Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Digitalization on the Sustainability of Small Farms
Previous Article in Journal
Culturally Informed Technology: Assessing Its Importance in the Transition to Smart Sustainable Cities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rural Tourism in Mountain Rural Comunities-Possible Direction/Strategies: Case Study Mountain Area from Bihor County
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104074
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding Romanian Generational Preferences and Travel Decision-Making When Choosing a Rural Destination

by
Andra Ramona Poruțiu
1,
Anca Monica Brata
2,
Diana E. Dumitras
1,
Olivia Paula Oros
3,* and
Iulia C. Muresan
1,*
1
Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Horticulture and Business in Rural Development, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Calea Mănăștur St., 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Engineering of Food Products, Faculty of Environmental Protection, University of Oradea, 26 Gen. Magheru St., 410087 Oradea, Romania
3
Department of Animal Husbandry and Agritourism, Faculty of Environmental Protection, University of Oradea, 26 Gen. Magheru St., 410087 Oradea, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4074; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104074
Submission received: 2 April 2024 / Revised: 6 May 2024 / Accepted: 11 May 2024 / Published: 13 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainable Rural Tourism: Methods, Strategies and Practice)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered consumer behavior and reshaped the tourism industry, particularly impacting travel destination choices. Pre-pandemic, travelers prioritized experiences and adventure, often overlooking health and safety concerns. However, during and after the pandemic, health, hygiene, and the COVID-19 situation emerged as crucial factors in choosing a rural destination, alongside economic considerations. The current study analyzed the tourists’ preferences in the North-West development region of Romania when choosing a rural destination. An online survey was conducted, and 563 questionnaires were validated in the end. The principal component analysis used to analyze the collected data led to a two-factor solution: “sanitary and administrative” and “economic and social”. Comparative analysis based on age showed significant differences in education, income, and family composition between Generation Y and Generation Z. Preferences for domestic destinations and participation in festivals were higher among Generation Z, while interest in international travel was comparable between the generations. These findings provide insights into the evolving travel behaviors and preferences of different age groups in the wake of the pandemic.

