travel intention (Sharifpour et al.,
2014). Hence, this study aims to explore the perceived
risk of covid-19 in Malaysia as a destination among
tourists. Previous studies have shown that a destina-
tion’s negative impact makes tourists avoid travelling
due to perceived risks (Cui et al., 2016; Činjarević et
al., 2020; de Castro Mendes & Jose Cavenaghi, 2020).
This avoidance arises from cognitive dissonance be-
tween tourists’ motives and the perceived destination
risk. To address this dissonance, tourists often post-
pone or avoid travelling to specific destinations to
mitigate associated risks. Matiza (2020) argues that
the probable link between destination risk percep-
tion and post-covid-19 travel intentions of tourists
should be thoroughly examined. Furthermore, con-
sidering the current scenario, it is reasonable to as-
sume that the global tourism industry will be affected
if proper measures to mitigate perceived destination
risks are not implemented by respective countries.
Therefore, this study intends to understand the per-
ceived risk ofMalaysia and the travel intentions among
tourists. In light of these considerations, the hypoth-
esis of this study is that perceived risk, irrespective of
the comprehensiveness or quality of decision-making,
reflects an individual’s expectation of negative out-
comes (Hassan & Soliman, 2021). The literature also
confirms that the perceived risk of a destination influ-
ences tourists’ travel intentions, especially in terms of
health-associated risks (Matiza, 2020; Carvalho, 2022;
Poulaki & Nikas, 2021). Hence we hypothesise,
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 223
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
h3 Perceived risk of destination is negatively related
to the intention to travel.
Destination Image and Perceived Risk of Destination
Perpiña et al. (2019) conducted a content analysis of
62 articles from reputed tourism journals. They con-
firmed that destination imagemight influence tourists’
mental image, which can be perceived as safe (posi-
tive) or risky (negative) of the specific destination of
travel intent. The decision to travel is based on the des-
tination image and the perceived risk of the destina-
tion. San Martin and del Bosque (2008) highlighted
that tourists perceive the destination as attractive and
familiar if they perceive low risk in the specific desti-
nation. For instance, tourists perceiving the low risk
of the destination develop a more favourable mental
image before visiting the place.
Conversely, if the perceived destination risk is high
among tourists, they create a negative image of the des-
tination. Literature also confirms that awareness, cog-
nitive and affective image, past visitation, perceived
risk of travelling and perceived risk are the primary
factors for international tourism compared to domes-
tic tourism. Concern for safety and security develops
the destination’s cognitive image and perceived safety.
But it also triggers the perceived risk of travelling (Car-
valho, 2022). Also emphasised by the literature (Per-
piña et al., 2019) is the importance of linking destina-
tion image and perceived risk of destination to under-
stand tourist cognitive evaluation and, thereby, their
travel behaviour. Ruan et al. (2017) studied the rela-
tionship between the perceived risk of a destination
and its image among 635 foreign tourists. The study
found that tourists consider the perceived risk of a des-
tination to form a destination image, influencing their
intention to visit.
Researchersmust conduct studies integrating these
two variables to contribute important information to
tourists, influencing their travel intent. Perpiña et al.
(2021) have integrated destination image and risk per-
ceptions as an overall construct to understand travel
behaviour. According to the researchers, risk percep-
tion of the destinationwill influence beliefs on specific
destinations and shape their destination image. De-
spite the importance of understanding perceived risk
and destination image as distinct constructs within a
single study, the literature barely examines the rela-
tionship (Kani et al., 2017). Hence, this study aims to
add to the existing body of literature to precisely un-
derstand the linkage as mentioned earlier, examining
Malaysia as the context of the study, and we hypothe-
sise,
h4 Destination image is positively related to the per-
ceived risk of the destination.
Destination Image and Intention to Travel
The study by Afshardoost and Eshaghi (2020) on
a meta-analysis of 87 studies highlighted the rela-
tionship between destination image and intention to
travel. Their study has also highlighted that a destina-
tion image can be a two- or three-dimensional con-
struct; in some cases, researchers examine a single
construct, for instance, an overall image. Overall, the
destination image is the holistic perception of a tourist
destination (Josiassen et al., 2016) and in this study, we
use ‘overall image’ as the destination image construct.
Overall, the destination image is an abstract construct
consisting of three sub-dimensions: cognitive, affec-
tive, and conative.
Alvarez and Campo (2014) found that destina-
tion image perception significantly and directly af-
fects travelling to a particular destination. Along the
same lines, Leisen (2001) argued that tourists with a
more favourable destination image tend to visit the
destination more than those with the least favourable
destination image. Molinillo et al. (2018) highlighted
that destination image forms the antecedent of in-
tention to visit. The study also showed that destina-
tion image formation and intention to travel depend
on the tourists’ access to information on the desti-
nation. Perpiña et al. (2021) established a significant
relationship between destination image and intention
to visit. Tourists who develop a positive perception of
a specific destination choose to visit the destination.
Kanwel et al. (2019) showed a positive relationship be-
tween perceived destination image and the intention
to travel. Research by Chen and Phou (2013) found a
negative relationship between perceived destination
image and intention to travel. The literature shows
mixed results, although destination image is an essen-
224 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Risk
aversion
Destination
image
Perception
of destina-
tion risk
Intention
to travel
H2
H4
H3
H1
H5
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Study
tial antecedent of tourist behaviour (Josiassen et al.,
2016). The current study, therefore, would like to es-
tablish the linkage between destination perceptions
and intentions to visit, and we hypothesise,
h5 Destination image is positively related to inten-
tions to travel.
Research Methodology
Research Instrument
The current study analyses the impact of destination
image and perceived risk on the intention to travel to
Malaysia during the covid-19 pandemic. Data was
collected online using a self-administered survey in-
strument. Demographical questions, including age,
gender, marital status, monthly income, education
level, occupation, and nationality of the participants,
were asked in the first section of the survey. The sec-
ond section of the survey had four travel-related ques-
tions, including international trip frequency in the last
five years, the purpose of the trip, travel companions,
and the duration of the trip. Twenty-five items mea-
sured research constructs by using a 5-point Likert
scale, ranging from ‘1’ being ‘poor’ to ‘5’ ‘excellent;’ 11
items for destination imagewere adapted fromLepp et
al. (2011), six items for risk aversionwere adapted from
Wolff and Larsens (2014), five items for the perception
of destination riskwere adapted fromBaloglu andMc-
Cleary (1999), and three items for intention to travel
adapted from Schroeder et al. (2013) were included in
the last section of the survey.
Sample and Sampling Technique
Any adults (foreigners, non-Malaysians)who travelled
out of their home country for any reason and were in-
Table 1 Demographics
Variables Categories () ()
Gender Male  .
Female  .
Age (years)  years or below  .
–  .
–  .
–  .
 years or above  .
Marital status Single  .
Married  .
Separated  .
Other  
Income (monthly
in us)
Less than ,  .
,–,  
,–,  .
,–,  .
,–,  
Highest level of
education achieved
Junior High School  
Secondary School  
College  
University  .
Other  .
Occupation Retired  
Self Employed  .
Unemployed  
Private Employee  
Public Employee  .
Other  
Continued in the next column
terested in visiting Malaysia were considered the pop-
ulation for this research. Data was collected using an
online survey (Google forms) using the self-selection
sampling method from December 2020 to February
2021. A total of 237 responses were received, and four
were discarded due tomissing data, which would have
negatively affected the analysis.
Table 1 shows that 57.9 of the respondents were
female. The majority of the respondents fall under the
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 225
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Table 1 Continued from the previous column
Variables Categories () ()
Nationality Australia  .
Bangladesh  .
China  .
Philippines  .
India  .
Indonesia  .
Italy  .
Japan  .
Kenya  .
Korea  .
Libya  .
Maldives  .
Mauritius  .
Pakistan  .
Sri Lanka  .
Tanzania  .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) frequency, (2)
percentage.
age group ‘21–25’ (48.9), followed by ‘20 years or be-
low’ (27.9) and the majority of the participants were
married (45.5), followed by single (39.9). Out of
101 respondents, only 50 stated their highest education
level was achieved at university. Only 79 respondents
indicated their occupation, where 62were employed,
followed by 19 as private sector employees. With re-
gards to nationality, the maximum number of partic-
ipants was Indonesian (25.3), followed by Pakistani
(23.2), Filipino (7.7) and Indian (7.3).
Table 2 shows the travel information details; it was
found that 128 respondents had three or fewer interna-
tional trips followed by 60 participants (between 4–6
trips) in the last five years. 59.2 of participants trav-
elled for leisure or vacation, and 51.9 of participants
(the majority) with their families, including spouses
and kids, for 2–5 days (53.2 – majority of partici-
pants).
Data analysis Partial Least Squares (pls) using
Warppls 7.0 software was chosen over the common
covariance-based technique, given that it places fewer
Table 2 Travel Information
Variables Categories () ()
Number of abroad
(international)
holiday trips during
the last  years
 or less  .
in between –  .
in between –  .
 or more  .
Purpose of the travel Leisure/vacation  .
Business  
vfr  .
Other  .
Travelling with Family/spouse/kids  .
Colleague/Friends  .
Alone  .
Other  .
Duration of the trip – days  .
One week  .
More than a week  .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) frequency, (2)
percentage.
restrictions on sample sizes, data distribution, and
normality and is gaining more prominence in hos-
pitality management research (Ali et al., 2018). A two-
step procedure, suggested by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), was adopted to test the hypotheses for this
study. An assessment of the structural model followed
an assessment of the measurement model.
Data Analysis and Findings
This study used the variance-based structural equa-
tion modelling (sem) software Warppls 7.0 to anal-
yse the study’s conceptual path model. The data anal-
ysis part is segmented into two main parts: the mea-
surement model and the structural model. The mea-
surement model was assessed to examine the validity
and reliability of the derived measures for the outer
model-theoretical constructs. In contrast, the estima-
tion of the path model was examined through testing
(structural model) the inner model. pls path mod-
elling is one of the robust methods to analyse con-
ceptual models in social sciences, mainly in hospital-
ity and tourism (Ali et al., 2018). Furthermore, in or-
226 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Table 3 Indicator’s Validity, Reliability and Cross-Loadings
Constructs Ri_Av De_img pr_dr In_Trav cr ave vif
Risk Aversion ra . –. . . . . .
ra . . –. .
ra . . –. –.
ra . . –. –.
ra . . . .
ra . –. . .
Destination Image di . . –. –. . . .
di –. . . .
di . . . .
di . . –. –.
di . . –. –.
di –. . . .
di –. . . –.
di –. . . –.
di . . –. –.
di –. . . .
di –. . . .
Perception of Destination Risk pdr . . . –. . . .
pdr . –. . .
pdr –. . . –.
pdr –. . . .
pdr –. –. . –.
Intention to Travel it –. . . . . . .
it . –. . .
it . . –. .
Notes Loadings are unrotated and cross-loadings are oblique-rotated.P-values are for loadings.P-values < 0.05 are desirable
for reflective indicators.
der to maximize the predictability of the dependent
constructs, the conceptual model incorporates reflec-
tive measurement, exhibits a multi-dimensional na-
ture, and deviates from the assumptions of multivari-
ate normality (Hair et al., 2019).
Measurement Model
The purpose of assessing themeasurementmodel is to
ensure the validity and reliability of themodel through
the evaluation of (a) internal consistency reliability,
(b) convergent validity, and (c) discriminatory valid-
ity. The measurement model of this study has been as-
sessed. Firstly, the internal consistency reliability val-
ues exceeded the set criteria of Cronbach’s alpha (α) >
0.7, Jöreskog’s ρc > 0.7, and Dijkstra-Henseler’s ρA >
0.7. The outcome values of the cross-loadings revealed
that all the measurements were above the set criteria
of 0.65. Table 3 demonstrated that the composite relia-
bility values were above 0.86 and lower than 0.94, thus
indicating the measurements are reliable and have the
predicting capability of their own construct, respec-
tively. Moreover, the convergent validity of the outer
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 227
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Table 4 Discriminant Validity
ra di pdr it
ra *
di . *
pdr . . *
it . *
Notes * Standard procedure for reporting htmt (Hetero-
trait-Monotrait) ratio.
model was assessed by measuring the cross-loading
of measurements and the assessed value of average
variance extracted (ave). The ave value of each con-
struct was above the threshold limit of 0.50, resulting
in it being able to explain at least 50 of the variance
of its indicators (Hair et al., 2019). As per Table 3, the
ave values of each construct are ‘Risk Aversion’ 0.530,
‘Destination Image’ 0.569, ‘Perception of Destination
Risk’ 0.680, and ‘Intention to Travel’ 0.878, respec-
tively. Lastly, the assessment values of vif within Ta-
ble 3 indicated that all the constructs’ vif values are
below the threshold of 4, which indicated none of the
constructs were affected by the variance inflation fac-
tor.
