Original Scientific Article
QualityofaRuralDestination:
VisitorandResidentApproach
KateřinaMlejnková
Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic
katerina.mlejnkova@mendelu.cz
Tomáš Dania
Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic
tomas.dania@mendelu.cz
IdaRašovská
Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic
ida.rasovska@mendelu.cz
Destinationqualityisacomplexsetofmanyfactors.Methodsofevaluatingthesefac-
torsaresubjecttocontinuousresearch.Anevaluationofthevisitors’andlocals’sat-
isfactionandusingtheresultstomanagethequalityandsustainabledevelopmentof
thedestinationisapossibleapproach.Thisarticleappliesimportance-performance
methodologytoanalysearuralregionintheCzechRepublic.Using ipa analysis,the
factors thatmost affectthe satisfaction of visitors and residentsare identified.The
differences in the perceptions of visitors and residents are statistically significant,
e.g.,visitorsconsiderthe factors‘overcrowding’and ‘friendlyacceptance by locals’
to be more important. At the same time, both groups have some awarenessof the
importanceof sustainabletourismand the quality of services. The resultsindicate
that in the region there are areas of improvement and performance, furthermore,
theypointoutopportunitiesfortheimprovementsmentioned.Moreover,themain
differencebetweentheperformance(meaningtheperceivedlevelofquality ofthe
serviceprovidedinthedestination)andtheimportanceofresearchfactorshasbeen
determined.Basedontheresults,recommendationsfordestinationmanagementare
formulated.
Keywords:quality,resident,visitor,ruraldestination, ipa
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.14.87-99
Introduction
Tourismplaysabigroleinindustryworldwideanditis
oneofthefastest-growingsectors.Usually,itisrelated
to gnp,employmentandothereconomicmacroindi-
cators(Politisetal.,2009).Travellerscanchoosefrom
a wide variety of destinations, which implies that a
destinationiseasilyreplaceable.Forthisreason,com-
petitiveness between destinations is evident and the
importanceoftourismgrowsaswell(Ayikoru,2015).
Fortourismdestinations,competitivenessisessential,
and each company or destination should find a bet-
ter approach in competing with others by enhancing
itsproductssothattheygainacompetitiveadvantage
(Go&Govers,2000).
Quality is a factor strengthening competitiveness
(Ennew et al., 1993) and influencing not only a posi-
tive perception of a service but also of an entire des-
tination(Suetal.,2016;Weaveretal.,2007). unwto
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |87

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
(n.d.a) defines quality as the result of a process that
leads to meeting all legitimate needs, requirements
and expectations of a customer concerning a service
product,allthisforanacceptablepriceincompliance
with mutually accepted contract conditions and de-
termining qualitative determinants, such as security,
hygiene, availability of tourist services, transparency,
authenticityandharmonyoftouristactivitieswiththe
humanandnaturalenvironment.Determinationand
evaluationofdestinationqualityisnoteasyduetoits
complexity,levelofsubjectivitywhenevaluatingqual-
ityandthespecificcharacteroftheservices(Hudson,
2008).Thequalityofthedestinationalsoencompasses
satisfactionofvisitors,residentsandotherstakehold-
ers.Atthesametime,emphasisisplacedonthequal-
ityoftheenvironment(EuropeanCommission,2003).
AccordingtoRyglováetal.(2017),visitors’overallsat-
isfaction is influenced by a set of factors constituting
destinationquality.
It can be stated that developing and maintaining
the quality of the destination is a long-term process.
Destinationmanagementoftendoesnotknowvisitors’
important factors for and what assure their satisfac-
tioninthedestination(Rašovskáetal.,2020).Accord-
ing to Caber et al. (2012), destinationauthoritiesand
managershavetoidentifythosedestinationattributes
which are the most vital determining factors in cus-
tomers’satisfaction.Itisalsoadvisabletoexaminethe
satisfaction of local residents. Therefore, the aim of
this study is to perform an importance-performance
analysisandprovidevaluableinformationfordestina-
tionmanagement.
This paper’s objective is to evaluate destination
qualitybymeansofacomplexsetoffactorsappli-
cablefordestinationsusingimportance-performance
analysis (ipa), in the rural destination of the Mora-
vianKarstintheCzechRepublic.Theresearchques-
tion, whether there is a difference in the perception
of selected factors by destination between a group of
visitorsandresidents,wasformulatedbasedonaliter-
aturereview(Herreraetal.,2018).Theanalysiswillbe
doneseparatelyforbothresidentsandvisitorsandwill
clarifywhetherthereareanydifferencesbetweentheir
perceptionsofperformancequalityfactorsinthedes-
tination.Theauthors’aimistodeterminedifferences
in perception betweentourists and residents,even in
less-visiteddestinationsthatdonotsufferfromover-
tourism,andwhetheritisnecessarytoexaminethese
groups separately. The outcome will be suggestions
toboost destinationquality, integratingboth groups’
requirements.
FactorsofDestinationQuality
Theconceptofdestinationiscloselyoutlinedasatar-
g e ta r e at h a to ffe r st h ea t t r a c t i v e n e s sa n di n f r a s t r u c -
tureoftourism(Zelenka&Pásková,2012).Ryglováet
al.(2015)indicatethatitisappropriatetofocusonde-
tailedstructureandanalysecomponentswhichcanbe
consideredasdeterminingforadestination’ssuccess.
GoeldnerandRitchie(2014)definethedestinationasa
geographicallydelimitedareainwhichthevisitorgets
differentexperiences.ForBieger&Beritelli(2012),the
destinationmeansaspace,whichischosenbythevis-
itorasatargetoftheirjourney.Itmustcompriseofall
necessaryfacilitiesforaccommodation,boarding,and
entertainment.
Buhalis (2003) defines five characteristic compo-
nentsofdestination:
•
Attractions (a primary offer of tourism that due
to its amount, quality and attractiveness acti-
vates attendance, for instance, natural, cultural-
historicalpotential).
•
Accessibilityandancillaryservices(ageneralin-
frastructurewhichenablesaccesstothedestina-
tionandtravellingtotheattractionsinthedesti-
nation;also,servicesusedmainlybylocalinhab-
itants, such as telecommunication, medical and
bankingservices).
•
Amenities (superstructure and infrastructure of
tourism that enable the stay in the destination
andutilizingitsattractions,forexample,accom-
modation,sports-recreational,cultural-socialfa-
cilities).
•
Availablepackages(preparedproductsandprod-
uctpackages).
•
Activities.