1. Introduction

Tourism represents an essential aspect of modern life, being a complex and dynamic activity that has evolved significantly in recent decades, with major implications for the economy, society, and culture. Tourism is not limited to leisure or business travel but also serves as a means of learning about and exploring other cultures and social communities.
The elimination of geographical and cultural barriers has led to an increase in tourism worldwide. The World Tourism Organization highlights the continuous growth in the number of tourists, a fact attributed to the significant diversification of the industry in recent years [1]. This growth is also due to the multitude of options available to tourists, with offers becoming increasingly complex, thus attracting a more diverse range of consumers [2,3].
Tourism choices are influenced by a number of factors, both internal (such as personal needs and consumption habits) and external (including destination image, prestige, socio-economic elements, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and marketing strategies) [4]. The global development of tourism is notably shaped by overarching forces like globalization and the continuous evolution of information technologies [5]. Generational factors have been observed as important influences on tourism preferences and behaviors, with technology significantly impacting the views of younger tourists on travel destinations [6,7,8].
Understanding these consumer preferences is crucial, particularly for younger generations, who significantly influence various industries. These groups, characterized by distinct attitudes, values, and behaviors, wield significant influence on various industries. As key drivers of economic activity, the preferences of Generations Y and Z shape trends, redefine brand expectations, and fuel innovation [7,9].
Generation Y, also known as Millennials, encompasses individuals born between 1980 and 1995. They have the highest education rate, with over 60% possessing a bachelor’s degree. When it comes to tourism, they search for unique and personalized experiences that are ecologically sustainable, supporting local communities and cultural diversity, but are also attracted to adventure [10]. They are willing to pay more to experience unique and authentic things because they have the necessary income to do so.
Generation Z comprises individuals born between 1996 and 2012 and is also known as the Founders Generation, Post-Millennials, or iGeneration. Generation Z is often interested in tourist experiences that are interactive, personalized, and allow them to share their experiences on their preferred social platforms. Their preferences regarding tourism services revolve around unique, authentic, and Instagrammable experiences. They seek innovative services and are always on the lookout for major events or spectacular landscapes [11]. They often opt for thematic, educational, or volunteer trips that enable them to learn and connect with other cultures and communities. They are frequently interested in eco-friendly and sustainable travel that minimizes environmental impact and supports local communities [12]. However, being raised in the digital era, Generation Z members seek tourism services that offer easy access to technology, such as mobile applications to plan and manage their trips [13].
They are highly informed because they conduct extensive research and weigh their options before purchasing goods or services. They always seek the best deal and prefer purchasing through social media compared to other generations [7,9].
In the last few years, the multifaceted aspects impacting tourism preferences and behaviors, particularly among young individuals, have become ever more present. Technology is woven into travel experiences, and understanding the significance of aligning marketing strategies and tourism services with the modern preferences of the youth is crucial for major shareholders in this field [14,15].
The aim of the current research was to identify the factors that influence Romanian tourists’ decisions about choosing a rural destination in the context of COVID-19. The objectives of this manuscript were to determine if there are significant differences between the perceptions of the factors analyzed in choosing a rural destination towards Gen Z and Gen Y and to determine if there are any other demographic characteristics that influence the perception of the analyzed factors.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Travel Behavior of Gen Y and Z Tourists in the Context of the Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, various industries have been significantly impacted by changes in consumer behavior regarding the main factors considered in the process of decision-making [16]. The pandemic, together with these changes, has significantly reshaped the tourism industry and travel destinations. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers often based their travel destination choices on factors such as popular tourist attractions, cultural experiences, and adventure opportunities. The emphasis was typically on creating memorable experiences and exploring new places without significant concerns about health and safety. Travelers were more likely to prioritize crowded tourist spots, city centers, and events [17].
However, when it comes to the decisions leading to choosing a travel destination, consumer behavior has shifted significantly during and after the pandemic. Thus, several important aspects taken into account by travelers were health and hygiene and the COVID-19 situation in and around their considered destination [18,19,20]. Similar to the pre-pandemic period, economic factors are still playing an important role in decision-making, partly due to the economic uncertainties the population was subjected to during the pandemic [18,19,20,21].
In the context of these evolving consumer behaviors, Generations Y and Z have emerged as key players in reshaping the travel landscape post-COVID-19, especially since they make up a growing percentage of the total population and, consequently, tourist numbers [22]. Although both generations share certain similarities in their travel behavior, differences rooted in their unique historical contexts and formative experiences also shape their preferences. Before the pandemic, studies underlined the preferences of both generations when it comes to travel, with both being motivated by gaining new experiences and paying attention to the overall cost of the journey [23,24].
To this extent, tourism worldwide has abruptly decreased after the outbreak of the pandemic, as a consequence of lockdown measures and sanitary as well as economic concerns from travelers. Research conducted in the first period of the pandemic has shown a shift towards nature-oriented tourism and a decrease in popularity for crowded places and popular destinations, with consumers choosing their personal vehicles as the preferred means of transportation while simultaneously opting for short-term and short-distance trips [25,26,27]. These trends have also been observed in tourists belonging to the Y and Z generations from across the world. In the Czech Republic, a study analyzing the impact of COVID-19 at its outbreak and after one year on the travel behavior and concerns of Generation Z concluded that travelers have become more aware of the health-associated risks over the one-year period [25]. Moreover, Generation Z preferred individual trips and accommodation, admitting that the pandemic and lack of travel have significantly impacted their quality of life while making them more conscious of the sanitary concerns and pandemic-related safety measures implemented at their destination of choice [13].
A large survey conducted on Generations Y and Z showed increased fears in both generations when it comes to the sanitary aspects of traveling during the pandemic [28]. Most respondents admitted being anxious about contracting the virus during travel (20% for Gen Z and 17% for Gen Y) or being quarantined at their return home (16% for Gen Z and 13% for Gen Y). Additionally, other reported fears were flights being cancelled, transmitting the disease at their return home, and being denied access to a country [5]. When it comes to the economic aspect of the trip, Generation Z was more likely to pay more for a trip to a destination without COVID-19 restrictions or significant risk, compared with Generation Y (58% vs. 25%) [28].
Moreover, Gen Y also has a tendency to take additional precautions when it comes to traveling, with a study conducted in the UK revealing that 44% of Millennials would book their destination via a travel agent as a safety measure against unexpected events [29]. However, a later study conducted on Serbian Generations Y and Z showed that most respondents preferred to organize their trips on their own, with the percentage of Generation Z members being greater than that of the Millennials [30]. Younger respondents were also more likely to agree to pay an additional fee for COVID-19 tests in order to avoid quarantine and be able to travel freely, compared to older tourists [29]. Moreover, Generation Z paid more attention to flexible purchase terms, such as COVID-19 insurance or the possibility of receiving a full refund in case the pandemic situation became unpredicted [31].
A study conducted by the European Trade Commission analyzed the travel trends and behaviors of Generation Z [22]. The main reasons why the respondents chose a European destination were tied to economical and sanitary aspects, such as value-for-money destinations (47%), availability of cheap flights (45%), safe and secure destinations (42%), and finding cheap accommodation easily (32%) [22]. These findings were later confirmed by another study comparing the factors influencing the decision-making process of Generations Y and Z [32]. Research showed that both categories were somewhat equally concerned about the travel destination being safe, having an adequate quality of service, being affordable, and being budget-friendly. Discrepancies were revealed in terms of other aspects, with Generation Z being more preoccupied with the economic conditions of the country/region they were visiting, the social life of the local population, and the provided entertainment facilities compared with respondents from Generation Y [32].
The pandemic has changed the preferences of tourists, orienting them towards tourism activities in nature, with a reduced impact on the environment compared to traditional tourist hotspots [33]. The preference for practicing sustainable, environmentally friendly tourism in domestic travel was observed among Generations Y and Z [34].
Furthermore, the following questions arise: which are the factors that influence Romanian tourists when choosing a rural destination? Are there any significant differences between Generation Y and Generation Z?