The discriminant validity for the model was as-
sessed to ensure that constructs within the pathmodel
are empirically distinct. Twomeasureswere used to as-
sess the discriminant validity, Heterotrait-Monotrait
ratio (htmt) and cross-loading. htmt < 0.85 means
95 confidence to consider (Henseler et al., 2015), as
the value from Table 4 indicates the respective con-
struct has a more significant value compared to all
other constructs in the row and column (Hair et al.,
2014). The htmt ratio within Table 4 indicated the
values were below the critical limit of 0.90, which in-
dicated the accuracy of correlation.
Structural Model
According to Hair et al. (2014), the significance level
and co-efficient value should achieve a certain level,
ensuring an impact on the dependent construct. The
assessed path model from Figure 2 demonstrates ‘Risk
Aversion→ Perception of Destination Risk’ with a p-
value = 0.005 and beta-value = 0.27, indicating that
if travellers have a substantial and significant sense of
Ri_Av
(R)6i
De_IMG
(R)11i
PR_DR In_Trav
β = 0.27(p < 0.01)
β = 0
.10
(p = 0
.06)
β = 0.15
(p < 0.01)
β = 0.14 (p = 0.02)
β = 0.24 R2 = 0.08 (p < 0.01)
Figure 2 Model
potential risk they may not be willing to travel to the
destination. The following hypothetical result indi-
cates ‘Destination Image→ Perception of Destination
Risk’ has a positive but insignificant relationship, p-
value = 0.06, beta-value = 0.10, which indicates the
past image of the destination is insignificant in the
midst of the covid-19 outbreak, as travellers aremore
concernedwith the safety of themselves and their fam-
ilies. Further, the ‘Perception of Destination Risk →
Intention to Travel’ p-value = 0.001, beta-value = 0.15
indicates a positive and significant relationship, which
indicates that despite the risk and the past image of the
destination, travellers are still willing to take risks and
want to travel, which could indicate that the results of
repetitive lockdowns and social restrictions has men-
tally and emotionally deprived the travellers. They are
eager to travel desperately despite the risk. h1 and h5
support this as both hypotheses have a positive rela-
tionship and vital significance. Further, in terms of
measuring the f 2 effect size, within the path model,
theminimum effect size was found to be 0.141, and the
most significant effect size is 1.327. The Q2 values were
0.614 (minimum) and 0.653 (maximum), respectively,
which indicated the indicators within each exogenous
construct have enormous predictive relevance on their
respective endogenous constructs.
Regarding the model fit for the path model, the
assessment of standardised root means square resid-
ual (srmr), the unweighted least squares discrepancy
duls, the geodesic discrepancy dg, and the normal
index (nfi) were necessary. Hence, Table 5 shows
that the structural model of this research achieved the
value of 0.061 and 0.060, indicating a fit model, which
was below the critical limit of srmr < 0.08 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999), duls < 95 bootstrap quantile (h195
228 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Table 5 Exact Fit Tests
Item Saturated Model Estimated Model
srmr . .
duls . .
dg . .
nfi . .
Notes Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (srmr):
Critical value <0.08;Unweighted Least SquaresDiscrepancy
(duls): Critical value < 0.05; Geodesic Discrepancy (dg):
Critical value < 0.05; Normal Fit Index (nif): Critical value
> 0.90.
of duls): (critical value < 0.05) (Henseler et al. 2016),
dg < 95 bootstrap quantile (h195 of dg): (critical
value < 0.05) (Henseler et al., 2016), nfi value > 0.90
(Byrne, 2008). Further, it confirmed that the struc-
tural model is considered a well-fit model based on
the obtained value of duls and dg. The value of nfi
shows as 0.93, which is above the criteria value of 0.90.
Therefore, it also confirmed the model fit of the struc-
tural model.
Discussion and Implications
Specifically, the study contributes an imperative un-
derstanding of tourists’ visit intention towards urban
cities of Malaysia by outspreading the existing tpb
framework by adding perceived risk, destination im-
age and risk aversion. Few studies have empirically
extended the tpb by adding studied variables, to the
best of our knowledge. The results demonstrated that
all proposed hypotheses relating to the direct relation-
ship were supported except one. Destination image
was found to have an insignificant relation to the per-
ceived risk of the destination. This finding suggests
that tourist agencies must improve the destination’s
image to improve the tourists’ intention to visit urban
cities. Additionally, the results of this study disclose
complex associations among these constructs.
The result has shown that destination image has no
relationshipwith covid-19 perceived destination risk
(Malaysia). Earlier research has reported a significant
relationship between destination image and perceived
risk (Perpiña et al., 2019; San Martin & Bosque, 2008;
Ruan et al., 2017; Kani et al., 2017). Not all tourists per-
ceive the risk to the Malaysian destination image. In
addition, it was also found in the study results that
tourists with higher risk aversion are less likely to visit
Malaysia than those with lower aversion. The results
of this study were in line with the earlier studies by
Gallego and Font (2020), Li et al. (2020), Neuburger
and Egger (2020), and Şengel et al. (2022). Tourist au-
thoritiesmust facilitate hygiene practices and commu-
nicate through appropriate media channels to reduce
perceived destination risk in Malaysia’s urban cities.
The descriptive analysis of the study reveals that
57.9 of the respondents were female, with 48.9 in
the age bracket of 21–30. Both groups of respondents
are taking the covid-19 situation seriously, and a
considerable decline has been observed in travel be-
haviour among people due to covid-19 risk. But in-
terestingly, a positive and significant relationship has
been found between travel risk aversion and percep-
tions of destination risk. Though the study is limited
to tourist cities of Malaysia, we have included tourists
from various nationalities, giving us a fair idea of their
perceptions and intention to travel. This study pro-
vides a significant understanding of destination im-
age and perceived risk in the intention to travel to
Malaysia. This study examines the destination im-
age of Malaysia and perception of the covid-19 pan-
demic risk. This empirical study contributes to the
existing literature by explaining how the perception of
covid-19 pandemic risk is integrally related to travel
decisions and destination image for Malaysia based
on individual aspects. As the traveller’s behaviour be-
comes an essential aspect of studies since it helps to
analyse the immediate and distant future of the travel
and tourism industry, it is highly essential to know
how to build up a positive destination image and avoid
or minimise these risks. The findings of this research
will be helpful.
The study also throws light on interesting prac-
tical implications. Since travel risk perception is an
important variable influencing the intention to travel,
the tourism industry can take steps to mitigate the
risk perceived by the tourists visiting urban cities of
Malaysia. Moreover, the study results also exhibited a
significant positive relationship between the percep-
tion of destination risk and the intention to travel to
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 229
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Malaysia, which contradicted this research’s proposed
hypothesis. This result could be unique to this study’s
targeted samples, as Malaysia has already initiated a
‘travel bubble’ to providemore confidence to incoming
travellers. However, the study’s remaining hypotheses
were consistent with the past studies (Matiza, 2020;
Cui et al., 2016; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). The find-
ings imply that tourists’ visit intention differs by the
level of perceived risk in the destination. Perception of
risk may make more sense to tourists when they are
going to a destination for a second time because this
study focuses on the visit intention of tourists. This
study also further supports the idea that destination
image influences visit intention. Similar results were
achieved by the studies in the tourism literature (Per-
piña et al., 2021; Kanwel et al., 2019; Molinillo et al.,
2018).
Limitations and Future Research
The study acknowledges certain limitations. We fo-
cused on a single country, Malaysia. Future research
can explore these variables on different destinations,
comparing destination risk perceptions across coun-
tries etc. The study did not control for demographic
variables that future studies can address. In addition,
we adopted a cross-sectional design; future research
can consider longitudinal research, capturing tourists’
perceptions at different time frames and analysing the
factors influencing the change in perception. Though
we tested for common method bias, we cannot com-
pletely rule out that future research can improve the
studies employing multi-source, multi-wave surveys.
Malaysia is a world-class destination attracting mil-
lions of tourists each year. The destination has been
highlighted and marketed globally, which helps publi-
cise a positive image to encourage tourists’ intention to
visit Malaysia. This finding confirms that destination
image is decisive factor for tourists’ destinations. Fu-
ture studies can explore other antecedents like destina-
tion loyalty, tourists’ personalities and situational fac-
tors influencing visit intention. Other moderating and
mediating variables, such as word of mouth, promo-
tional activities, and tourist delight, can be explored
in the context of perceived risk and visit intention. In
a nutshell, the study results give an alarming signal to
all stakeholders, emphasising the need to address per-
ceived risks related to destination image and enhance
tourist influx to promote economic growth.
References
Afshardoost, M., & Eshaghi, M. S. (2020). Destination im-
age and tourist behavioural intentions: A meta-analysis.
Tourism Management, 81(5), 104154.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),
Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39).
Springer.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., &
Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling (pls-sem) in hos-
pitality research. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538.
Alvarez,M.D., &Campo, S. (2014). The influence of political
conflicts on country image and intention to visit: A study
of Israel’s image. Tourism Management, 40, 70–78.
Anderson, J. C., &Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destina-
tion image formation.Annals of TourismResearch, 26(4),
868–897.
Bauchner, H., & Fontanarosa, P. (2020). Thinking of risk in
the era of covid-19. Jama, 324(2), 151–153.
Boto-García, D., & Leoni, V. (2021). Exposure to covid-19
and travel intentions: Evidence fromSpain.TourismEco-
nomics, 28(6), 1499–1519.
Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a
measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psi-
cothema, 20(4), 872–882.
Cahyanto, I., Wiblishauser, M., Pennington-Gray, L., & Sch-
roeder, A. (2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance: The
case of Ebola in the us. Tourism Management Perspec-
tives, 20, 195–203.
Cakar, K. (2020). Tourophobia: Fear of travel resulting from
man-made or natural disasters. Tourism Review, 76(1),
103–124.
Carvalho, M. A. M. (2022). Factors affecting future travel
intentions: Awareness, image, past visitation and risk
perception. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 8(3),
761–778.
Castro Mendes, B. de, & Cavenaghi, A. J. (2020). Building
a destination image: Images of exclusiveness and refuge.
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(4), 673–690.
Chan, H. F., Skali, A., Savage, D. A., Stadelmann, D., & Tor-
230 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
gler, B. (2020). Risk attitudes and humanmobility during
the covid-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 19931.
Chang, S. Y. (2009). Australians’ holiday decisions in China:
A study combining novelty-seeking and risk-perception
behaviors. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(4), 364–
387.
Chang, H., & Kim, M. (2022). covid-19 public health strat-
egy implementation for the hospitality industry in Tai-
wan. Academica Turistica, 15(1), 149–161.
Chen, C. F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination:
Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tourism
Management, 36, 269–278.
Chinazzi,M., Davis, J. T., Ajelli,M., Gioannini, C., Litvinova,
M., Merler, S., Pastore y Piontti, A., Mu, K., Rossi, L.,
Sun, K.,Viboud, C., Xiong, X., Yu, H., Halloran, M. E.,
Longini, I. M., & Vespignani, A., (2020). The effect of
travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coro-
navirus (covid-19) outbreak. Science, 368(6489), 395–
400.
Činjarević, M., Peštek, A., & Tufo, S. (2020). The distinctive-
ness of rural tourismmarketing practices: The case study
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Academica Turistica, 12(2),
173–184.
Cui, F., Liu, Y., Chang, Y., Duan, J., & Li, J. (2016). An
overview of tourism risk perception. Natural Hazards,
82(1), 643–658.
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2006). Tourist destination risk
perception: The case of Israel. Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, 14(2), 83–108.
Gallego, I, & Font, X. (2020) Changes in air passenger de-
mand as a result of the covid-19 crisis: Using Big Data
to inform tourism policy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
29(9), 1470–1489.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation in-
tentions and goal achievement: Ameta-analysis of effects
and processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (pp. 69–119). Elsevier.
Gössling, S., & Schweiggart, N. (2022): Two years of covid-
19 and tourism: What we learned, and what we should
have learned. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(4) 915–
931.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A
primer on partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling (pls-sem). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
When to use and how to report the results of pls-sem.
European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Hasan, M. K., Ismail, A. R., & Islam, M. F. (2017). Tourist
risk perceptions and revisit intention: A critical review of
literature. Cogent Business &Management, 4(1), 1412874.