Middleton and Clarke (2001) add image and per-
ception of the destination and price. According to
someauthors(Dortyoletal.,2014),individualfactors
88 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
canbegroupedintocategories,e.g.employees(friend-
liness,politeness,willingness),roomequipment,food
quality, materialitems,prices, transport,climate,hy-
giene and security. Milošević et al. (2016) add that
within these factors, some others can be allocated,
such as internet coverage, destination information,
transportproviders’quality,activityofferquality,med-
ical assistance, local dwellers, destination cleanliness
orlevelofpollution.Asotherauthorsconfirm,avisi-
tor’ssatisfactionwithadestinationisnotonlyelicited
bytheirexperiencewith tourismservicesbut alsoby
otherendogenousfactorssuchassecurity,hospitality,
thelocalpopulation’sfriendliness,destinationcleanli-
ness,trafficinfrastructureortheleveloftourismman-
agement(Ashworth&Page,2011).
Adestinationisnotjustaproduct,butawholesys-
tem composed of several elements and relationships
(Barrado, 2004). A destination strives for a complex
offerofaservicechain.Thevisitorthenpurchasesand
consumestheseservicesinthedestination.Therefore,
itispossibletoviewadestinationasasingleproduct,
consisting of many services offered to satisfy the vis-
itors’ expectations. The need to adopt quality-based
strategiestodevelopcustomerservicehasbeenhigh-
lighted in service providers, where customer subjec-
tivity plays a substantial role. It is because everyone
perceives the service provided differently, and there-
fore, services are difficult to standardize (Caruana et
al.,1999).KotlerandKeller(2007)describeserviceas
anactivityofferedbyonetoanother.
Marketingplansandpromotionalstrategies(price,
quality, image) are considered as key for destination
competitiveness(Go&Govers,2000).Therefore,this
planningprocess should be based on an analysisof a
destination’scompetitivefactors(Hassan,2000).One
of the possible approaches to destination quality re-
searchistoinvestigatevisitors’satisfaction.Avisitor’s
overallsatisfactionisinfluencedbyasetoffactorscon-
stituting destinationquality. These factors represent-
ingqualityarethedestination’sprimarypotential(nat-
ural and cultural attractions), services provided, ac-
cessibility,destinationmanagementactivities,andas-
pectsofsustainability.Atthesametime,itisnecessary
toobservenotjustthefunctionalbutalsothetechni-
calqualityofservices(Ryglováetal.,2017).Inaddition
todeterminingthesatisfactionofvisitors,itisalsoim-
portanttorevealtheperceptionofresidents(Herrera
etal.,2018).Itisalsocrucialforthesustainabledevel-
opmentofa destinationtoknow the requirementsof
morethanonestakeholdergroup(Herreraetal.,2018).
Importance-PerformanceAnalysis
ipa isacommonlyusedresearchtechnique,whichal-
lowsresearchersandpractitionersaliketounderstand
customer satisfaction and to formulate strategies for
improvements in products/services (Bi et al., 2019).
ThismethodwasfirstintroducedintheworkofMar-
tilla and James (1977) and is a basic diagnostic and
decisive tool (Johns, 2001; Matzler et al., 2003) that
facilitates the identification of factors with the high-
est priority for improvement (Sampson & Showalter,
1999)and,accordingtoLevenburgandMagal(2004),
alsothemobilizationanddevelopmentofthemostre-
quiredresources.
Inoneofthelatestresearches,AzzopardiandNash
(2013) subjected ipa toa critical analysisand,on the
basisofanalysingmorethanfortyauthors’worksfrom
theperiodof1977–2007,theyclaimthatdespiteitscer-
taindeficiencies, ipa isrecommendedandutilizedin
the area of tourist services as a method that is rela-
tively easily applied in empirical studies. ipa and its
use in literature focusing on hospitality and tourism
were also studied by Lai and Hitchcock (2015), who
revisedanalyzednearly60articlesandcreatedacom-
pactsurveyofthepossibilitiesinapplying ipa,with-
outsubjectingtheseutilizationstoacriticalanalysis.
TheauthorsCaberetal.(2012)use ipa forassess-
ing destinations’ attributes. The article shows empir-
icallythatmarketsegmentsdiffersignificantlywithin
thesetwodimensionsoftheanalysis,andthusitissug-
gestedthat ipa should be conducted on the segment
ratherthantheaggregatelevel.Twentyqualityfactors
have been assessed on a scale of five and a compar-
ison of specific segments has been performed (Ger-
man, British, Dutch and Russian respondents). The
empiricalbasisofthearticleislaidbyasampleof821
customers in a Turkish destination. They found that
ipa using an isoline of importance and performance
insteadofthetraditionalquadrantanalysisyieldsbet-
ter results and increases the diagnostic value of ipa.
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |89

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
Usingthistool,itispossibletoidentifytherelativeim-
portance and performance of individual factors that
haveanimpactontheobservedquality.Therearetwo
possibilitiesforusingthe ipa analysis–data-centred
(Ramakrishnan&Usha,2016)andscale-centreddata
(Tonge&Moore,2007).Medianvalueswhichareused
in the scale-centred ipa and are utilized in this arti-
cle,accordingtosomeauthors,tendto‘inflate’there-
sults(Oh,2001).Whenusingadata-centredapproach,
the attributes are outlined according to their relative
importance-performance(Boleyetal.,2017).
Methodology
In this study, the quality of the rural area Moravian
Karst in the Czech Republic and differencesbetween
the perception of visitors and residents are being in-
vestigated.Thedominantattractionsofthisregionare
their interesting and valuable natural resources and
scenery,cavesandrockstructures.Yearly,thisregion
withfourteencaveswelcomesabout360thousandvis-
itors(Ekolist,2018).Sincethe90s,theMoravianKarst
has implemented some restrictions and only a cer-
tain number of visitors can enter. Therefore, it is not
an overcrowdedplace. Additionally,according to the
marketingstrategy(Centrálacestovníhoruchu–Jižní
Morava,2019),theMoravianKarsthasthelowestvis-
itorturnoutandovernightstaysinSouthMoravia.
The forms of tourism are the following: natural-
orientedtourism,ecotourism,bicycletouring,hiking
etc. (Pásková, 2009). The 20 factors of quality (Ap-
pendix 1) which wereused in the questionnairewere
formulatedbasedonthepreviousresearchesaboutthe
qualitycomponentsofthedestination(Buhalis,2003;
Middleton&Clarke,2001;Ashworth&Page,2011;Ry-
glováetal.,2015;Miloševićetal.,2016).