2.2. Rural Tourism through the Eyes of Gen Y and Z

In the context of the pandemic, rural tourism destinations have seen a surge in popularity in recent years, recorded among members of Generations Y and Z as well [35,36]. Factors tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as health and safety concerns, crowded spaces, remote work, and social isolation, have led more and more tourists towards rural areas [37,38].
Research investigating this phenomenon has pointed out several key aspects and factors important to deciding to travel to rural destinations, which reflect the characteristics of Generations Y and Z. Particular experiences and activities tied to various cultural, gastronomical, and cultural features appeal to the desire of Generations Y and Z for unique and authentic experiences [39,40]. These generations also pay significant attention to sustainable travel habits, and supporting local communities plays an important role in their travel habits [35,36,37].
Nevertheless, as the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, it seemed that the travel trends developed during the pandemic and the changes it brought were likely to stay, as rural tourism continues to develop at a steady pace while attracting a diverse base of tourists. This prompts the stakeholders in the industry to diversify their offers. Additionally, investing in infrastructure improvements, conservation efforts, and cultural preservation projects can enhance the appeal of rural destinations while ensuring their long-term viability. Implementing policies that promote responsible tourism practices, such as ecotourism certifications and sustainability standards, can help safeguard the natural and cultural resources that attract visitors to rural areas.
While previous studies have examined the travel behaviors of these generations, few have focused specifically on rural tourism destinations or considered the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the pandemic.
Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature by investigating how the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the priorities and preferences of Generations Y and Z in the tourism sector. By exploring the impact of health and safety concerns, the desire for outdoor experiences, and the shift towards sustainable tourism practices, this research sheds light on the changing landscape of travel behavior in response to global crises and offers practical insights for stakeholders in the tourism industry.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Area

The current research was in the North-West development region of Romania, known for its potential for rural tourism. An analysis conducted on the domestic tourism of Romania revealed that in 2019, of the total number of domestic tourist arrivals in Romania, 15.2% were in the North-West development region of Romania. The regions that recorded the largest number of arrivals were the Centre region and the South-East region. The Centre region of Romania is well known for its cultural, historical, and rural tourism, while the South-East region includes the seaside area. Regarding the number of domestic tourists who arrived in agritourist guesthouses from rural areas, it was observed that 20.8% (244,284 tourists) out of 1,171,790 domestic tourists’ arrivals were in the North-West development region, with an average length of stay of 2 days (Table 1) [41].