Hassan, S. B., & Soliman, M. (2021). covid-19 and repeat
visitation: Assessing the role of destination social re-
sponsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust
and fear arousal. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 19, 100495.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using pls path
modeling in new technology research: Updated guide-
lines. Industrial management & data systems, 116(1), 2–
20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new cri-
terion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
based structural equationmodeling. Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit in-
dexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional cri-
teria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModel-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10
.1080/10705519909540118
Isaac, R. K., & Keijzer, J. (2021). Leisure travel intention fol-
lowing a period of covid-19 crisis: A case study of the
Dutch market. International Journal of Tourism Cities,
7(3), 583–601.
Jonas, A., Mansfeld, Y., Paz, S., & Potasman, I. (2011). De-
terminants of health risk perception among low-risk-
taking tourists traveling to developing countries. Journal
of Travel Research, 50(1), 87–99.
Josiassen, A., Assaf, A. G., Woo, L., & Kock, F. (2016). The
imagery-image dualitymodel: An integrative review and
advocating for improved delimitation of concepts. Jour-
nal of Travel Research, 55(6), 789–803.
Kani, Y., Aziz, Y. A., Sambasivan, M., & Bojei, J. (2017). An-
tecedents and outcomes of destination image ofMalaysia.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 32, 89–
98.
Kanwel, S., Lingqiang, Z., Asif, M., Hwang, J., Hussain, A., &
Jameel, A. (2019). The influence of destination image on
tourist loyalty and intention to visit: Testing a multiple
mediation approach. Sustainability, 11(22), 6401.
Kusumawati, F. R., Ferdous, E., & Bayramov, B. (2021). The
impact of customer behaviour on travel intention abroad
after a pandemic. International Journal of TourismPolicy,
11(2), 142–160.
Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Bendle, L. J., Kim, M. J., & Han, H.
(2012). The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions
for 2009 h1n1 influenza on travel intentions. Tourism
Management, 33(1), 89–99.
Leisen, B. (2001). Image segmentation: The case of a tourism
destination. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(1), 49–66.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 231
Kumar et al. Destination Image, COVID-19 Perceived Risk and Intention to Travel
Lepp, A., Gibson, H., & Lane, C. (2011). Image and perceived
risk: A study of Uganda and its official tourism website.
Tourism Management, 32(3), 675–684.
Li, J., Nguyen, T. H.H., &Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Coro-
navirus impacts on post-pandemic planned travel be-
haviours. Annals of Tourism Research, 86, 102964.
Matiza, T. (2020). Post-covid-19 crisis travel behaviour: To-
wards mitigating the effects of perceived risk. Journal of
Tourism Futures, 8(1), 99–108.
Molinillo, S., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Anaya-Sánchez, R., &
Buhalis, D. (2018). dmo online platforms: Image and in-
tention to visit. Tourism Management, 65, 116–130.
Nazneen, S., Hong, X., & Ud Din, N. (2020, May 4). covid-
19 crises and tourist travel risk perceptions. Social Science
Research Network. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn
.3592321
Neuburger, L, & Egger, R. (2020). Travel risk perception
and travel behavior during the covid-19 pandemic
2020: A case study of the dach region. Current Issues
in Tourism, 24(7), 1003–1016.
Novelli, M., Burgess, L. G., Jones, A., & Ritchie, B. W. (2018).
‘No Ebola . . . still doomed:’ The Ebola-induced tourism
crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 70, 76–87.
Park, K., & Reisinger, Y. (2020). Differences in the perceived
influence of natural disasters and travel risk on interna-
tional travel. Tourism Geographies, 12(1). https://doi.org
/10.1080/14616680903493621
Perpiña, L., Camprubí, R., & Prats, L. (2019). Destination
image versus risk perception. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 43(1), 3–19.
Perpiña, L., Prats, L., & Camprubí, R. (2021). Image and risk
perceptions: An integrated approach. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(3), 367–384.
Prince, M., & Kim, Y. (2021). Impact of risk aversion, reac-
tance proneness and risk appraisal on travel destination
risk perception. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 27(2),
203–216.
Poulaki, I., & Nikas, I. A. (2021). Measuring tourist be-
havioural intentions after the first outbreak of covid-19
pandemic crisis: Prima facie evidence from the Greek
market. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 7(3),
845–860.
Pullano, G., Valdano, E., Scarpa, N., Rubrichi, S., & Col-
izza, V. (2020). Evaluating the impact of demographic,
socioeconomic factors, and risk aversion on mobility
during covid-19 epidemic in France under lockdown:
A population-based study. Lancet Digital Health, 2(12),
e638–e649.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived
travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of
Thailand. Tourism Management, 30(3), 410–418.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear
appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology,
91(1), 93–114.
Ruan, W. Q., Li, Y. Q., & Liu, C. H. S. (2017). Measuring
tourism risk impacts on destination image. Sustainabil-
ity, 9(9), 1501.
San Martin, H., & Bosque, I. A. R del. (2008). Exploring the
cognitive-affective nature of destination image and the
role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29(2), 263–277.
Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., &Zhan,
F. (2013). Destination risk perceptions among us resi-
dents for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer
Olympic Games. Tourism Management, 38(1), 107–119.
Şengel, Ü., Genç, G., Işkın, M., Çevrimkaya, M., Zengin, B.,
& Sarıışık, M. (2022). The impact of anxiety levels on
destination visit intention in the context of covid-19.
Journal ofHospitality andTourism Insights, 6(2), 697–715.
Sharifpour,M.,Walters, G., & Ritchie, B.W. (2014). Risk per-
ception, prior knowledge, and willingness to travel: In-
vestigating the Australian tourist market’s risk percep-
tions towards the Middle East. Journal of Vacation Mar-
keting, 20(2), 111–123.
Silva, O., Reis, H. and Correia, A. (2011). The moderator ef-
fect of risk on travel decisionmaking. International Jour-
nal of Tourism Policy, 3(4), 332–347.
Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. (1998). Determining future travel
behaviour from past travel experience and perceptions
of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 171–
177.
Trimpop, R. M. (1994). The psychology of risk-taking be-
haviour. Elsevier.
Wen, J., Kozak, M., Yang, S., & Liu, F. (2020). covid-19: Po-
tential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and prefer-
ences. Tourism Review, 76(1), 74–87.
Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2014). Can terrorism make us feel
safer? Risk perceptions and worries before and after the
July 22nd attacks. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 200–
209.
Wolff, K., Larsen, S., & Øgaard, T. (2019). How to define and
measure risk perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research,
79, 102759.
wttc (WorldTravel&TourismCouncil). (2020). 30 years of
wttc. https://wttc.org/About/About-Us/media-centre
/press-releases/press-releases/2020/latest-research
-from-wttc-shows-an-increase-in-jobs-at-risk-in-travel
-and-tourism
232 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Original Scientific Article
The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
on the East Coast of Malaysia
Nor Syuhada Zulkefli
Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Malaysia
syuhada.z@umk.edu.my
Zaimatul Awang
Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Malaysia
zaimatul@umk.edu.my
Suhaida Herni Suffarruddin
Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Malaysia
suhaidaherni@usim.edu.my
A lack of awareness among homestay operators regarding the significance of in-
novation implementation contributes to the incompetence of some homestay pro-
grammes. This study intends to investigate the types of innovative homestay pro-
grammes that were implemented to be sustainable and competitive in the advanced
sector. This study applied the qualitative approach, in which in-depth interviews
were conducted with the homestay coordinators focused on the impact of innova-
tion implementation, and the collected data were analysed using the content analy-
sis technique. There were seven registered homestay programmes with fourteen re-
spondents on the East Coast of Malaysia which met the criteria of this study. The re-
sults indicated that the homestay programmes have adopted product innovation re-
garding lodging, activity packages, and businesses. According to the findings, home-
stay programmes have four types of innovation: (1) product and service innovation;
(2) marketing innovation; (3) management innovation; and (4) process innovation.
This study will aid in enhancing the quality of the accommodation experience for
homestay visitors and will guide the sustainable growth of the homestay business.
This research contributes to the body of knowledge through the innovation types of
homestay programmes. This finding is beneficial to the industry players as a bench-
mark for stakeholders in planning the strategies of homestay programme develop-
ment.
Keywords: homestay programmes, innovation, qualitative, East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.233-246
Introduction
With the rapid growth of the nation’s economy, tour-
ism development is also rapidly evolving, and trav-
ellers continue to have newdemands for tourism items.
One of the components of tourism activities is ‘living,’
which continuously evolves, introducing new ideas.
The growth of homestays has partially satisfied the
needs of some tourists. Homestays are a type of lodg-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 233
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
ing in which the house design, ecological surround-
ings, rural environment and local culture (Karki et al.,
2019; Walter et al., 2018). They are also an essential al-
ternative to conventional lodgings (Yuan et al., 2018).
It can play crucial roles in fostering economic growth,
preserving traditional culture and art, and other sec-
tors (Jamal et al., 2011) in addition to meeting the tai-
lored accommodation demands of guests (Karki et al.,
2019; Walter et al., 2018).
Today, many nations recognize and actively pro-
mote homestays as an integral sector of their tourism
industries (Yuan et al., 2018), with some even recog-
nizing them as a major local tourist attraction (Kun-
juraman, 2019). One of Malaysia’s most popular forms
of ecotourism is the homestay programme. Homestay
tourism is one of the significant sectors of Malaysian
community-based tourism in which the aim is to in-
crease the society’s income from tourism activities and
sharing the tourism profits and benefits with every
part of the rural areas.
The Homestay Programme organization in Malay-
sia was founded in 1995 to provide visitors with a
unique and enjoyable experience, including lodging,
food and drink preparation, activity packages, and
community product enterprises (Ramele & Yamazaki,
2020; Suffarruddin et al. 2020). Such speedy progress,
particularly in the technological sphere, has provided
openings for Homestay Programme operators to grow
their businesses (Osman & Zakaria, 2020). However,
the Ministry of Tourism, Art, and Culture (motac)
data shows that from2011 to 2019, nearly 60of home-
stay programmes consistently declined visitor num-
bers (motac, 2021). motac is the main actor in the
programme and manages the procedure of homestay
registration.
Considering that tourist consumers’ needs and ex-
pectations are always evolving, the tourism industry’s
market structure is inherently fluid and difficult to pre-
dict (Durán-Sánchez, 2019). Given this, the tourism
industry player must keep up with the times by in-
corporating new ideas. For the tourist industry, which
is subject to constant transformation, innovation is
considered the key to maintaining a competitive edge
and achieving high levels of performance (Ambrož &
Omerzel, 2018; Isik, 2022; Krizaj, 2020). So, it is crucial
that those who provide the tourist offer, including the
hotel offer, think about how they might incorporate
new products, services, and procedures (Brooker et
al., 2012). When new ideas are put into action, differ-
entiation opportunities emerge through the develop-
ment of core competencies, and creative features in the
homestay industry are shaped. It is well acknowledged
that innovations are a major contributor to success
in the business world. Increased global competition,
shorter product life cycles, improved technology ca-
pabilities, and ever-rising consumer demands are all
contributing to a heightened awareness of their sig-
nificance in today’s world. According to Schumpeter,
innovation is the creation of new opportunities for
added value, taking into account not only the usual
product or process innovation of manufacturing but
also market, organizational, and resources input in-
novation (Martínez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2009; Krizaj,
2020).
A recent study has shown that the manufacturing
sector is more likely to be the centre of innovation
than the tourism industry (Martinez-Roman et al.,
2015; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016; Boachie-Mensah
& Acquah, 2015; Kafetzopoulos & Psomas, 2015; Rosli
& Sidek, 2013). The majority of tourism innovation
studies have only dealt with the topic on a theoretical
level, focusing on the topic of demands and barriers
to innovation (Birgit et al., 2018). Therefore, this re-
search aims to investigate how homestay programmes
might use novel strategies to ensure their long-termvi-
ability and competitiveness in the modern hospitality
sector. There have been significant shifts in the hotel
and tourism sector in recent years. The necessity to
provide innovation is influenced by external variables
like rivalry, rising visitor demand and novel distri-
bution channels. According to Ambrož and Omerzel
(2018), business innovation is a difficult and compli-
cated process. Also, it is a systematic process that can
help the organization do well in new markets, with
new customers, in specific market positions, and by
giving existing customers something new. Thus, to a
great extent, innovation studies in tourism still rely on
explorative and qualitative situations where the phe-
nomenon is studied and described from a number of
viewpoints where rigid definitions are less prominent.