A questionnaire was self-administered in the re-
gionoftheMoravianKarstanditssurroundingsinthe
CzechRepublicusingthetoolquotasampling(gender,
age)fromAugusttoOctober2017.Thedatawerecon-
ducted electronically on the internet and social net-
works,aswellasthroughpersonalexaminationatthe
destinationandplacementattheinformationcentres.
The questionnaire was developed to understand the
visitors’ and residents’ evaluation of the destination’s
quality.Arangefrom1=‘notatallimportant/satisfied’
to5=‘extremelyimportant/satisfied’wasusedforthe
questions for importance/performance characteris-
tics.
To ensure the representativeness of the question-
naire, it was necessary to determine the appropriate
number of respondents. A statistical approach based
on the following formula was used to determine the
minimumnumberofrespondents:
n≥
z
2
× p× q
Δ
2
.
In this formula, n is the minimum number of re-
spondents, z is the reliability coefficient, p and q are
the numbers of respondents and the maximum per-
missibleerror(Kozel,2006):
278≥
2
2
×0.5×0.5
0,06
2
.
In the case of this questionnaire survey, the relia-
bilitycoefficientwassetat2,whichcorrespondstoa
95 probability of assertion. According to the calcu-
lation, the minimum number of respondents is 278.
Thus,twoquotasweresetinadvancefortheselection
ofrespondentsandageandgender.Accordingtodata
fromtheCzechStatisticalOfficeontheagecomposi-
tionofthepopulationasat31December2016,aquota
sampleforageandsexwasset.
Atotalof408respondentscoveringthesecharac-
teristics(suchasgender,age,education,andemploy-
ment)wereobtained,ofwhich50.3werevisitorsand
49.7residents.Nevertheless,atotalof94failedtoap-
propriatelyrespond,leadingtoatotalof314usablere-
sponses.Thesampleincludedanequalnumberofvisi-
tors(50.3)andresidents(49.7).Thedetailedstruc-
tureofrespondentsisshowninTable1.
The data is equally distributed and accurately re-
flects the demographic development. Based on this,
some parametric statistical methods can be used (t-
test). The testing was conducted at a 5 level of sig-
nificanceanddifferentperceptionsoffactorsbetween
visitorsandresidentshavebeenexamined.Theresults
inTable2showonlystatisticallysignificantvaluesand
p-values.
Toanalysedata,Importance-performanceanalysis
(ipa)wasutilized.Theanalysesdividetheattributes’
performance and importance dimensions into four
90 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
Table 1 SampleCharacteristics
Category Item Visitor Resident
Gender Male . .
Female . .
Age – . .
– . .
– . .
– . .
– . .
– . .
> . .
Education Tradeschool . .
Highschool  .
Collegegraduate . .
Notes Inpercent.
Table 2 StatisticallySignificantDifferences
inthePerceptionofFactorsbetweenResidents
andVisitors
Factors () ()
f Culturalandsocialattractions Importance .
Performance .
f Accommodation Importance .
Performance .
f Friendlyacceptance
bythelocals
Importance .
Performance .
f Overcrowdingofthedesti-
nation
Importance .
Performance .
f Additionalinfrastructure Importance .
Performance .
f Certificationofaccommo-
dationandfoodservices
Importance .
Performance .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) perception of
factors,(2) p-value(sig.2-tailed).
quadrantswhichareeasytointerpretandforacquir-
ing practical suggestions (Dwyer et al., 2016). The
fourquadrantsdividingqualityfactorsarethefollow-
ing:‘KeyFeatures/KeepUptheGoodWork,’‘Concen-
tratehere/Shortfalls,’‘Lowpriorityfactors’and‘Strate-
gic/Possible Overkill.’ The results of the ipa analysis
arethuspresentedutilizing a two-dimensionalgraph
with the average value of importance on the vertical
axis and the average performance on the horizontal
axis(Wongetal.,2011).
Factors represented in ‘Key Features’ have a very
positiveevaluationbyclientsandtheyhaveimmense
importance. Thus, destination management and lo-
cal enterprises should keep delivering high-quality
products. Factors representing‘Concentrate here’ are
characterizedbyveryhighimportancebutlowperfor-
mance. This means that even though the factors are
importanttotheclients,thelevelofperformancedoes
notmeettheirrequirements.Hence,itiscrucialtopay
moreattentiontothesefactors.Factorsin‘Lowprior-
ity’bothshowlowimportanceanddonothavealotof
impact on the performance of the destination under
research. There is no need to invest either money or
effort in improving these factors. The last quadrant,
‘Possible overkill,’ characterizes the factors with low
importance but high performance, which highlights
thefactofexcessiveimportance;however,visitors‘do
notcare’aboutthefactor.
Results
Theresearchaimstoproposemeasuresthatwillsup-
port the development of quality concerning the dif-
ferencesbetweenthetwogroups.Thesuggestionsare
based on the ipa analysis and statistical data testing.
The ipa analysis was compiled based on the average
valuesofperformanceandimportanceoftheresearch
quality factors among visitors and residents. Perfor-
mance,whichwasevaluatedusingrespondents’satis-
faction, has the average value of 3.97 for visitors and
3.79forresidents.Meanwhile,thesignificanceofqual-
ityfactorsforthedestination’svisitors/residentsisrep-
resentedbythemediumvalueof3.91and3.72,respec-
tively.Thesetwovaluescreatethecentreofthecoor-
dinates that set up the four quadrants of ipa graph.
Figure 1 captures the perception of 20 factors for the
visitors(50.3 ofrespondents),Figure2forresidents
(49.7ofrespondents).
The results show that the factors in quadrant q1
(Keyfeatures)arenotverydifferent.Bothvisitorsand
residents consider f13 Level of personnel quality in
tourism services, f14 Sense of security, f15 Destina-
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |91

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
Figure 1 ipa AnalysisfromthePointofViewofVisitors
Figure 2 IPAAnalysisfromthePointofViewofResidents
tioncleanlinessand f17Uniquenessofdestinationas
factorswithahighsignificance,whiletheirqualitative
levelispositiveenough.Itisimportanttocarryonim-
proving the factors so that the performance does not
decrease. f1 Natural attractions have the highest sig-
nificanceandhighestperformanceforbothgroupsof
respondents.Atthesametime, f2 Culturalandsocial
attractionsareevaluatedwithgreaterimportanceand
perception for visitors. The only difference is within
the f8 placement, Availability and quality of the in-
formation, which visitors placed in q3, but residents
in q1.