3.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

To achieve the aim of the current research, an online survey was conducted among residents of the North-West development region of Romania, older than 18 years, from May to October 2020. The collected data could be divided into three main categories: (i) sanitary conditions (8 items); (ii) economic aspects (4 items); and (iii) socio-demographic characteristics. To identify to what extent the sanitary conditions and the economic factors influence respondents desire to choose a rural tourism destination during the 2021 summer season, the 12 items were evaluated on a type 5 Likert scale, where 1 means not important at all and 5 means very important. A pilot study was conducted on 35 respondents in order to check the reliability of the items evaluated on a five-point Likert scale. Field experts verified the questionnaire to ensure content validity [42]. The snowball sampling technique was used to recruit tourists from the research area. The sample size was validated based on post hoc power analysis using G*power 3.1.9.4 (effect size 0.15, significance level 0.05, power 95%) [43]. A filter question related to the residency county was added in order to select the respondents.

3.3. Sample Characteristics

A total of 563 surveys were validated and analyzed. Of the total number of respondents, 32% were represented by residents from Generation Z, while 68% were from Generation Y. The analysis of the socio-demographic profile revealed that in general, the respondents were female (67.2%), with a university degree (77.8%), and with children under 18 years of age (52.5%) (Table 2).

3.4. Data Analysis

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was run to reduce the dimensionality of the 12 items used to determine the factors that influence respondents’ decisions on choosing a rural destination. Factors with eigenvalues higher than 1 and items with factor loadings above 0.4 were retrained, convergent validity being confirmed [44].
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a method of data reduction where the components are determined by considering all the variance of the observed variables, with this variance fully reflected in the solution [45]. This is accomplished by transforming a new set of variables that are uncorrelated and ordered in such a way that the initial few components explain most of the variance [46]. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the entire scale was 0.884, indicating good internal consistency for the overall set of items. Harman’s single-factor test was utilized to confirm the existence of common method bias [47]. The first single factor in the unrotated factor matrix explained 44.7% of the variance, below the suggested 50% threshold, indicating that the common method bias is not a concern for the collected data and results of this study. Cross-tabulation and Pearson’s χ2 statistics were employed to delineate the socio-demographic characteristics of two groups (Z generation and Y generation), considering factors such as gender, education, monthly income, children in the house, preferences for a domestic destination, preferences for an international destination, and the existence of different festivals.

4. Results

4.1. Factors Affecting the Decision-Making Process

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for the data was 0.893, which is considered quite high. This suggests that the data are suitable for conducting principal component analysis (PCA). A KMO value close to 1 indicates that the patterns of correlation are strong enough for PCA to be effective. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity is statistically significant, with an approximate chi-square value of 2901.207 for 66 degrees of freedom and a p-value < 0.05. This indicates that there are significant correlations among the variables in the dataset, further supporting the appropriateness of using PCA. Both the high KMO measure and the significant Bartlett’s test suggest that principal component analysis can be a meaningful approach for reducing the dimensionality of the data while retaining important information. The principal component analysis led to a two-component solution, explaining 55.4% of the variance (Table 3).
The first component comprised eight items and was named “sanitary and administrative”. This component explains 34.9% of the variance and has a mean of 4.05 ± 0.798, indicating that this factor is quite important in their decision-making process on choosing a tourist destination for the next season. It was noticed that the pandemic situation (S2) (4.25 ± 0.948), self-isolation at return (S4) (4.25 ± 1.019), and health condition (4.21 ± 0.961) were the most important aspects in their decision-making process. The aspects related to sanitary and safety measures in the destination (S6) (4.16 ± 0.960) and the sanitary measures in the accommodation units (S1) (4.11 ± 0.964) were not neglected.
The second component, named “economic and social”, comprised four items and explained 20.5% of the variance. It was noticed that the most important aspects were the expenses (travel, accommodation, food, beverage, etc.) (E2) (3.80 ± 1.044) and the income level (E3) (3.66 ± 1.095). The existence of special offers and discounts are also factors that may affect the decision-making process (3.58 ± 1.097).
The Cronbach’s alpha values for both sets of factors are relatively high, indicating good internal consistency or reliability among the items within each factor. Sanitary factors have an α of 0.881, indicating high internal consistency among the variables within this component, and economic factors have an α of 0.727, indicating slightly lower but still acceptable internal consistency among the variables within this component.