234 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Literature Review
Homestay Programmes
The concept of community-based tourism (cbt) was
first introduced in the mid-1990s (Asker et al., 2010)
through community involvement in providing tour-
ism products for economic, social, and political em-
powerment (Sustainability Leaders United, 2020). Ac-
cording to Jamaludin et al. (2012), cbt is the com-
munity’s responsibility and ability to make decisions.
cbt is a community development strategy that im-
proves rural communities’ capacity to organize and
manage tourist resources while assuring local partici-
pation (Nair & Hamzah, 2015). In a Malaysian home-
stay programme, visitors live with the host family and
become fully absorbed in the culture and way of life
of the country (Sustainability Leaders United, 2020).
A homestay is a type of housing offered as part of
tourism that gives travellers or visitors a taste of ru-
ral or kampong living (Nair & Hamzah, 2015). It is a
type of private lodging that allows guests to stay with
a host family for a certain amount of time in a fully
equipped home. Homestay programmes in Malaysia,
unlike those in other parts of Southeast Asia, are typ-
ically run in rural settings and are governed by the
government in terms of certification, training, moni-
toring, and financial assistance (Sustainability Leaders
United, 2020). However, they face competition from
commercial homestays operated by the community in
both urban and rural areas (Kunjuraman, 2019), where
the hosts do not always live together with the guests.
In Malaysia, the homestay programme was placed
under the Rural Tourism Master Plan in 2011, which
aims to encourage the involvement of rural commu-
nities in the tourism industry (Ismail & Daud, 2020).
This is in line with Malaysia’s tourism policies that
have been formulated and given attention by the gov-
ernment to develop the homestay programme. How-
ever, the government statistics report shows almost
36 per cent (70 homestay programmes) experienced a
decline in tourist arrivals over the last five years from
2011 to 2016 (Suffarruddi et al., 2021; motac, 2021). As
a result, nearly ten homestay programmes had either
withdrawn or dropped their motac business regis-
tration. Kasim et al. (2016) found that the decline in
tourist arrivals has affected the income of homestay
operators to the point where they are no longer able
to survive in the business. In addition, one of the most
prominent contemporary challenges is to ensure the
sustainability and competitiveness of homestay pro-
grammes (Gossling et al., 2020; Janjua et al., 2021). As
part of the tourism industry, hospitality services, such
as homestay programmes, must adopt innovative el-
ements and offer new trends in their business oper-
ation because their services are dependent on con-
stant changes in the tourism market (Ismail & Daud,
2020). Tourism is a dynamic sector that requires inno-
vations to answer the changing and demanding needs
of tourists. Therefore, it is important that providers of
tourist services take into consideration new products,
services, and processes (Brooker et al., 2012).
Domestic and international research on homestays
is extensive. Kunjuraman (2019) examined the impact
of information technology and customer relationship
management practices on the performance of home-
stays and recommended that homestays strengthen
customer relationships, enhance homestay perfor-
mance, and enhance information technology in order
to be more competitive in the industry. In addition,
Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak (2016) discovered that local
people’s lack of understanding and awareness in man-
aging the community’s attractions in sustainable ways
has led to a slow reduction in the traditional. Previ-
ous studies in Malaysia have highlighted the limita-
tions of indigenous human capital. The development
of community-based Homestay tourism may be hin-
dered by a lack of education, information, skills, and
experiences in tourism, which adds to unsustainable
tourism (Kunjuraman, 2019).
Concepts of Innovation
The concept of innovation explains that innovation fo-
cuses on aspects of renewal and improvement. Inno-
vation capability is an internal capability (Martínez-
Román et al., 2015; Ngo & O’Cass, 2009) that refers to
the potential and ability to produce innovative prod-
ucts or services. This involves the use of knowledge
and ideas to produce something new in order to bene-
fit the organization and stakeholders. Continuous im-
provement is also important through adding value to
existing efforts (Hogan et al., 2011).
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 235
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Schumpeter (1934) accurately defined innovation
as ‘the development and introduction of a new good
(product innovation), the introduction of a newmeth-
od of production (process innovation), the opening of
a new market (marketing innovation), new sources
in production-that is, new sources of raw material
or new semi-manufactures (input innovation), and
the creation of new organizational forms or indus-
tries (organizational innovation).’ In the third edition
of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (oecd) (2015), innovation is defined as:
‘the implementation of new or significantly improved
products (good or service), or process, a new mar-
keting method, or a new organizational method in
business practices, workplace organization or external
relations.’
Innovation is an important approach in the growth
strategy to enter new markets in addition to improv-
ing existing markets and subsequently being compet-
itive (Boachie-Mensah & Acquah, 2015; Esquivel et
al., 2021). This approach is also in line with the eco-
nomic objective, which is to create innovation and
difference to achieve business growth (Sundbo, 2009)
as well as survive in the market (Jiménez-Jiménez &
Sanz-Valle, 2011). Existing concepts that are reused or
implemented in different contexts for diverse client
groups constitute another aspect of innovation. When
considering which products and services would offer
value for their customers, the hotel industry has amul-
titude of possibilities fromwhich to pick (Nieves et al.,
2014). As a part of the tourism industry, hospitality
depends on constant changes in the tourism market,
thus being forced to adapt its offer to new trends in
tourism. Today’s tourists desire particular experiences
linked with the cultural history of a destination. The
competitive advantage of a tourism destination can be
derived from lodging structures that are innovative in
relation to the destination’s cultural history and offer
tourists unique experiences that tell the tale of the past
in the present.
In tourism research, the Schumpeterian approach
to search for innovation categories has been imple-
mented to some extent. Some scholars also use these
four types of innovation in their studies, such as hospi-
tality studies (Nieves et al., 2014; Esquivel et al., 2021)
and various tourism enterprises (Ronningen, 2010).
There are four types of innovation that have been used
in depth by past researchers.
Product and Service Innovation
Product and service innovation is defined as some-
thing offered based on new ideas (Myers & Marquis,
1969) and aims to provide various options to cus-
tomers. Innovation is also an initiative that parallels
the development of current technology and global
competition (Gunday et al., 2011). The production
of new products and services also refers to original-
ity and uniqueness, which involves modifying an ex-
isting product to attract the attention of consumers
(Boachie-Mensah & Acquah, 2015). Furthermore, the
reform of existing products and services to new prod-
ucts and services can bring change (Rosli & Sidek,
2013).
Kafetzopoulos andPsomas (2015) argued that prod-
uct innovation is a continuous effort and has a func-
tion involving increasing different levels of efficiency
inside and outside the organization. In another con-
text, Danneels and Kleinschmidtb (2001) looked at
product innovation from the perspective of customers
and firms. From the customer perspective, innovation
aims to attract the attention of new customers (Hassan
et al., 2013) by making modifications to existing prod-
ucts according to their needs. Product innovation has
also become one of the important sources of compet-
itive advantage for a firm (Camisón & Villar-López,
2014) because it improves product quality and at the
same time contributes to increasing market distribu-
tion and business performance (Hassan et al., 2013).
In the tourism industry, product and service inno-
vation focuses on renewal and improvements made
to products and activities offered to tourists in a des-
tination (Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012; Cosma et
al. al., 2014; Nieves et al., 2014). The innovation car-
ried out is important to increase tourist visits by of-
fering more attractive packages (Keling & Entebang,
2017). Among the products and services that are of-
ten associated with innovation are accommodation
(Uran Maravić, 2016; Martínez-Román et al., 2015;
Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016), food preparation (Ke-
ling & Entebang, 2017; Martínez-Román et al., 2015)
236 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
and traditional cultural performances (Keling & Ente-
bang, 2017; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016). In addition,
there is also innovation involving a combination of
products and services in the form of a more unique
package (Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016). The findings
suggest that innovation of products and service im-
provement initiatives are important in the tourism in-
dustry, including for small businesses in rural areas.
Process Innovation
Process innovation means the implementation of new
elements and improvements in production techniques
or delivery methods (oecd, 2015). Polder et al. (2010)
defines process innovation as the introduction of novel
production techniques, management strategies, and
technology thatmaybe utilized to enhance production
and management processes. In other words, process
innovation refers to remodelling and improving inter-
nal operations of business processes (Boachie-Mensah
& Acquah, 2015). This includes the improvement of
equipment, technological advances, skill techniques,
and the latest software used to improve production
and delivery methods (Hassan et al., 2013; Oly Ndu-
bisi & Iftikhar, 2012).
Process innovation involves many aspects related
to firm functions such as technical design, research
and development (r&d), manufacturing, manage-
ment, and commercial activities (Hassan et al., 2013).
In the tourism industry, process innovation involves
significant changes in techniques, equipment, and
software that can reduce costs while improving pro-
duction quality (Aldebert et al., 2011) and solving
technical problems (Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012).
Based on previous studies, process innovation refers to
the delivery method of output, the use of technology
to improve the quality and effectiveness of services,
and the application of new technology and equip-
ment (Martínez-Román et al., 2015). In cultural her-
itage tourism, process innovations are included in the
new methods in providing a more interesting expe-
rience to tourists through different and unique alter-
natives (Sakdiyakorn and Sivarak, 2016). Thus, this
study highlights that the innovation process is a way
or method to improve and accelerate to stay competi-
tive in the industry.
Marketing Innovation
Marketing innovation is defined as the renewal and
improvement of newmarketing techniques (Hassan et
al., 2013) that enable firms to enter and penetrate the
target markets. The implementation of marketing in-
novation involves an increase in advertising and pro-
motion activities. Marketing innovation also involves
the firm’s ability to introduce and sell products accord-
ing to consumer needs, competitive conditions, costs
and benefits and the level of innovation acceptance
(Yam et al., 2011). Atalay et al. (2013) and Gunday et al.
(2011) stated that marketing innovation can increase
sales through the implementation of something better
in meeting customer needs, opening new markets or
changes in product placement in the market. There-
fore, firms need to bring marketing innovation to pro-
duce amore efficient business (Polder et al., 2010). Pre-
vious research has focused on empirical studies to see
the relationship between marketing innovation and
performance. For example, studies in the manufactur-
ing sector have proven that marketing innovation and
business performance have a strong positive relation-
ship (Boachie-Mensah & Acquah, 2015; Hassan et al.,
2013; Kafetzopoulos & Psomas, 2015).
Similarly, researchers in the tourism industry also
emphasize marketing innovation as an effort to give
satisfaction to customers and increase sales (Aldebert
et al., 2011). This innovation involves the renewal and
improvement of promotional techniques and chan-
nels, the use of new media, and product placement
and market prices (Cosma et al., 2014; Nieves et al.,
2014; Ronningen, 2010; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016).
Sakdiyakorn and Sivarak (2016) proved marketing in-
novation as an opportunity to attract tourists to cul-
tural heritage tourism. This is followed by a study
by Yiamjanya (2016), who found that technological
progress has contributed to the development of home-
stay and business programmes in local tourism desti-
nations.
Management Innovation
Management innovation is a terminology synony-
mous with organizational innovation that was intro-
duced by Schumpeter (1934). Furthermore, many re-
cent scholars have adopted the term ‘management
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 237
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
innovation’ in their studies (Damanpour & Aravind,
2012; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016). Management in-
novation is studied in various disciplines such as strate-
gic management, entrepreneurship, and marketing.
In the tourism industry, management innovation
is an effort to implement new changes involving man-
agement methods that can improve the company’s ef-
fectiveness (Cosma et al., 2014; Ronningen, 2010). Pre-
vious studies were done on the renewal and improve-
ment of information management systems (Camisón
& Monfort-Mir, 2012), administrative structures (Bo-
oyens, 2012), and collaborative relationships (Booyens,
2012; Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012; Nieves et al.,
2014; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016), human manage-
ment (Booyens, 2012; Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012;
Sakdiyakorn&Sivarak, 2016) andworkplace organiza-
tion (Nieves et al., 2014; Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016).
In conclusion,most studies have used all four types
of innovation – product or service innovation, process
innovation, marketing innovation, and management
innovation – as an effective strategy tomeet consumer
needs while maintaining a competitive advantage. In-
novation is seen as an important aspect of differenti-
ating services’ success and survival in many interna-
tional markets (Hanaysha & Hilman, 2015).