Thesecondquadrant, q2 (Concentratehere),con-
tains factorswith low performanceand greatimpor-
tance.Thismeansthatforvisitorsofthedestination,
factorssuchas f10Friendlyacceptancebythelocals,
f11 Image of the destination, f12 Level of prices of
services and goods at the destination and f16 Over-
crowding of the destination are important, but the
satisfactionofthelevelofqualityisnotenough.Thus,
the aforementioned factors should be improved and
receive priority attention. Both residents and visitors
placedequallyfactors f10and f11.
Anotherquadrant(q3)consistsoffactorswithlow
priority and low significance for visitors. It is not so
importanttopaytoomuchattentiontothesefactors,
butthedestinationshouldkeepinmindthatsomefac-
torsarechanging,specificallythosedependingonde-
mand,andthereforeitisrecommendednottounder-
estimatethem.Losingthelevelofqualityoffactorswill
leadtoanegativeoverallsatisfactionwiththedestina-
tion.
Thelastquadrant,q4,isclarifiedasexcesscareof
the factors which are less important for visitors/resi-
dents.AswecanseeinFigure1andFigure2,only f4
Foodwasplacedbybothcategoriesofrespondentsto
thisquadrant,‘PossibleOverkill.’
The biggest difference between visitors and resi-
dents is within factor f12 Level of prices of services
andgoodsatthedestination–whilevisitorsconsider
this factor very important and place it in the quad-
rant q2 –Concentratehere,forresidentsitbelongsto
thequadrantPossibleOverkill.Thisdetectionmakes
senseas prices area keyfactor in a decision whether
tovisitadestinationornot.
An interesting finding is connected with factor
f16 Overcrowding of the destination, where the res-
identsconsiderthisfactortohavelessimportanceand
a lower level of perception, while for visitors, f16 is
moreimportantandperceptionofthequalitylevelis
higher.Nowadays,thereareoccurrenceswheremass-
tourismisnotperceivedinthesamewaybytheresi-
dents(forexample,inVenice,ParisorRome).In1950,
only 25 million tourists were travelling, in 2018 the
numberwas1.4billion(Matulik,2019).Ruralareasare
not particularly tourist-sought places and their resi-
dentsdonotmeetthevisitorsasoftenasincities.Vis-
itors do visit the countryside and they may not even
stopbyinthevillage,or,theymakeone-daytripsfrom
major cities to rural destinations. This is confirmed
by the questionnaire, where visitor-respondents state
makingmostlyone-day(over66),orweekendtrips
(2–3days,over22).
In addition to ipa analysis, independent t-tests
92 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
werealsoconductedtoverifythefactors’perceptions
of importance and performance. The Independent
Samples t test is a commonly used test that deter-
mines whether there is a statistically significant dif-
ference between the means in two unrelated groups
(Kim, 2015). Based on this it is possible to conclude
whether differences in ipa analysis are statistically
significant. Specifically, whether the position of fac-
torsin ipa graphsdiffersstatisticallyinbothaxes( y-
axisforimportanceand x-axisforperformance).Sta-
tisticallysignificantfactorsarelistedinTable2.Con-
cerning ipa analysis,itcanbesaidthattheperception
offactorsincludedinquadrant q1 doesnotdifferre-
markably between visitors and residents. The factor
Culturalandsocialattractions(f2)isratedbyvisitors
asmoreimportant(m=4.20vs.m=3.94)andmore
efficient(m=4.18vs.m=3.97).
The factors in quadrant q2 statistically differ in
both axes.Especially, the factors Friendly acceptance
by the locals (f10) and Overcrowdingof the destina-
tion(f16)areratedmoreimportantbyvisitors.There
is a significant difference in the factor Accommoda-
tion(f3)inquadrant q3 andalsoinAdditionalinfras-
tructure(f18),Respectingsustainabledevelopmentof
the destination (f19) and Certification of accommo-
dation (f20) in quadrant q4. While factors f18 and
f20,atasignificancelevelof0.1,areevaluatedwith
averylowscore,thedifferencesbetweenvisitorsand
residentsaresignificant.Onaverage,visitorsawarded
thescaleimportanceofthefactorCertificationofac-
commodation (f20) with 3.61 points and residents
with3.21points.ThesameoccurswiththefactorSus-
tainable development (f19) – visitors rated it with
3.86 points and residents 3.43 points. Table 3 shows
the differences in perceptions, where in general visi-
torsratemoresignificantlythanresidents.Theresults
showthatthefactorsNaturalattractiveness,Destina-
tion safety, Accessibility, and Quality and availability
ofinformationareimportantforbothgroups.Signif-
icantdifferencesin thefactorsareculturalandsocial
attractiveness,aswellasaccommodation,overcrowd-
ing, acceptance by locals, and social and experiential
activities. Perceiving the importance of safety in the
destinationis most importantfor people aged 41–50,
aswellasitscleanliness.
Discussion
Theresearchfocusesonthedifferencesinthepercep-
tionoffactorsinaruradestinationamongvisitorsand
residents.Based on the researchquestion being con-
firmed,therearestatisticallysignificantdifferencesin
theperceptionsofselectedfactorsbetweenthegroup
ofvisitorsandresidents.Accordingtoourresearchre-
sultsitisimportanttoanalysevisitorsandresidents
separatelyevenfordestinationsnotyetsufferingfrom
over-tourism and irritation of local people. In most
cases,visitorsratethefactorshigheronbothaxes(im-
portance and performance) than residents. In addi-
tion,visitorsmaybemoresensitive(Moketal.,2001;
Ryglová et al., 2017). Many aspects are ordinary for
a resident, and after a while, they may stop perceiv-
ing them at all. However, knowledge of the aspects
mentioned is very important, yet they create differ-
ent perceptions (Stylidis et al., 2016). Hussain et al.
(2019) pointed out that those residents who evalu-
ate the environmental effects of tourism positively,
givemorenoticeablesupporttotourism.Tourismcan
signifybothpositiveandnegativeeffectsonenviron-
mental,socio-culturalandeconomiccomponentsfor
the locals. Puczko and Ratz (2000) append that al-
though local people perceive some unfavourable im-
pactsoftourism,theystillsupportit.Consideringthe
diverse impacts on the support of residents, Hussain
et al. (2019) have found that perceived economic im-
pacthasthehighesteffect,afterthesocio-culturaland,
lastly,theenvironmentaleffect.Inthisway,itispossi-
bletoincreasevisitors’satisfactionwhilenotdisturb-
ing the lives of local inhabitants. When focusing on
q2 –Concentratehere,someperceptiondiffersmore
than in other quadrants. The factors Friendly accep-
tancebythelocals(f10),Imageofthedestination(f11)
and Overcrowding of the destination (f16) that be-
longtothesecondquadrantaccordingtovisitors,are
linkedwithsustainabledevelopments,whichisacur-
renttopic(unwto,n.d.b).