4.2. Gen Z vs. Gen Y: A Comparative Look

Subsequently, the respondents were grouped based on their age: Generation Z and Generation Y. A comparative analysis regarding the socio-demographic profile was run. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender (p > 0.05). However, it was noticed that the group representing Generation Y is more educated; 88.8% of the members have a university degree (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were noticed for the income and presence of children under 18 years of age in the families. The Generation Z group is mainly represented by females (65.5%), with a monthly income below RON 4200 (60%), and no children (57.8%). The Generation Y group is represented mainly by females (71.5%); they have a higher monthly income (65.8% above RON 4200), and in 57.2% of the cases, they also have children (Table 4).
To determine their travel behavior, their preferences for choosing a domestic or international destination that offers the possibility to participate in fairs or different festivals were tested. The results indicated that the Z generation prefers domestic destinations (70.6%) compared with the Y generation (50.4%), with the differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The existence of different fairs and festivals represents an attraction factor to visit a certain destination for 52.3% of the respondents from the Z generation, compared with 35.0% of the respondents from the Y generation (p < 0.05). The attraction for an international destination is quite the same for both groups, around 57% (p > 0.05).
Furthermore, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was utilized to determine the presence of significant differences among perceptions about the factors that influence the decision-making process between the two generational groups. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant (Table 5). The results indicated that the Y generation is more preoccupied with sanitary aspects compared (4.17 ± 0.689) with the Z generation (3.96 ± 0.848), with the differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). Regarding the economic and social component, there were no noticeable statistically significant differences between the two generations (p > 0.05). Subsequently, since significant differences in terms of education, income, and children in the house between the two generations were found, a comparative analysis of respondents’ perceptions of the two factors was run based on the Mann–Whitney U test. The results indicated statistically significant differences in the case of the “sanitary and administrative” factor for all the education and income characteristics (p < 0.05), while for the factor “economic and social”, just for the variable income, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the group with children and the group without children regarding attitude towards the two analyzed factors (p > 0.05). The results pointed out that the respondents who were more educated (4.18 ± 0.652) and with higher income (4.23 ± 0.658) were more preoccupied with the sanitary and administrative factors during the decision-making process of visiting a rural destination. As the level of income increased, the respondents were less worried about aspects related to the “economic and social” factor (p > 0.05).