Methodology
A qualitative approach using face-to-face interviews
has been undertaken with the homestays’ providers
In Malaysia, the East Coast is one of the most remote
areas but still rich in natural resources, uniqueness of
culture, distinctive rural living, and active commercial
activities, making it very attractive and competitive
as a tourist destination. According to motac (2021),
the homestay programmes located in the East Coast
of Malaysia have received higher demands from In-
ternational tourists for rural homestays. According to
statistics of the Homestay Provider report by motac
in 2021, there are 16 homestay programmes in the East
Coast of Peninsular Malaysia registered with motac.
Therewere four criterion selections used for this study,
which are (1) the homestay is still active with motac;
(2) has received the highest number of tourists/guest
arrivals after covid-19; (3) has received awards; and
(4) have enough time to participate in the interview
Table 1 Profile of Respondents
No./homestay Location Sex Age Position
 Homestay A Terengganu Male  Manager
Male  Owner
 Homestay B Terengganu Male  Admin
Female  Admin
 Homestay C Terengganu Female  Manager
Male  Host
 Homestay D Pahang Female  Admin
Female  Host
 Homestay E Pahang Male  Manager
Male  Technician
 Homestay F Kelantan Male  Manager
Female  Admin
 Homestay G Kelantan Female  Manager
Male  Host
conducted. Therefore, the study conducted in-depth
interviews with fourteen operators of the Seven (7)
homestay programmes on the East Coast of Malaysia
in May 2022. The respondents were interviewed in
person in Malay and each interview was recorded. Ta-
ble 1 shows the profile of respondents involved in this
study.
The questions for semi-structured interviews have
been developed based on Schumpeter’s (1934), which
are included four categories of tourism innovation.
Products and services innovations,management inno-
vations, marketing innovations, and process innova-
tions were the four categories of innovations that these
queries tried to distinguish.Most interviews lasted be-
tween thirty minutes to one hour, and then data col-
lected afterwards, or transcripts of the interviews were
evaluated. Table 2 shows the types of interview ques-
tions for this study.
The interviewswere recorded and then transcribed
by hand to extract the most important information.
The tapes were listened to many times to ensure the
accuracy of the transcribing process. For the sake of
familiarity and to get ready for coding, the raw data
were read many times. Second, open coding was used
to create the code frames. Nvivo 8.0 was used to or-
238 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Table 2 Interview Questions
Types of Innovation Types of questions Sources
Product How are the products and services offered?
Based on Mr./Mrs. experience over X years, have there been any
reforms and improvements made to the products and services
offered? If yes, explain.
What is the uniqueness of this homestay programme compared to
other homestays?
Keling & Entebang, (;
); Martínez-Román
et al. (); Nieves et al.
(); Ronningen ();
Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak ()
Management What has been the management system of this homestay pro-
gramme from the beginning of its establishment until now?
Based on Mr./Mrs. experience over X years, have there been re-
forms and improvements made to management activities? If yes,
explain.
Ronningen ();
Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak ()
Process Are there processes carried out in the homestay programme such
as the production and delivery of products and services using new
technology?
Based on the experience of Mr./Mrs. Over X years, have there
been reforms and improvements to the process? If Yes, explain.
Martínez-Román et al. ();
Nieves et al. (); Ronningen
(); Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak
()
Marketing How are the marketing techniques used to promote this home-
stay programme? Who is involved or is there a responsible
party/member?
Based on Mr./Mrs.’s experience over X years, have there been re-
forms and improvements made to marketing activities? If Yes,
explain.
Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak ();
Yiamjanya ()
ganize the transcribed interviews. For analysis pur-
pose, the researcher was given access to both numeric
and non-numerical, unstructured data. One method
utilized to ensure the accuracy of the transcripts was
member checking, which involved submitting prelim-
inary findings to interviewees for confirmation.
Results and Discussion
This paper analysed the data obtained from the inter-
view transcripts according to four categories of inno-
vations. Category A involved product and service in-
novation; Category B is marketing innovation; Cate-
gory C was about management innovation; and Cat-
egory D involved process innovation as shown in Ta-
ble 3.
Category A: Innovation Products and Services
Based on the respondents’ explanations, the products
and services offered can be classified into four cat-
egories, namely (1) The creation of a new concept
of accommodation; (2) Rural activity experience; (3)
Hospitality; and (4) Small and Medium Enterprises
(smes).
Accommodation is the main product offered by
providing space or room as a place for tourists to stay,
where each house has a different number of rooms.
This study found that seven homestay programmes
have carried out this reform where, according to the
respondent Homestay C, ’By the era after 5 to 10
years, the accommodation has changed towards kam-
pungstay. Most of the tourists who come are those
who live in kampungstay.’ He also explained the form
of kampung stay, that is, ‘there are several rooms built
next to the homestay house.’ According to the respon-
dent, ‘There are various types of rooms made of wood
and also in the form of cabins. We provide standard
and family rooms. So, tourists can choose the type of
room they like.’
Traditional and modern house-themed accommo-
dation has been developed with the addition facilities,
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 239
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Table 3 Themes and Sub-Themes of Innovation in Homestay Programmes
Themes Sub-themes of innovation Density
Product and services innovation Creation of a new concept of accommodation 
Rural activity experience 
Hospitality 
Small and Medium Enterprise 
Marketing innovation Dissemination through traditional media 
Participation in commercial programmes 
Interweaving business ventures of external agencies 
Use of the digital medium 
Management innovation Systematic administrative structure 
Improvement of the information system management 
Process innovation Improvement of food service 
Improvement of the registration process 
Notes n = 14.
such swimming pool in order to provide a different
and exciting experience to tourists. This transforma-
tion is seen as an effort to guarantee loyalty and meet
the needs of tourists who prefer private accommoda-
tion (Suffarruddin et al., 2021) and at the same time to
be able to provide a variety of accommodation options
(Ramele & Yamazaki, 2020).
The village activity experience provided is in the
formof a package that has its own uniqueness depend-
ing on the advantages of each destination. It was found
that all homestay programmes have implemented var-
ious forms of innovation to attract tourists. The result
shows that all homestay programmes tend to create
new activities in the form of leisure and recreation.
According to r4 (Homestay B), ‘We need to make re-
forms to attract young people to the village, such as
offering rugged activities.’ This was supported by r8
from Homestay D by stating, ‘Now, we have to follow
the changes and interests of tourists. Some people like
to go to the hills, the forest, and the sea.’ This innova-
tion is an initiative to attract the attention of tourists
who are in the eco-tourism area. Meanwhile, there
are some homestays that create new packages by tak-
ing tourists to visit interesting places around the area.
For example, r10 from Homestay E explained, ‘We
provide activities such as river cruises where tourists
can go around, want to fish [sic], visit the surround-
ings of Kuala Langat District up to Jugra. There is also
an international paragliding place here.’ This effort is
parallel to Homestays A and C which take tourists by
bus to some interesting tourist destinations. Suffar-
ruddin et al. (2021) emphasize that such activities are
usually able to offer natural enjoyment to tourists and
are abundant in rural areas that are rich in natural re-
sources.
Hospitality is something that is often paid attention
to by all homestay programmes in providing the best
service to tourists. The results of the analysis found
that the innovations carried out can be divided into
two levels, namely renewal in terms of hall construc-
tion and improvements involving the addition of hall
facilities and improved service techniques. Respon-
dent Homestay A commented on this need: ‘When
it is successful and tourists increase, we make the
paperwork for the construction of the hall. This is
for cultural performances because the existing hall is
quite small.’ According to Homestay A respondents,
‘Improvements among homestay operators have in-
creased in terms of welcoming guests.’
It was found that all homestay programmes tend to
increase various types of output such as food, agricul-
tural products, handicrafts, and health products. The
variety of food-based products has been intensified
by smes Homestays A and D where the respondent
240 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
of Homestay A stated, ‘We used to focus on tradi-
tional cakes such as bahulu and tempeyek. Now we
have produced fish and pickled meat. This is village
food that is produced by [the village] itself and sold
through this homestay programme.’ This heritage food
is said to have managed to enter the overseas mar-
ket through sales to tourists who visit. This initiative
can give tourists a different experience to enjoy the
beauty of the village (Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016).
This proves that process innovation is very impor-
tant to ensure that the products and services offered
to tourists can be infused with a difference that has its
own uniqueness.
Category B: Marketing Innovation
Marketing is also a key aspect of destination compet-
itiveness. Based on the respondents’ explanations, the
marketing innovations found can be classified into
four techniques, which are (1) Dissemination through
traditional media; (2) Participation in commercial
programmes; (3) Interweaving business ventures of
external agencies; and (4) Use of the digital media.
This study found that four homestay programmes
implement this reform in an effort to promote their
packages. According toHomestayC respondents, ‘Ma-
laysian Radio and Television Stations are synonymous
with us. In 2014, we recorded the preparations for
Aidiladha and broadcast it in the Nasi Lemak Kopi
O slot. Then in 2015, we showed the first Eid atmo-
sphere [sic] recorded at the chairman’s house through
the programme Selamat Pagi Malaysia.’ The display of
this atmosphere is said to be able to attract viewers
to the homestay programme to see and feel for them-
selves the package offered. Suffarruddin et al. (2021)
found that broadcasting stations are an easy channel
for tourists to obtain information about homestay pro-
grammes. However, in this study, this innovation was
only carried out by a small number of homestay pro-
grammes, because it required relatively high prepara-
tion and expense costs.
Most of the respondents who responded also said
that the website needs to be better kept up to date and
maintained: some of the people who were listed on
the website had already left. It was also decided that
brochures, maps, and pamphlets with a list of the ac-
tivities available in the homestay packagewere needed.
These pieces of advertising help people who might
want to visit knowmore about what they can do there.
Also, tourists who drive themselves to homestays will
find it easier to locate each one thanks to better signs.
This idea is shared by the five homestays that were
studied. According to the r4 from Homestay B, ’In
addition to using the website provided by motac, we
also created our own website to facilitate promotion.’
This means that they will manage marketing ac-
cording to their own wishes. This new creation is also
implemented in Homestays D and F through develop-
ing their own website. Besides that, Homestays E and
H rely on the entrepreneur themself and according to
the response by r13 (Homestay G), ‘There are also the
offspring of entrepreneurs who are skilled at advertis-
ing online. Therefore, they will create their own web-
site.’ This innovation is the entrepreneurs’ effort to en-
hance the advertising of their homestays. This finding
is in line with previous findings involving homestays
in Thailand (Yiamjanya, 2016) and other tourism in-
dustries (Camisón &Monfort-Mir, 2012; Cosma et al.,
2014; Sakdiyakorn & Sivara, 2016), who also showed
significant marketing innovation in their business.
Category C: Innovation Management
Referring to the respondents’ explanations, the inno-
vations found can be classified into three categories,
namely (1) Systematic administrative structure; and
(2) creating a new management organization.
The study discovered that competent people are a
vital asset in a company in order to start a better man-
agement journey in terms of the systematic adminis-
trative structure. The same is true for the homestay
programme, where Homestays E and F have empha-
sized the reform of hiring competent workers as a way
to raise the calibre of human resources. ‘My son went
through a course and practice in the hospitality busi-
ness and now he has a degree,’ said Respondent 11 from
Homestay E explained that they have someone with
previous office experience. They were therefore em-
ployed to assist in running this homestay. This result is
consistent with other research that discovered this ini-
tiative is crucial for enhancing human resource man-
agement (Sakdiyakorn & Sivarak, 2016; Camisón &
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 241
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Monfort-Mir, 2012), especially through hiring knowl-
edgeable and skilled workers (Ronningen, 2010).
The result showed that there are four homestays
that have made changes to their administration by es-
tablishing an executive body to manage their respec-
tive homestay programmes, for example, in Home-
stay E, where according to the respondent, ‘We have
beenunder our own association thatwas formed solely
to manage homestays.’ This approach is parallel to
Homestays A and G where they have established a
cooperative to help with administration. Besides that,
the homestay management might also consider en-
couraging the local youth to be more actively involved
in the programme. Most of the homestay programme
operators are in their 40s and 50s. According to r3,
In my opinion, most of the people who partic-
ipate in homestay activities are adults over the
age of 40. I hope that the management can find
a way to get more local youth to take part in the
homestay programme so that they can continue
to run it in the future.
This finding is in line with the findings fromCami-
són andMonfort-Mir (2012), Sakdiyakorn and Sivarak
(2016), andNieves et al. (2014) in the study ofmanage-
ment innovation for other tourism industries as an ef-
fort to improve the quality of the workplace. Although
only one homestay implemented this innovation, the
innovation has proven that the management of the
homestay programme is the area to focus on as man-
agement innovation can keep the homestay business
more alive compared to other tourism products.