One of the problems is mass tourism and over-
crowdingofadestination(Matulik,2019).Nowadays,
some tourist destinations are overcrowded and huge
concentrationsofvisitorsdisruptthelivesoflocalpeo-
ple.Overcrowdingisstartingtobeahottopicofinter-
national tourism discussions. Furthermore, attitudes
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |93

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
Table 3 DifferencesinPerceptionandComparisonbetween ipa andStatisticalTesting
Differencesinperceptionoffactors
betweenvisitorsandresidents
Comparisonofdifferencesinperceptionoffactors
between ipa andstatisticaltesting
Destinationcleanliness(p=0.001)andtheoverallimageof
thedestination(p=0.05)aremoreimportantforvisitors.
Culturalandsocialattractions,Friendlyacceptancebythe
locals(p=0.05)andOvercrowdingofthedestination(p
=0.001)areperceivedmoresignificantlybyvisitors(p=
0.05).
Certificationofaccommodationfacilities(p=0.001)and
Respectingsustainabledevelopment(p=0.001)arenot
paidmuchattentionto,theyarerelativelyscoredoverall,
however,visitorsstillgivemorepointstothesefactors.
Residentsemphasizemoretheuniquenessofthedestina-
tion,butthisdifferenceisnotstatisticallysignificant( p>
0.05).
Inthe ipa analysis,thereisadifferenceinthefactor f8
Availabilityandqualityofdestinationinformation.This
factorbelongs,accordingtotheresidents,to q1,forvisitors
toq2(onthelineq2&q3).
Factors f9 Informationandcommunicationpriortoar-
rival(visitorsontheline q2&q3 andresidents q3)and f12
Levelofpricesofservices(visitors q2 andresidents q4)
alsodifferinthe ipa analysis.
Thereisafurtherdifferencein f5 Socialandexperimental
events(q4 visitorsand q3 residents).
Theaforementionedfactorsarenotstatisticallysignifi-
cantlydifferent,butin ipa analysisthesefactorsbelongto
differentquadrants.
of local people to visitors are not very welcoming in
overcrowded destinations. Nevertheless, the percep-
tion of mass tourism varies according to the type of
destination,whilethisfactorisperceivedmoreinur-
bandestinations.Italsodependsonthecountryand
location (Kuščer & Mihalič, 2019; Rasoolimanesh et
al., 2017). A high concentration of people can cause
pressure on infrastructure, changes of lifestyle, dis-
turbance of overall well-being, price increase on the
propertymarket,growthofcrime,noise,riots,etc.
(Kuščer & Mihalič, 2019; Milano et al., 2018). Simi-
larly,inresearchfocusedonthecentreofPrague,vis-
itorsandresidentsagreedthatmasstourismchanges
the historical centre of the city (Simpson, 1999). The
regional tourism organizations should deal with this
kindofproblem(Puczko&Ratzs,2000).Inruraldes-
tinations,thisproblemisnotsocritical,whichisalso
highlighted by the outcome of the present research.
The reasons for visiting a rural destination are dif-
ferent from those for an urban destination (García-
Hernándezetal.,2017Nambergeretal.,2019;Ryglová
etal.,2017).Visitorsmostlytravelwith theirfamilies
or friends and stay there for more than a day – usu-
allyaweekend,i.e.about2–3days,sometimeslonger.
It can therefore be assumed that visitors are not as
concentrated in one place as in city centres. On the
otherhand,overcrowdingcanhaveanegativeimpact
on factors in quadrant q1 where it can negatively af-
fectnature,theculturalenvironmentandothers(Hall,
2019).
Pricerisesarealsorelatedtotourismandhighde-
mand(Milanoetal.,2018).Accordingtotheresearch,
visitors rate prices as a more important factor than
the locals do. The reason may be that the locals of
the Moravian Karst do not visit tourist attractions.
Due to the great interest, these attractions are often
more expensive. Another reason may be that visitors
traveltothedestinationwithchildren,andtheone-off
expenses may therefore increase. A visitor-oriented
factor,Friendlyacceptance(f10)bythelocals,isalso
worthmentioning.Itwasexpectedthatthedifference
betweenthetwogroupswouldbelargeandithasbeen
proventhatthevisitorsevaluatedthefactoroffriendly
acceptancebylocalsmuchmoresignificantly.Under-
standably,itismoredifficultforaresidenttovaluethe
environment in which they live. On the other hand,
thisfactorbelongstothemoreimportantones,which
creates overall perception and positive emotions of
destinations (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Besides this,
overcrowdingofadestinationisconnectedwiththese
factors – a massive crowd of tourists creates a nega-
tiveperceptionoftourism,whichafterwardsleadsto
residents’ unfriendly behaviour, and the perception
of safety or dangerin the destination.Overcrowding
and friendly acceptance by the locals are factors that
are closely related to the overall quality of destina-
94 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
tion(Ashworth&Page,2011).Accordingtotheresults,
peoplestaylongerandtheyreturntothecountryside
often.Thisgraduallybuildsloyaltytotheplaceandto
the service provider,who apparentlycould be a local
inhabitant.
Sustainability is a relatively common topic nowa-
daysandmanyauthorstalkaboutit(Boleyetal.,2017;
Hall,2019;Hassan,2000).Yet,respondentsdonotpay
toomuchattentionaccordingtothefactorRespect-
ing sustainable development. As mentioned above,
sustainabilityisconnectedtothemostimportantfac-
tors,suchasprotectionofnaturalandculturalheritage
or cleanliness in the destination (Hall, 2019). Puczko
andRatz(2000)determinedthatduetothetourism’s
developmentcharacteristicsin theregion,onlysome
form of mass tourism can be maintained.The clean-
linessofthedestinationisalsosignificantforthevisi-
tors.Theresultsshowthatthemostimportantfactor
is naturalandcultural attractions.Ruraltourismisa
certain escape from the big city. Following this, re-
searchshows thatuntouched sceneryandcleanliness
in a destination are crucial for respondents and that
peoplelookforacleanandundisturbedlandscape.On
the other hand, sustainability in tourism helps avoid
overloading the destination, and aids in maintaining
itsquality(Hall,2019;Hassan,2000).