Category D: Innovation Process
Referring to the respondents’ explanations, the inno-
vations process found can be classified into two cate-
gories, namely (1) improvement of food services, and
(2) improvement of the registration process.
Based on the respondents’ explanations, process
innovation is often linked to the products and services
offered. Among them are reforms in terms of provid-
ing registration counters and improving the method
of preparing food and transportation for tourists. The
most significant process innovation is the provision of
Innovation Product
The creation of a new
concept of accommodation
Rural activity experience
Innovation Process
Improvement of food services
Improvement of the
registration process
InnovationMarketing
Dissemination through
traditional media
Participation in commercial
programmes
Innovation Management
Systematic administrative
structure
Creating a newmanagement
organization
Innovation Elements
of Homestay Programmes
Figure 1 The Innovative Elements of Homestay
Programmes in the East Coast of Malaysia
a registration counter to facilitate the entry and exit
of tourists. This innovation was found in Homestay F
through the respondent’s statement that ‘Tourists who
come will go to the counter provided. So, all check-ins
and check-outs happen here.’ This counter is based in
the kampung stay area, which is equipped with com-
puters and software to record tourist data, including
use for all administrative and marketing matters. The
respondents explain that ‘All data has been recorded
using a computer.’
Online booking was another much sought-after
feature identified by the visitors which could have
made their booking experience easier. Booking.com
allows the homestay owner to interact directly with
prospective guests and makes it easier to communi-
cate with the guests prior to arrival and see guest re-
views after staying in the homestay. For example, one
of the Homestay programmes, encompassing Homes-
tays B and D said that ‘We have simplified administra-
tive affairs by providing a specific space for homestay
managers . . .’
This innovation is in line with Aldebert et al. (2011)
and Yiamjanya (2016), who find that the software and
system used can reduce costs and improve business
quality. However, this innovation is only found in a
small number of homestay programmes, according
to their respective ideas and abilities. Furthermore,
this initiative requires individuals with expertise in
242 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
the field of technology (Booyens, 2012; Hjalager, 2010;
Ronningen, 2010).
Concisely, Figure 1 illustrates the innovative ele-
ments of Homestay Programmes.
Conclusion
As suggested by Mapjabil et al. (2015), the need to fo-
cus more on the innovation of homestay programme
to become a competitive industry and improve home-
stay performance to achieve better live for commu-
nity. The role of community and agency is important
and crucial for this programme to sustain and develop
in the near future. An innovative aspect of the pro-
gramme needs to be explored in terms of providing
more variety and alternatives in tourism products. In-
novation is important to ensure the sustainability of
small and medium community businesses. In addi-
tion, the business expansion in homestay programmes
needs to explore their unique character in local cul-
ture (Ye et al., 2018). Homestay businesses should thus
make extensive use of local cultural values in their de-
signs, with the result being establishments that accu-
rately convey the nature and character of a genuine ru-
ral community-based service.
Despite the problem concerning the homestay op-
erators, some possible explanations and solutionswere
identified in this study. Most of the homestay opera-
tors never experienced being tourists nor they have
ever been exposed to foreign cultures and foreign
homestay experiences. Most of them have come about
operating a homestay through learning from others’
experiences. The aesthetics of the homestay environ-
ment and generating a distinctive homestay atmo-
sphere are highly valued in this research. As a result,
homestay hosts should pay attention to how the setting
is created to fully satisfy guests’ needs for their aes-
thetic satisfaction throughout their stay. Thus, hosts
should first thoroughly explore the aesthetic elements
of life in combination with accommodation products
(such as space design, decoration style, catering plates,
toiletries, etc.) and homestay activities. Additionally,
to establish a distinctive ‘host culture,’ homestay hosts
should concentrate on a particular aspect rather than
overtly pursuing the cohabitation of innovation and
authenticity. As a result, homestay hosts should pro-
vide experiences and activities that reflect the local
culture, such as educating visitors on how to prepare
unique products like local food and local crafts. This
could make the hosting homestay more competitive
and adapt to the change in tourist demand.
Besides this, hosts of homestays should create their
own marketing channels. To improve communication
and connection with visitors, these channels can be
utilized to promote certain special activities, such as
contests for creative solicitations and writing. The use
of social media like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook
are platforms that can be used by homestay operators
to promote their products and services. The use of this
platform could reach many tourists in all parts of the
world. A catchy and interesting promotion should be
posted on a regular basis tomake the homestay accom-
modation look lively and interesting.
The small sample size, a result of time constraints,
could be considered a drawback of this study. This
study may not be able to determine every contribut-
ing variable or explain every process by which the sur-
rounding environment influences the development of
pleasant memories of homestay experiences. Thus, to
better understand the function of the environment in
the construction of good accommodation memories,
future studies can combine quantitative and qualita-
tive study methodologies.
The results of this study prove that the implemen-
tation of innovations is very important in rural ar-
eas of the East Coast of Peninsula Malaysia, includ-
ing a homestay programme. The effect of innovation
elements is important to encourage community en-
gagement and involvement. It offers the experience of
living in the village or countryside with the villagers,
the learning process of culture, and the enjoyment of
natural and beautiful ambiance. Thus, innovations are
part of improving the tourism destination to sustain
and be competitive in the tourism industry. In the fu-
ture, the implementation of innovation for each home-
stay programme can be studied for the impact of in-
novation not only visible in the performance of the
homestay programme, such as the increasing number
of tourist arrivals and income generation, but even in-
volve the achievements of the homestay. The homes-
tay programmes’ innovative elements need to be ex-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 243
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
plored in terms of providing more variety and alter-
natives in terms of product, marketing, management,
and process in the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the
impact of innovation can be seen through the increase
of homestay entrepreneurs, including entrepreneurs’
accommodation and sme entrepreneurs.
Acknowledgments
This paper has been written in the frame of the research
grant with the title ‘Exploring Innovation Elements in
the East CoastHomestay Programmes.’ This research has
been financially supported by the Universiti Malaysia
Kelantan with code research R/FUND/A1100/01868A
/001/2022/01009.
References
Aldebert, B., Dang, R. J., & Longhi, C. (2011). Innovation
in the tourism industry: The case of Tourism. Tourism
Management, 32(5), 1204–1213.
Ambrož, R., & Omerzel, D. G. (2018). Business model inno-
vation in tourism: How to survive in highly competitive
environments. Academica Turistica, 10(2), 175–183.
Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., & Paddon, M. (2010).
Effective community-based tourism: A best practice man-
ual. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/Publications
/2010/6/Effective-Community-Based-Tourism-A-Best
-Practice-Manual-June-2010/210_twg
_CommunityBasedTourismWEB.pdf
Atalay,M., Anafarta, N., & Sarvan, F. (2013). The relationship
between innovation and firm performance: An empiri-
cal evidence from Turkish automotive supplier industry.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75, 226–235.
Birgit, P., Mike, P., & Chung-Shing, C. (2018). Needs, drivers
and barriers of innovation: The case of an alpine com-
munitymodel destination.TourismManagement, 25, 53–
63.
Boachie-Mensah, F., & Aquah, I. S. K. (2015). The effect
of innovation types on the performance of small and
medium-sized enterprises in the Sekondi-Takoradi Me-
tropolis. Archives of Business Research, 3(3), 77–98.
Booyens, I. (2012). Innovation in tourism-a new focus for
research and policy development in South Africa. Africa
Insight, 42(2), 112–126.
Brooker, E., Joppe, M., Davidson, M. C., &Marles, K. (2012).
Innovation within the Australian outdoor hospitality
parks industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(5), 682–700.
Camisón, C., & Monfort-Mir, V. M. (2012). Measuring in-
novation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the
dynamic-capabilities perspectives.TourismManagement,
33(4), 776–789.
Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational in-
novation as an enabler of technological innovation ca-
pabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Re-
search, 67(1), 2891–2902.
Cosma, S., Paun, D., Bota, M., & Fleseriu, C. (2014). In-
novation: A useful tool in rural tourism in Romania.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148(6), 507–515.
Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innova-
tion: Conceptions, processes and antecedents.Manage-
ment and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.
Danneels, E., & Kleinschmidtb, E. J. (2001). Product inno-
vativeness from the firm’s perspective: Its dimensions
and their relationship with project selection and per-
formance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
18(6), 357–373.
Durán-Sánchez, A., Álvarez-García, J., Cruz del Río-Rama,
M. de la, & Rosado-Cebrián, B. (2019). Science mapping
of the knowledge base on tourism innovation. Sustain-
ability, 11(12), 3352.
Esquivel, M. H., Martínez, E. E. V., Cruz, A. D., & Hincapié,
J. M. M. (2021). Sustainable innovation: Concepts and
challenges for tourism organizations. Academica Turis-
tica, 14(2), 175–187.
Gossling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics,
tourismand global change:A rapid assessment of covid-
19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1). https://doi.org
/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects
of innovation types on firm performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.
Hanaysha, J., & Hilman, H. (2015). Product innovation is
a key success factor to build sustainable brand equity.
Management Science Letters, 5(6), 567–576.
Hassan, M. U., Shaukat, S., Nawaz, M. S., & Naz, S. (2013).
Effects of innovation types on firmperformance: An em-
pirical study on Pakistan’s manufacturing sector. Pak-
istan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 7(2), 243–
262.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in
tourism. Tourism management, 31(1). https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012
Hogan, S. J., Soutar,G.N.,McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Sweeney,
J. C. (2011). Reconceptualizing professional service firm
innovation capability: Scale development. IndustrialMar-
keting Management, 40(8), 1264–1273.
244 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
Isık, C., Aydın, E., Dogru, T., Rehman, A., Sirakaya-Turk,
E., & Karagöz, D. (2022). Innovation research in tourism
and hospitality field: A bibliometric and visualization
analysis. Sustainability, 14(13), 7889.
Ismail, M., & Daud, N. (2020). Post Covid-19: Developing a
homestay business by adopting a social entrepreneurship
approach. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 33–43.
Jamal, S. A., Othman, N. A., &Muhammad, N. M. N. (2011).
Tourist perceived value in a community-based homestay
visit: An investigation into the functional and experien-
tial aspect of value. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(1),
5–15.
Jamaludin,M.,Othman,N.,&Awang,A. R. (2012). Commu-
nity based homestay programme:Apersonal experience.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 451–459.
Janjua, Z. U. A., Krishnapillai, G., & Rahman, M. (2021). A
systematic literature review of rural homestays and sus-
tainability in tourism. sage Open. https://doi.org/10
.1177/21582440211007117
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, or-
ganizational learning, and performance. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 64(4), 408–417.
Kafetzopoulos, D., & Psomas, E. (2015). The impact of in-
novation capability on the performance of manufactur-
ing companies: The Greek case. Journal of Manufactur-
ing Technology Management, 26(1), 104–130.
Kasim, M. M., Kayat, K., & Ramli, R. (2016). Sustainabil-
ity criteria for the Malaysia homestay program. Interna-
tional Review of Management and Marketing, 6(7), 250–
255.
Karki, K., Chhetri, B. B. K., Chaudhary, B., & Khanal, G.
(2019). Assessment of socio-economic and environmen-
tal outcomes of the homestay program at Amaltari vil-
lage of Nawalparasi, Nepal. Journal of Forest and Natural
Resource Management, 1(1), 77–87.
Keling, W., & Entebang, H. (2015). Innovation within the
Sarawak homestay programme: The perspective of Da-
yak’s homestay entrepreneurs. In M. Mahdzar, S. M.
Ling, M. B. Nair, & A. Shuib (Eds.), Proceedings of the in-
ternational conference on natural resources, tourism and
services management 2015, Sabah, Malaysia, 15–17 April
2015 (pp. 253–262). Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Keling, W., & Entebang, H. (2017). Dayak homestay en-
trepreneur’s innovation characteristics. Journal of Tour-
ism and Management Research, 2(2), 101–112.
Krizaj, D. (2020). Integration of quality, continuous im-
provement, and innovation in tourism:The qcii model.
Academica Turistica, 13(1), 97–110.
Kunjuraman, V. (2019). Kajian terhadap syarat dan fenom-
ena semasa dalam pembangunan program homestay di
Malaysia. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and
Space, 15(1), 84–97.
Mapjabil, J., Ismail, S. C., Ab Rahman, B., Masron, T., Ismail,
R., & Zainol, R. M. (2015). Homestays-community pro-
gramme or alternative accommodation? A re-evaluation
of concept and execution. Geografia, 11(12). http://
journalarticle.ukm.my/9551/1/1.geografia-si-nov15-jabil-
edam.pdf
Martínez-Román, J. A., Tamayo, J. A., Gamero, J., & Romero,
J. E. (2015). Innovativeness and business performances in
tourism smes. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 118–135.