Nevertheless,certainregionsintheCzechRepublic
arenotsofrequentlyvisited,thusthisfactorisirrele-
vant for both visitors and residents. And perhaps the
missing information about tourism and its negative
consequences might influence this as well. The fac-
tor Certification of accommodation and food (f20)
can also be influenced by lack of information as the
respondents do not consider this factor important,
either. At the same time, there is growing pressure
forqualityandcertificationintheCzechRepublic
(Jakšová, 2018). Although some factors are located
in the same quadrant of the ipa graph, some statis-
ticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenvisitorandres-
ident ratings and vice versa have been proved. It is,
therefore, appropriate to carry out additional testing
to correctly interpret the ipa results. The t-test was
chosenforthisresearchbecausetheyrevealedsignifi-
cantdifferencesin ipa thatarenotsoobviousatfirst
sight. Nevertheless, it would not be necessary if two
groupsarenotcomparedwitheachother.Theadvan-
tage of this method is its simplicity and quick feasi-
bility. When comparing multiple variables, it would
makesensetoalsousemanovaoranovaanalysis.
Conclusion
Theresearchaimstoproposemeasuresthatwillsup-
port the development of destination quality around
the differences between the aforementioned groups.
Basedonindividual ipa analyses,itcanbestatedthat
the most significant difference in perception lies in
quadrant q2 – Concentrate here. It is necessary to
pay particular attention to the factor Overcrowding
ofthedestination,asitmaynegativelyaffectotheras-
pects of the destination. At the same time, there is
littleawarenessofthelinkagesofsustainabletourism
and the quality of services. It is, therefore, necessary
toinvolvedestinationorganizationsandcreatealink
between service providers and potential customers.
Nonetheless, the local population should not be for-
gotten,astheattitudeofthelocalscandeterminethe
overall perception of the destination, and their atti-
tude to tourism is directly related to overall visitors’
satisfaction.
Considering the previous, we can conclude that
thereisspacejustfordestinationorganizations,which
could take a certain responsibility for quality and
awareness (Dania et al., 2019; Go & Govers, 2000).
According to the research, destination management
shouldanalysevisitorsandresidentsseparately.Ifonly
the ipa analysisis used, the factors seem to be simi-
lar. Addingthe t-test,it is shown that the differences
are significant. Since tourism is a dynamically devel-
oping industry and visitors constantly increase their
demands, it is, therefore, necessary to further create
andmaintaintheattractivenessofthedestination.Itis
necessarytoproceedcomprehensivelyanddevelopall
theessentialparametersoftourism(accommodation,
catering,transportaccessibility,cleanliness,etc.).Des-
tination management should evolve tourism accord-
ing to the principles of sustainable development and
protectthenegativeimpactoftourismontheenviron-
mentaswellasanegativeimpactonlocalpeopleand
ontheirculturalidentity.Primarily,itisimportantto
focusonthefactorsinquadrant q2 becausetheycan
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |95

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
have both negative and positive effects on all other
quadrants.Regardingthis,itwouldbeadvisabletofo-
cusontourismsustainability.Moreover,thereshould
beapermanentdialoguebetweendestinationorgani-
zations,city authoritiesandlocal people.Speakingof
sustainability,itisimportanttomaintaintheintegrity
ofparks,thelocaleconomyandpublictransport(Mi-
lanoetal.,2018).Nowadays,itisalsopossibletocon-
sider theinvolvementofsmarttechnologiesas it can
facilitatecommunicationwithstakeholdersaswellas
help maintain dialogue and education (Wang et al.,
2016).
The present research was followed by an equal
numberofvisitors(50.3ofthetotalsample)andres-
idents(49,7ofthetotalsample).Basedonthisitwas
possibletocomparetheperceptionoffactorsbetween
visitorsandresidents.Regardingthis,thereshouldbe
somelimits.Itcanbeexpectedthatpeopleinterested
inthisissueweremorelikelytoparticipateinthere-
search and their positive interest may subsequently
cause a slight overestimation of the results. It is also
advisabletopointouttheresultsof ipa analysisitself.
Although the development of two separate ipa anal-
yses has brought some new information, the results
need to be treated with caution and analysed statis-
tically as the individual analysis points out a higher
difference. Only then can one claim that there is in-
deedadifferenceinperception.However,howappar-
entthisdifferenceisunderrealconditionsisdifficult
toevaluate.
Foranyfutureresearch,itisadvisabletoconducta
similarsurveyinanotherruraldestinationandcom-
pareitwithourresults.Atthemoment,theresultsof
thepresentstudycannotbegeneralized.Moreover,it
may be very difficult for respondents to evaluate the
importanceandperformanceatthesametime,posing
yetanotherpotentiallimitation.
References
Ashworth,G.,&Page,S.J.(2011).Urbantourismresearch:
Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tour i sm Man-
agement, 32(1),1–15.
Ayikoru,M.(2015).Destinationcompetitivenesschallenges:
AUgandanperspective. Tourism Management, 50,142–
158.
Azzopardi, E., & Nash, R. (2013). A critical evaluation of
importance-performanceanalysis. Tourism Management,
35,222–233.
Barrado, T. (2004). El concepto de destino turístico: Una
aproximación geográfico-territorial. Estudios turísticos,
160,45–68.
Bi,J.W .,Liu,Y.,Fan,Z.P .,&Zhang,J.(2019).Wisdomof
crowds: Conducting importance-performance analysis
(ipa)throughonlinereviews. Tourism Management, 70,
460–478.
Bieger,T.,&Beritelli,P.(2012). Management von Destinatio-
nen.MünchenOldenbourgVerlag.
Boley,B.B.,McGehee,N.G.,&Hammett,A.T .(2017).
Importance-performance analysis (ipa) of sustainable
tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tour i sm
Management, 58,66–77.
Buhalis, D. (2003). eTourism: Information technology for
strategic tourism management.Pearson Education.
Caber, M., Albayrak, T., & Matzler, K. (2012). Classification
of the destinationattributesin the content of competi-
tiveness(byrevised importance-performance analysis).
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(1),43–56.
Caruana,A.,Pitt,L.,&Berthon,P.(1999).Excellence-market
orientation link: Some consequences for service firms.
Journal of Business Research, 44(1),5–15.
Centrála cestovního ruchu – Jižní Morava. (2019). Mar-
ketingová strategie Jiřní Moravy: 2018–2020.https://www
.ccrjm.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Marketingov
C3A1-strategie-JiC5BEnC3AD-Moravy-2018
-2020.pdf
Dania,T.,Mlejnková,K.,&Rašovská,I.(2019).Qualitydes-
tinationmanagement. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et
Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(4),1027–1037.