Martínez-Ros, E., & Orfila-Sintes, F. (2009). Innovation ac-
tivity in the hotel industry. Technovation, 29(9), 632–641.
motac. (2021). Program Pengalaman Homestay Malaysia.
https://www.motac.gov.my/en/programme/tourism
/homestay
Myers, S., &Marquis, D. (1969). Successful industrial innova-
tion: A study of factors underlying innovation in selected
firms. National Science Foundation.
Nair, V., & Hamzah, A. (2015). Successful community-based
tourism approaches for rural destinations. Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 7(5), 429–439.
Ngo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2009). Creating value offerings via
operant resource-based capabilities. Industrial Market-
ing Management, 38(1), 45–59.
Nieves, J., Quintana, A., & Osorio, J. (2014). Knowledge-
based resources and innovation in the hotel industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 65–
73.
Oly Ndubisi, N., & Iftikhar, K. (2012). Relationship between
entrepreneurship, innovation and performance: Com-
paring small and medium-sized enterprise. Journal of
Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 214–
236.
Osman, Z., & Zakaria, Z. (2020). Factors influencing inten-
tion to adopt internet technology among rural homes-
tay operators inMalaysia. Journal of TechnologyManage-
ment and Business, 7(1), 25–35.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-
ment (oecd). (2015). The innovation imperative: Con-
tributing to productivity, growth and wellbeing. oecd.
Polder, M., Leeuwen, G. V., Mohnen, P., & Raymond, W.
(2010). Product, process and organizational innovation:
Drivers, complementarity and productivity effects. cira-
no – Scientific Publications.
Ramele, R., & Yamazaki, J. (2020). The Malaysian homes-
tay program and the Japanese minshuku: A compara-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 245
Zulkefli et al. The Innovation Elements of Homestay Programmes
tive study. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal,
5(si2), 55–60.
Ronningen, M. (2010). Innovation in the Norwegian rural
tourism industry: Results from a Norwegian survey. The
Open Social Science Journal, 3(1), 15–29.
Rosli, M. M., & Sidek, S. (2013). The impact of innovation
on the performance of small and medium manufactur-
ing enterprises: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of In-
novation Management in Small & Medium Enterprise.
https://www.doi.org/10.5171/2013.885666
Sakdiyakorn, M., & Sivarak, O. (2016). Innovation manage-
ment in cultural heritage tourism: Experience from the
Amphawa waterfront community, Thailand.Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 2(12), 212–238.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic develop-
ment: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and
the business cycle. Oxford University Press.
Suffarruddin, S. H., Jaafar, M., & Rahman, S. (2020). In-
ovasi produk dalam program homestay: Penerokaan
di wilayah Pantai Timur Persekutuan Tanah Melayu,
Malaysia. Jurnal Peradaban 13(1). https://doi.org/10
.22452/PERADABAN.vol13no1.x20
Suffarruddin, S. H., Jaafar, M., & Rahman, S. (2021). Ke-
upayaan pelaksanaan inovasi produk dalam program
homestay di semenanjung Malaysia. Jurnal Pengurusan,
61(1), 109–120.
Sundbo, J. (2009). Innovation in the experience economy:
A taxonomy of innovation organisations.The Service In-
dustries Journal, 29(4), 431–455.
Sustainability LeadersUnited. (2020, April 28).AmranHam-
zah onCommunity-BasedTourism inMalaysia andBuild-
ing Resilience in the Aftermath of covid-19. https://
sustainability-leaders.com/amran-hamzah-interview/
Uran Maravić, M. (2016). To have or not to have an accom-
modation classification system in Slovenia. Academica
Turistica, 9(2), 65–76.
Walter, P., Regmi, K. D., & Khanal, P. R. (2018). Host learn-
ing in community-based ecotourism in Nepal: The case
of Sirubari and Ghalegaun homestays. TourismManage-
ment Perspectives, 26, 49–58.
Yam, R. C., Lo, W., Tang, E. P., & Lau, A. K. (2011). Analysis
of sources of innovation, technological innovation capa-
bilities, and performance: An empirical study of Hong
Kong manufacturing industries. Research policy, 40(3),
391–402.
Ye, S., Xiao, H., & Zhou, L. (2018). Commodification and
perceived authenticity in commercial homes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 71, 39–53.
Yiamjanya, S. (2016). Endogenous and exogenous factors
for e-marketing technology and innovation in homes-
tay establishments: A case study of Samut Songkhram
Province, Thailand. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, 4(1), 40–46.
Yuan, J., Tsai, T., &Chang, P. (2018). Toward an entrepreneur-
ship typology of bed and breakfasts. Journal of Hospital-
ity & Tourism Research, 42(8), 1315–1336.
246 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Abstracts in Slovene Povzetki v slovenšini
Zadovoljstvo in zvestoba obiskovalcev plaž v času pandemije covida-19:
pristop teorije motivacije za zaščito
Damir Magaš, Zrinka Zadel in Nikolina Šerić Honović
Namen prispevka je raziskati zadovoljstvo in zvestobo obiskovalcev plaž v času pan-
demije covida-19 z uporabo okvira teorije motivacije za zaščito (pmt). V prispevku
smo kot raziskovalno metodo uporabili intervjuje z obiskovalci plaž na treh ločenih
lokacijah plaž naHrvaškem znotraj Primorsko-goranske županije. Identificirali smo
predhodno zadovoljstvo obiskovalcev plaž in posledične vedenjske namene, ki pred-
stavljajo lojalnost. Nova kombinirana metoda zadovoljstva/pomembnosti za razi-
skovanje zadovoljstva na heterogenih vrstah plaž je ocenjena in empirično potrjena.
Z rezultati, ki izhajajo iz modeliranja strukturne enačbe pls-sem, smo ugotovili, da
značilnosti naravnih plaž najbolj vplivajo na splošno zadovoljstvo s plažo in posle-
dične vedenjske namere obiskovalcev glede priporočil in ponovnega obiska. Poleg
tega ugotavljamo, da zasedenost plaže nima pomembnega vpliva na splošno zado-
voljstvo. Nazadnje dokazujemo, da strah in tveganje v zvezi s covidom-19 ublažita
razmerje med objekti na plaži in splošnim zadovoljstvom na plaži. Zadovoljstvo s
splošno izkušnjo na plaži pomembno vpliva na namere priporočila in ponovnega
obiska. Zaključek: pričujoča raziskava raziskuje zadovoljstvo in zvestobo obiskoval-
cev plaže v razmerah pandemije covida-19. Teorijo pmt smo uporabili za globlje ra-
zumevanje preferenc obiskovalcev plaž med pandemijo. Naši rezultati zagotavljajo
priporočila za upravljanje in prihodnje raziskave.
Ključne besede: obiskovalci plaže, zadovoljstvo, zvestoba, covid-19, teorija
motivacije za zaščito
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 151–171
Ponovna preučitev modela potiska in potega pri izbiri turistične destinacije:
covid-19 v kontekstu Kerale v Indiji
AravindMohanan Potti, Vinith Kumar Nair in Babu George
Članek predstavlja nov konceptualni model, ki lahko bolje od obstoječih pojasni od-
ločitve turistov glede izbire destinacije med epidemijo covida-19 in morda po njej.
Osnova modela je teorija koristnosti, ki jo je predlagal Lancaster (1966; 1971). Čla-
nek revidira obstoječo literaturo o dejavnikih potiska in potega s tem, da dejavnike
potega na novo opredeli kot dejavnike vzvratnega potega ali omejitve pri izbiri desti-
nacije. Dejavniki privlačnosti, povezani z destinacijo, so zaradi stiske, ki jo je povzro-
čila epidemija covida-19, postali tvegani in za potnike neznani. V pričujoči model so
bili vključeni primarni konstrukti potiska in potega, ki so: okolje, etničnost, zabava,
stroški in vzdržljivost. Za empirično preverjanje tega modela smo zbrali odgovore
311 turistov, ki so leta 2021 obiskali Keralo ali tam rezervirali svoj obisk. Za stati-
stično validacijo koncepta je bil uporabljen klasični pristopmodeliranja strukturnih
enačb na podlagi soodvisnosti (cb-sem). Iz te raziskave je razvidno, da so turisti, ki
obiščejo destinacijo, pripravljeni zapraviti denar, da bi doživeli podnebje in kulturo;
z vidika zabave pa so stroškovno dokaj občutljivi. Ugotovljena je bila neposredna
pozitivna povezava med varnostjo in potrošniškimi navadami turistov. Ti rezultati
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 247
Abstracts in Slovene Povzetki v slovenšini
napeljujejo k zamenjavi obstoječih strategij, usmerjenih v prosti čas, s prednostnim
obravnavanjem zdravja, kulture, doživetij na prostem, narave in dobrega počutja.
Ključne besede:model potiska in potega, motivacija turistov, izbira destinacije,
cb-sem
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 173–189
Vrednost digitalnih inovacij za turistične podjetnike na islandskem podeželju
Magdalena Falter in Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson
Namen tega prispevka je raziskati digitalne inovacije in podjetniško dinamiko na
podeželskih območjih na Islandiji. Natančneje, glavni cilj je opisati trenutni polo-
žaj digitalnih inovacij v zvezi s podjetniki podeželskega turizma na Islandiji. Cilj te
raziskave je torej raziskati, ali in kako digitalne inovacije postanejo pomembne za
podjetnike podeželskega turizma na Islandiji. Poleg odgovora na vprašanje »kaj se
dogaja na terenu« je cilj opisati stopnjo vključenosti podeželskih podjetij in podjetni-
kov v inovacije, digitalno uporabo ter tehnologijo. Kljub globalni politični razpravi o
pametnem turizmu in nujnosti digitalnih inovacij v turistični industriji je raziskava
pokazala, da inovacije in digitalizacija v dojemanju islandskih podeželskih turistič-
nih podjetnikov niso nujno medsebojno povezane. Gre za poizvedovalno raziskavo,
ki temelji na kvalitativni metodologiji. Informacije so bile zbrane s 34 polstrukturi-
ranimi intervjuji s turističnimi podjetniki in člani podpornega sistema na podeželju
Islandije. Raziskava prinaša spoznanja o statusu in vrednosti digitalnih inovacij za
podjetnike, ki delujejo na področju podeželskega turizma na Islandiji. Poleg tega pri-
speva k razumevanjumanjkajoče povezave med politiko in prakso ter tako literaturi
doda tako praktično kot znanstveno veljavo.
Ključne besede: podjetništvo življenjskega sloga, Islandija, pametni turizem,
digitalne inovacije, podjetništvo na podeželju
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 191–204
Arheološki turistični produkti: definicija in razvoj
Katharina Zanier in Tajda Senica
Upravljavci arheoloških najdišč na splošno prepoznajo ekonomske prednosti arheo-
loškega turizma, kljub temu pa ima večina najdišč še veliko neizkoriščenih razvojnih
priložnosti. Pomen povezovanja različnih ponudnikov produktov in storitev je še ve-
dno prepogosto spregledan. Kljub številnim publikacijam, ki obravnavajo različne
vidike arheološkega turizma, smo ugotovili, da manjka definicija glavnega pojma na
tem področju: to je definicija »arheološkega turističnega produkta«. V članku smo
ta koncept obrazložili ter ga definirali in razvrstili v različne vrste ter komponente.
Prav tako smo izpostavili načela, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri njegovem razvoju, in
težave, povezane z izgubo avtentičnosti, ki se pogosto pojavljajo pri njegovi komer-
cializaciji. Navsezadnje je naš cilj izpostaviti pomen razvoja celovitih arheoloških tu-
rističnih produktov, ki zadovoljijo potrebe turistov in hkrati omogočajo ohranjanje
ter trajnostno upravljanje arheološke dediščine.