Dortyol,I.T.,Varinli,I.,&Kitapci,O.(2014).Howdointer-
nationaltourists perceivehotel quality?An exploratory
studyofservicequalityinAntalyatourismregion.In-
ternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment, 26(3),470–495.
Dwyer,L.,Dragićević,V.,Armenski,T.,Mihalič,T.,&Kneže-
vićCvelbar,L.(2016).Achievingdestinationcompeti-
tiveness:Animportance-performanceanalysisofSerbia.
Current Issues in Tourism, 19(13),1309–1336.
Ekolist. (2018, March 6). Návštěvnost jeskyní v Moravském
krasu se loni zvýšila.Ekolist.cz.https://ekolist.cz/cz/
zpravodajstvi/zpravy/navstevnost-jeskyni-v-moravskem
-krasu-se-loni-zvysila
Ennew,C.T.,Reed,G.V.,&Binks,M.R.(1993).Importance-
performance analysis and the measurement of service
quality. European Journal of Marketing, 27(2),59–70.
EuropeanCommission.(2003). A manual for evaluating the
96 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
quality performance of tourist destinations and services
(Enterprise dg Publication).OfficeforOfficialPublica-
tionsoftheEuropeanCommunities.https://ec.europa
.eu/growth/content/manual-evaluating-quality
-performance-tourist-destinations-and-services-0_en
García-Hernández, M., la Calle-Vaquero, D., & Yubero, C.
(2017). Cultural heritage and urban tourism: Historic
city centres under pressure. Sustainability, 9(8), 1346.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081346
Go,F.M.,&Govers,R.(2000).Integratedqualitymanage-
mentfortouristdestinations:AEuropeanperspectiveon
achievingcompetitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1),
79–88.
Goeldner,C.R.,&Ritchie,J.R.B.(2014).Cestovníruch:prin-
cipy, příklady, trendy.BizBooks.
Hall,C.M.(2019).Constructingsustainabletourismdevel-
opment: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology
of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
27(7),1044–1060.
Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinantsof market competitive-
nessinanenvironmentallysustainabletourismindustry.
JournalofT ravelResearch,38(3),239–245.
Herrera,M.R.G.,Sasidharan,V .,Hernández,J .A.Á.,
&Herrera,L.D.A.(2018).Qualityandsustainability
of tourism development in Copper Canyon, Mexico:
Perceptions of community stakeholders and visitors.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 27,91–103.
Hudson, S. (2008). Tourism and hospitality marketing: A
global perspective.Sage.
Hussain,K.,Ali,F .,Nair,P .K.,Ragavan,N.A.,&Nair,
V. (2019). Perceived impacts and residents’ support for
tourism development in Port Dickson, Malaysia. Tur-
izam: međunarodni znanstveno-stručni časopis, 67(4),
351–364.
Jakšová, B. (2018). Destinační management v České repub-
lice: nový systém kategorizace a certifikace [Unublished
diplomathesis].VysokáškolaekonomickávPraze.
Johns, N. (2001). Importance-performance analysis using
the profile accumulation technique. Service Industries
Journal, 21(3),49–63.
Kim,T.K.(2015).Ttestasaparametricstatistic. Korean Jour-
nal of Anesthesiology, 68(6),540–546.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2007). Marketing management.
GradaPublishing.
Kuščer,K.,&Mihalič,T.(2019).Residents’attitudestowards
overtourism from the perspective of tourism impacts
and cooperation – The case of Ljubljana. Sustainability,
11(6),1823.https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061823
Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2015). Importance-perfor-
manceanalysisintourism:Aframeworkforresearchers.
Tourism Management, 48(c),242–267.
Levenburg, N. M., & Magal, S. R. (2004). Applying im-
portance-performance analysis to evaluate e-business
strategiesamongsmallfirms. E-Service, 3(3),29–48.
Martilla,J.A.,&James,J.C.(1977).Importance-perfor-
manceanalysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1),77–79.
Matulik, R.(2019,July 24). Masový a nezvládnutý turismus
devastuje populární destinace.Českýrozhlas.https://plus
.rozhlas.cz/masovy-a-nezvladnuty-turismus-devastuje-
popularni-destinace-staci-jet-jinam-8039752
Matzler,K.,Sauerwein,E.,&Heischmidt,K.(2003).Impor-
tance-performanceanalysisrevisited:Theroleofthefac-
torstructureofcustomersatisfaction. The Service Indus-
tries Journal, 23(2),112–129.
Middleton,V .T.C.,&Clarke,J.(2001).Marketing in travel
and tourism.Butterworth-Heinemann.
Milano,C.,Cheer,J.M.,&Novelli,M.(2018,July18).Over-
tourism: A growing global problem. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/overtourism-a-growing
-global-problem-100029
Milošević,S.,Penezić,N.,Mišković,I.,Škrbić,I.,&Katić,I.
(2016). The significance of tourists’ satisfaction at the
destinations. In 23rd Biennial International Congress,
Tourism & Hospitality Industry 2016 (thi2016), Trends
a n dC h a l l e n g e s ,O p a t i j a ,C r o a t i a ,2 8 – 2 9A p r i l2 0 1 6(pp.
219–231).UniversityofRijeka.
Mok,C.,Sparks,B.,&Kadampully,J.(2013). Service qual-
ity management in hospitality, tourism, and leisure.Rout-
ledge.
Namberger,P .,Jackisch,S.,Schmude,J.,&Karl,M.(2019).
Overcrowding,overtourismandlocalleveldisturbance:
HowmuchcanMunichhandle?Tourism Planning & De-
velopment, 16(4),452–472.
Oh,H.(2001).Revisitingimportance-performanceanalysis.
Tourism Management, 22(6),617–627.
Pásková, M. (2009). Udržitelnost rozvoje cestovního ruchu.
GaudeamusUniverzitaHradecKrálové.
Politis, Y., Litos, C., Grigoroudis, E., & Moustakis, V. S.
(2009).Abusinessexcellencemodelforthehotelsector:
Implementationtohigh/classGreekhotels.Benchmark-
ing: An International Journal, 16(4),462–483.
Puczko, L., &Ratz, T. (2000). Tourist and residentpercep-
tionsofthephysicalimpactsoftourismatLakeBalaton,
Hungary: Issues for sustainable tourism management.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(6),458–478.
Ramakrishnan, R., & Usha, R. (2016). A new rational ipa
andapplicationtocruisetourism. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 61(c),264–267.