248 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Abstracts in Slovene Povzetki v slovenšini
Ključne besede: arheološki turistični produkt, arheološki turizem, arheološki park,
arheološka pot, trajnostni razvoj
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 205–220
Podoba destinacije, zaznano tveganje za okužbo s covidom-19
in namen potovanja: malezijski primer
Jeetesh Kumar, Shameem Shagirbasha in Rupam Konar
Namen raziskave je analizirati vpliv podobe destinacije in zaznanega tveganja pri na-
meri turistov, da med pandemijo covida-19 potujejo v malezijska mesta. Raziskava
obravnava učinke tveganja in podobe destinacije na zaznavanje tveganja na desti-
naciji ter kako zaznave tveganja destinacije vplivajo na potovanja v času pandemije
covida-19 z uporabo teorije načrtovanega vedenja. V raziskavi je sodelovalo 237 an-
ketirancev. Za testiranje raziskovalnega modela je bil uporabljen Warppls (7.0), ki
temelji na modeliranju s strukturnimi enačbami (sem) na osnovi variance. Empi-
rični rezultati ponujajo zanimiv vpogled v storitve mestnega turizma in razkrivajo
pomembne dejavnike pri načrtovanju varnostnih ter praktičnih ukrepov za obnovo
mestnega turizma. Raziskava je v prvi vrsti empirično razkrila potovalne namere tu-
ristov, ki potujejo v Malezijo v času razmer med pandemijo covida-19. Kot drugo pa
so ugotovitve pokazale merljive vpoglede, s pomočjo katerih bi Malezija postala bolj
zaželena turistična destinacija.
Ključne besede: covid-19, podoba destinacije, zaznano tveganje, potovalna namera,
teorija načrtovanega vedenja, Malezija
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 221–232
Inovativni elementi programov bivanja v domovanjih
na vzhodni obali Malezije
Nor Syuhada Zulkefli, Zaimatul Awang in Suhaida Herni Suffarruddin
Pomanjkanje ozaveščenosti izvajalcev bivanja v domovanjih o pomenu uvajanja ino-
vacij prispeva k nekompetentnosti nekaterih programov bivanja na domu. Ta razi-
skava namerava raziskati vrste inovativnih programov bivanja v domovanjih, ki so
bili izvedeni z namenom trajnostnosti in konkurenčnosti v sektorju. V raziskavi je
bil uporabljen kvalitativni pristop, in sicer so bili opravljeni poglobljeni intervjuji s
koordinatorji domovanj, osredotočeni na vpliv implementacije inovacije, zbrani po-
datki pa so bili analizirani s tehniko vsebinske analize. Na vzhodni obali Malezije je
bilo sedem tovrstnih registriranih programov, s štirinajstimi anketiranci, ki so izpol-
njevali merila te raziskave. Rezultat je pokazal, da so udeleženci v raziskavi sprejeli
inovacije produktov v povezavi z nastanitvijo, s paketi aktivnosti in poslovanjem.
Glede na ugotovitve imajo taki programi štiri vrste inovacij: (1) inovacije produk-
tov in storitev; (2) trženjske inovacije; (3) inovacije pri upravljanju; in (4) inovacije
procesov. Ta raziskava bo pripomogla k izboljšanju kakovosti namestitvene izkušnje
za uporabnike in bo usmerjala trajnostno rast tovrstnih poslovanj. Prispeva k na-
boru znanja preko vpliva inovacij za programe takih nastanitev bivanja. Ugotovitve
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 249
Abstracts in Slovene Povzetki v slovenšini
so koristne za akterje v industriji kot merilo za zainteresirane strani pri načrtovanju
strategij razvoja programov.
Ključne besede: programi za bivanje v domovanjih, inovacije, kakovost, vzhodna
obala polotoka Malezije
Academica Turistica, 16(2), 233–246
250 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Academica Turistica Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors
Aim and Scope of the Journal
Academica Turistica – Tourism and Innovation Journal
(at-tij) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a fo-
rum for the dissemination of knowledge on tourism
and innovation from a social sciences perspective. It
especially welcomes contributions focusing on inno-
vation in tourism and adaptation of innovations from
other fields in tourism settings.
The journal welcomes both theoretical and appli-
cative contributions and encourages authors to use va-
rious quantitative and qualitative research methodo-
logies. Besides research articles, the journal also pu-
blishes review articles, commentaries, reviews of bo-
oks and conference reports. Purely descriptive manu-
scripts which do not contribute to the development of
knowledge are not considered suitable.
General Guidelines and Policy of the Journal
Manuscripts are accepted in both American and Bri-
tish English; however, consistency throughout the pa-
per is expected. All manuscripts are subject to an ini-
tial editorial screening for adherence to the journal
style, for anonymity, and for correct use of English.
As a result of this your paper will be either accepted
for further consideration or returned for revision. To
avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to
have your manuscript proofread.
Manuscripts should be organized in the following
order: title, abstract, keywords, main text, acknowled-
gements, references, and appendixes (as appropriate).
Reviewing. Each manuscript, meeting the technical
standards and falling within the aims and scope of the
journal, will be subject to double-blind review by two
reviewers. Authors can propose up to two reviewers
for revision of their work and also up to two reviewers
they would like to avoid.
The referees are chosen by the Editorial Board. As-
sessments by the referees will be presented anonymo-
usly to the author and, in the case of substantial reser-
vations, the article, with the list of corrections needed,
will be returned to the author for correction. The cor-
rected copy of the article with the list of corrections
on a separate page should be returned to the Editorial
Board.
Permissions. Authors wishing to include figures, ta-
bles, or text passages that have already been published
elsewhere, are required to obtain permission from the
copyright owner(s) and to include evidence that such
permission has been granted when submitting their
papers. Any material received without such evidence
will be assumed to originate from the authors.
Submission declaration. Submission of a manuscript
implies that it has not been published previously
(except in the form of abstract or as part of a publi-
shed lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under
consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publi-
cation is approved by all its authors and tacitly or expli-
citly by the responsible authorities where the workwas
carried out. The corresponding author should ensure
that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate
co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-
authors have seen and approved the final version of
the paper and have agreed to its submission for publi-
cation.
Conflict of interest. All authors are requested to dis-
close any actual or potential conflict of interest inclu-
ding any financial, personal or other relationshipswith
other people or organizations within three years of be-
ginning the submittedwork that could inappropriately
influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.
Manuscript Preparation
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the style
prescribed by the Publication Manual of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association (American Psychologi-
calAssociation, 2020; see also http://www.apastyle.org).
Language and style. The first author is fully respon-
sible for the language and style in the context of the
instructions. A good scientific standard command of
grammar and style is expected.
Text formatting. Please, use the automatic page num-
bering function to number the pages. Use tab stops or
other commands for indents, not the space bar.Use the
table function, not spreadsheets, to make tables. Use
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 251
Academica Turistica Instructions for Authors
the equation editor or MathType for equations. Whe-
never possible, use the si units (Système international
d’unités).
Thetitlepage should include the title of the article (no
more than 85 characters, including spaces), full name
of the author(s), affiliation (institution name and ad-
dress) of each author clearly identified; linked to each
author by use of superscript numbers, corresponding
author’s full name, telephone, and e-mail address.
Abstract. The authors are obliged to prepare two ab-
stracts – one in English and one (translated) in Slo-
vene language. For foreign authors translation of the
abstract into Slovene will be provided.
The content of the abstract should include the pur-
pose, methods, results, and contribution of the rese-
arch. It should only contain the information that appe-
ars in the text as well. It should contain no reference to
figures, tables and citations published in themain text,
and should not exceed 250 words.
Beneath the abstract, the authors should supply
appropriate keywords (3–6) in English and in Slovene.
For foreign authors the translation of the abstract into
Slovene will be provided.
The main text should contain a coherent and logi-
cal structure preferably following the imrad format
(Introduction, Methods, Research [and] Discussion).
However, other structures are also welcome (e.g. In-
troduction, Development and Conclusions) as long as
the text maintains its logical structure and focus. Ac-
knowledgments are optional.
The length of the articles should not exceed 9,000
words (including tables, figures, and references), dou-
ble spaced, using Times New Roman font sized 12.
Tables. Each table should be submitted on a sepa-
rate page in a Word document after References. Each
table shall have a brief caption; explanatory matter
should be in the footnotes below the table. The table
shall contain means and the units of variation (sd,
se, etc.) and must be free of nonsignificant decimal
places. Abbreviations used in the tablesmust be consi-
stentwith those used in the text and figures.Definition
symbols should be listed in the order of appearance,
determined by reading horizontally across the table
and should be identified by standard symbols. All ta-
bles should be numbered consecutively (Table 1, Table
2, etc.).
Figures. Captions are required for all Figures and shall
appear on a separate manuscript page, beneath table
captions. Each figure should be saved as a separate
file without captions and named as Figure 1, etc. Files
should be submitted in *.tiff or *.jpeg format. Pho-
tographs should be saved at at least 300 dpi. Line art
images should be saved at 1200 dpi. Lettering (sym-
bols, letters, and numbers) should be between 8 and
9 points, with consistent spacing and alignment. Font
face may be Serif (Minion) or Sans Serif (Myriad).
Line width should be 0.5 point or greater. Any extra
white or black space surrounding the image should be
cropped. Ensure that subject-identifying information
(i.e., faces, names, or any other identifying features)
is cropped out or opaqued. Prior to publication, the
author(s) should obtain all necessary authorizations
for the publication of the illustrative matter and sub-
mit them to the Editorial Board. All figures should be
numbered consecutively (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.). The
journal will be printed in black and white. If the pa-
per contains graphs, we would appreciate that you also
e-mail them in a separate Excel file.
References
References should be formatted according to the Pu-
blication Manual of the American Psychological Associ-
ation (American Psychological Association, 2019).
The list of references should only include works
that are cited in the text. Personal communications
and unpublished works should only be mentioned in
the text. References should be complete and contain all
the authors that have been listed in the title of the ori-
ginal publication. If the author is unknown, start with
the title of the work. If you are citing a work that is in
print but has not yet been published, state all the data
and instead of the publication year write ‘in print.’
Reference list entries should be alphabetized by the
last name of the first author of each work. Do not use
footnotes or endnotes as a substitute for a reference
list. Full titles of journals are required (not their abbre-
viations).
252 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Academica Turistica Instructions for Authors
Citing References in Text
One author. Tourism innovation specific is mentioned
(Brooks, 2010). Thomas (1992) had concluded . . .
Two authors. This result was later contradicted (Swar-
brooke &Horner, 2007). Price andMurphy (2000)
pointed out . . .
Three or more authors.Wolchik et al. (1999) or (Wol-
chik et al., 1999).
If two references with three or more authors shor-
ten to the same form, cite the surnames of the first
author and of as many of the subsequent authors as
necessary to distinguish the two references, followed
by a coma and et al.
List several authors for the same thought or idea
with separation by using a semicolon: (Kalthof et al.,
1999; Biegern & Roberts, 2005).
Examples of Reference List
Books
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publica-
tion manual of the American Psychological Associ-
ation (7th ed.).
Swarbrooke, J., &Horner, S. (2007).Consumer behavi-
our in tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Journals
Laroche,M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001).
Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more
for environmentally friendly products. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J.-
Y., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., . . . Griffin, W. A.
(2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-
basedmother andmother-child programs for chil-
dren of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68, 843–856.
Newspapers
Brooks, A. (2010, 7 July). Building craze threatens
to end Lanzarote’s biosphere status. Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/
nature/building-craze-threatens-to-end
-lanzarotes-biosphere-status-2020064.html
Chapters in Books
Poirier, R. A. (2001). A dynamic tourism develop-
ment model in Tunisia: Policies and prospects. In
Y. Aposotolopoulos, P. Loukissas, & L. Leontidou
(Eds.),Mediterranean tourism (pp. 197–210). Rou-
tledge.
Conference Proceedings
Price, G., & Murphy, P. (2000). The relationship be-
tween ecotourism and sustainable development: A
critical examination. In M. Ewen (Ed.), cauthe
2000: Peak performance in tourism and hospitality
research; Proceedings of the Tenth Australian Tou-
rism and Hospitality Research Conference (pp. 189–
202). La Trobe University.
Paper Presentation
Thomas, J. (1992, July). Tourism and the environment:
An exploration of the willingness to pay of the ave-
rage visitor [Paper presentation.] Tourism in Eu-
rope, Durham, England.
Theses andDissertations
Sedmak, G. (2006). Pomen avtentičnosti turističnega
proizvoda: primer destinacije Piran [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Ljubljana.
Working Papers
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., Haddock, M. A., &
Tice, H. S. (2013). The state of global civil society vo-
lunteering: Latest findings from the implementation
of the un nonprofitt handbook (ComparativeNon-
profit Sector Working Paper No. 49). Johns Hop-
kins University.
Web Pages
Croatian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Census of popu-
lation, households and dwellings. http://www.dzs
.hr/Eng/censuses/Census2001/census.htm
Manuscript Submission
The main manuscript document should be in Micro-
soft Word document format and the article should be
submitted to http://academica.turistica.si/index.php
/AT-TIJ/about/submissions
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 253