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |97

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
Rasoolimanesh,S.M.,Roldán,J.L.,Jaafar,M.,&Ramayah,
T. (2017). Factors influencing residents’ perceptions to-
wardtourismdevelopment:Differencesacrossruraland
urban world heritage sites.J o u r n a lo fT r a v e lR e s e a r c h ,
56(6),760–775.
Rašovská, I., Kubíčková, M., & Ryglová, K. (2020). Im-
portance-performance analysisapproachtodestination
management. Tour i sm Economics. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1354816620903913
Ryglová,K.,Rašovská,I.,&Šácha,J.(2017).Ruraltourism:
Evaluatingthequalityofdestination.European Country-
side, 9(4),769–788.
Ryglová,K.,Vajcnerová,I.,Sácha,J.,&Stojarova,S.(2015).
The quality as a competitive factor of the destination.
Procedia: Economics and Finance, 34,550–556.
Sampson,S.E.,&Showalter,M.J.(1999).Theperformance-
importanceresponsefunction:Observationsandimpli-
cations. Service Industries Journal, 19(3),1–25.
Simpson, F. (1999).Tourist impact in the historic centre of
Prague:Residentandvisitorperceptions ofthe historic
builtenvironment. Geographical Journal, 165(2),173–183.
Stylidis,D.,Sit,J.,&Biran,A.(2016).Anexploratorystudyof
residents’perceptionofplaceimage:ThecaseofKavala.
JournalofT ravelResearch,55(5),659–674.
Su,L.,Swanson,S.R.,&Chen,X.(2016).Theeffectsofper-
ceivedservicequalityonrepurchaseintentionsandsub-
jectivewell-beingofChinesetourists. Tourism Manage-
ment, 52,82–95.
Tonge, J., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-satisfaction
analysis for marine-park hinterlands: A Western Aus-
traliancasestudy. Tourism Management, 28(3),768–776.
unwto.(N.d.a). About us.https://www.unwto.org/about
-us
unwto.(N.d.b). Sustainable development.https://www
.unwto.org/sustainable-development
Wang,X.,Li,X.R.,Zhen,F.,&Zhang,J.(2016).Howsmart
isyourtouristattraction?Measuringtouristpreferences
of smart tourism attractions via a fcem-ahp and ipa
approach. Tourism Management, 54,309–320.
Weaver,P .A.,Weber,K.,&McCleary,K.W .(2007).Desti-
nationevaluation:Theroleofprevioustravelexperience
andtripcharacteristics.Journal of Travel Research, 45(3),
333–344.
Wong,M.,Hideki,N.,&George,P.(2011).Theuseofimpor-
tance-performanceanalysis(ipa)inevaluatingJapan’se-
governmentservices. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2),17–30.
Zelenka, J., & Pásková, M. (2012). Výkladový slovník ces-
tovního ruchu.LindePraha.
Appendix
Thefollowingfactorswereresearched:
1. Naturalattractions(theconditionsofnaturalcharac-
ter–forinstance,climate,hydrologicalandmorpho-
logical circumstances, flora, fauna, water surfaces,
caves,naturalreservations).
2. Cultural and social attractions(for instance, castles,
chateaus,galleries,museums,technicalsights,reli-
giousmonuments,historicalcitycentres).
3. Accommodation (variety, structure, and level of ac-
commodationfacilities).
4. Food(variety,structure,andlevelofboardingfacili-
ties).
5. Socialandexperientialevents(forexample,concerts,
festivals,folk,sportsandotherevents,localmarkets,
seasonalgastronomicaleventssuchaswineharvests).
6. Availabilityoftransportationtothedestination(the
accessibilityof the destination,transport infrastruc-
ture, the frequency of transport links, distances be-
tweenstops).
7. Local transportation (the possibilities of motorized
andnon-motorizedtransportaroundthedestination,
theconditionsandequipmentofthemeansoftrans-
port, the frequency and distances of stops from at-
tractions,taxis,skilifts,cablewaysandsoon).
8. Availabilityandqualityoftheinformationinthedes-
tination(tourist information centres,maps,promo-
tional materials, orientation boards, internet – Wi-
Fi).
9. Informationandcommunicationpriortoarrival(the
promotion and distribution of the destination offer,
available and user-friendly unified web portal with
topicaldestinationofferthatenablesonlinereserva-
tions,linkstorelatedwebsites,informationonsocial
networksandsoon).
10. Friendlyacceptancebythelocals(atmosphereatthe
destination,friendlyrelationshipswithvisitors).
11. Imageofthedestination.
12. Level of prices of services and goods at the destina-
tion(thepricesofconsumergoodsandservicesatthe
destination).
13. Levelofpersonnelqualityintourismservices–which
meansinaccommodationandboardingservices,in-
formation centres, transportation, guides and so on
(theirprofessionalism,empathy,willingness,reliabil-
ity,credibility,openinghours,theefforttomeetindi-
vidualrequirementsofaclient).
14. Sense of security (crime, terrorism, natural disas-
ters,diseases,rescueandhealthsystem,thesecurity
98 | AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021

KateinaMlejnková,TomášDania,andIdaRašovská QualityofaRuralDestination
of sights,the security of pedestriansor cyclists, safe
background/attractionsforchildren).
15. Destination cleanliness (natural environment, air,
water for swimming, public toilets, enough waste
bins, the cleanliness and maintenance of sights, the
cleanlinessofhospitalityfacilities).
16. Overcrowdingofthedestination(highconcentration
ofvisitorsdecreasingthequalityoftheirstay,theca-
pacity congestion of infrastructure, for example, car
parks).
17. The uniqueness of the destination (the uniqueness
ofthedestination,localproducts,thedifferentiation
of competitive offers, pre-prepared service packets,
products of the destination for various target seg-
ments,servicecertification).
18. Additionalinfrastructure(forexample,sportsequip-
ment rental shops, cycle paths, cross country ski
trails, hippo trails, aqua parks, playgrounds, enter-
tainment centres, climbing centres, cash dispensers,
backgroundformotorists,cyclists,children).
19. Respecting sustainable development of the destina-
tion(theconcordanceofinfrastructureconstruction
withthenaturalenvironmentofthedestination,cul-
tural heritage protection – for instance, protection
of historical buildings,folklore and regionalcuisine,
naturalenvironmentprotection,ecologicaleconomy,
localinhabitantsandbusinessinvolvement).
20. Certificationofaccommodationandfoodservices.
AcademicaTuristica,Year14,No.1,June2021 |99