5. Discussion

This paper analyzed the factors influencing Romanian residents from the North-West development region belonging to Generations Y and Z in the decision-making process to choose a rural destination for the 2021 summer season. Concerns about sanitation emerged as crucial during this period, driven by factors such as the local pandemic situation, individual health conditions, and the implementation of sanitary measures in destinations. Interestingly, the younger Z generation appeared to exhibit less concern about sanitation compared to their predecessors, the Y generation, similar to previous studies [29]. This difference may be attributed to the Z generation’s preference for domestic destinations, where stringent sanitary measures such as COVID-19 testing and self-isolation are often not obligatory.
When it comes to the socio-economic profiles of the two generations, members of the Z generation earned significantly less than their Y generation counterparts, which might influence them to pay increased attention to the cost of their holiday. To this extent, a large multinational study of the European Trade Commission also revealed that the members of the Z generation are keen on saving money on their trips, either by cheap flights, accommodation, or overall lower spending in their travel destination [22]. With lower average incomes compared to older generations, Gen Z individuals often prioritize travel destinations that are nearby and more accessible, with recent studies showing that most Gen Z individuals traveling regularly do not come from high-income households [48]. As a result, Gen Z travelers exhibit a propensity towards destinations within a shorter distance from their homes, allowing for easier and more affordable travel experiences. This preference for nearby destinations not only reflects their financial realities but also aligns with their desire for convenience and the opportunity to explore diverse experiences within their immediate surroundings.
Moreover, these findings were later confirmed in a study conducted on Generations Y and Z participants regarding the hypothetical attendance of a music festival by being shown pictures of the event [49]. A good value for the paid money, as well as personal safety, standard hygiene, and cleanliness of the overall festival and infrastructure, ranked highest among the factors influencing the decision to attend the festival [49]. Further research on this matter has shown that members of Generation Z were willing to pay more for additional security measures against COVID-19 when traveling during the pandemic [50].
A notable shift in travel preferences between Generation Z and Y was observed, particularly regarding domestic travel. Unlike their predecessors, Generation Z displays a stronger preference for exploring domestic destinations rather than venturing abroad [51]. There are a number of reasons why Generation Z travels domestically rather than abroad, such as economic concerns, environmental issues, and a desire for real experiences near home. Interestingly, individuals without children and younger tourists tend to be less concerned about hygiene standards during travel, prioritizing novel experiences over luxury accommodations [52,53]. In contrast to Generation Y, who takes a more circumspect approach, Generation Z may be more ready to compromise on strict hygienic standards, which may explain why they favor domestic travel. This pattern shows how age disparities and shifting social norms are influencing the dynamics of travel behavior. Understanding Generation Z’s unique objectives and preferences is crucial for stakeholders hoping to serve this quickly growing consumer segment as it continues to exert influence on the travel industry.
Also, the Z generation is more attracted by the existence of cultural events such as local festivals, underscoring their desire for new experiences. Through involvement in local festivals and cultural events, Generation Z has a clear predisposition towards cultural immersion and experiential travel. Twenge et al. [54] indicate that Generation Z values experiences over material belongings, looking for genuine and significant interactions that support identity formation and personal growth. According to a Pew Research Center research study [55], which emphasized the significance of singular experiences in influencing this generation’s travel preferences, this tendency is consistent with their need for novelty and adventure. Local celebrations of cultural history and traditions, known for their vibrant celebrations, present a chance for Generation Z tourists to interact directly with a variety of communities and discover new cultures and foods [56]. The digital era has made it easier for people to learn about these kinds of events, which means that Generation Z may find and attend festivals that align with their values and interests [57]. Because of this, Generation Z’s innate desire to seek out genuine and enriching experiences has led to the emergence of cultural events as a prominent factor affecting travel selections [58]. This generation is more interested in experiential tourism, and in this instance, the younger generation’s travel tastes and behaviors are greatly influenced by cultural immersion and the desire to take part in local festivities. Cultural gatherings and regional celebrations act as stimulants for Generation Z visitors, satisfying their curiosity about novel experiences and fostering a more profound comprehension of other cultures worldwide. When it comes to the motivations leading to the decision to attend a festival or event, the expected attractions, as well as socialization and spending time both with friends and other groups, have ranked highest among the factors influencing Generation Z [59]. Additionally, the overall feeling and atmosphere at the festival also played an important role, while the perceived popularity of the festival was given less importance [59]. A particular sector seeing significant growth over the last few years is represented by active sports tourism, with more and more members of the Z generation taking an increased interest in it [60]. This further underlines the need and desire of this generation for intense and unique experiences.
Being a generation strongly interconnected through various social media platforms, the internet, and travel sites or blogs plays an important role in the decision-making process of Generation Z when it comes to choosing a travel destination. Thus, when it comes to new travel ideas and planning trips, websites, either official or specialized in travel reviews, along with social media platforms and blogs, represent the main sources of inspiration for Generation Z [22,61].
Economic aspects are also important factors that influence the decision to travel; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the Z generation and the Y generation.

6. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant shifts in consumer behavior and preferences within the tourism industry, impacting the decision-making process for choosing a tourism destination and travel behavior. Prioritizing health, hygiene, and safety measures has become essential for tourists, alongside economic considerations. Generations Y and Z have emerged as key players in shaping post-pandemic travel landscapes, displaying distinct preferences and behaviors influenced by their unique historical contexts and formative experiences.
The results of this research conducted in the North-West development region of Romania highlight the two main factors affecting the decision-making process when choosing a rural destination during 2021: “sanitary and administrative” and “economic and social”. This study pointed out the dynamic nature of tourists’ behavior, particularly due to unexpected factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the importance of understanding socio-economic factors, generational differences, and the perceived security and safety risks in the decision-making process when choosing a destination. These are valuable data for future product development strategies in order to develop a competitive tourism destination by customizing unique experiences to meet each generation’s preferences, such as offering flexible booking options for Generation Z and emphasizing experiential travel for Generation Y. This study fills a gap in previous research by examining how the travel preferences of Generations Y and Z in rural tourism destinations have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. It explores the impact of health and safety concerns, the desire for outdoor experiences, and the shift towards sustainable tourism practices. This research sheds light on the evolving travel behavior in response to global crises and provides practical insights for stakeholders in the tourism industry.
This study is not without limitations. This study mainly focuses on rural tourism destinations, which may limit the generalization of the findings to other types of tourism destinations. At the same time, this study focused on sanitary and economic factors, neglecting other factors such as cultural, environmental, and personal factors, which could also play a significant role and be analyzed during future research. This study utilized an online survey, which may introduce selection bias since respondents who have access to the internet and are comfortable with online technology are more likely to participate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.C.M. and D.E.D.; methodology, I.C.M. and D.E.D.; validation, A.R.P. and A.M.B.; formal analysis, I.C.M.; investigation, O.P.O.; data curation, I.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.B., A.R.P. and O.P.O.; writing—review and editing, O.P.O. and I.C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that participation was anonymous and voluntary.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sethukumari, S.N.; Thirumagal, A.; Mani, M. Spotlight on UNWTO Elibrary. Libr. Philos. Pract. 2021, 1–12. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4808/ (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  2. Rasool, H.; Maqbool, S.; Tarique, M. The relationship between tourism and economic growth among BRICS countries: A panel cointegration analysis. Future Bus. J. 2021, 7, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liao, C.-S.; Chuang, H.-K. Tourist preferences for package tour attributes in tourism destination design and development. J. Vacat. Mark. 2020, 26, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kyriakaki, A.; Stavrinoudis, T.; Daskalopoulou, G. Investigating the key factors influencing the international tourists’ decision-making on choosing a destination. In Cultural and Tourism Innovation in the Digital Era: Sixth International IACuDiT Conference, Athens 2019; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 335–352. [Google Scholar]
  5. Siripen, Y.; Kevin, W. International Tourists’ Travel Motivation by Push-Pull Factors and the Decision Making for Selecting Thailand as Destination Choice. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2014, 8, 1348–1353. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gardiner, S.; King, C.; Grace, D. Travel decision making: An empirical examination of generational values, attitudes, and intentions. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reisenwitz, T.H.; Fowler, J.G. Information sources and the tourism decision-making process: An examination of Generation X and Generation Y consumers. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2019, 20, 1372–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, X.; Li, X.R.; Hudson, S. The application of generational theory to tourism consumer behavior: An American perspective. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wood, S. Generation Z as consumers: Trends and innovation. Inst. Emerg. Issues NC State Univ. 2013, 119, 7767–7779. [Google Scholar]
  10. Corbisiero, F.; Monaco, S.; Ruspini, E. Millennials, Generation Z and the Future of Tourism; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wee, D. Generation Z talking: Transformative experience in educational travel. J. Tour. Futures 2019, 5, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salinero, Y.; Prayag, G.; Gómez-Rico, M.; Molina-Collado, A. Generation Z and pro-sustainable tourism behaviors: Internal and external drivers. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Niemczyk, A.; Seweryn, R.; Smalec, A. Z generation in the international tourism market. Econ. Soc. Dev. Book Proc. 2019, 21, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  14. Puiu, S.; Velea, L.; Udristioiu, M.T.; Gallo, A. A behavioral approach to the tourism consumer decisions of generation Z. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dimitriou, C.K.; AbouElgheit, E. Understanding generation Z’s travel social decision-making. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 25, 311–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mason, A.; Narcum, J.; Mason, K. Changes in consumer decision-making resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Cust. Behav. 2020, 19, 299–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Huang, Y.C.; Petrick, J.F. Generation Y’s travel behaviours: A comparison with baby boomers and Generation X. In Tourism and generation Y; Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., Pendergast, D., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2009; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nair, B.B.; Sinha, S. COVID-19 and future travel decisions: How do the destination-choice-based motivators redefine tourist’s choices? Enlightening Tour. A Pathmaking J. 2020, 10, 306–322. Available online: https://www.uhu.es/publicaciones/ojs/index.php/et/article/view/4919 (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  19. Filipa, A.; Rodrigues, D.; Santos, D. The Impact of COVID-19 on Tourist’s Consumer Behaviour: How the Pandemic Affects the Way How People Choose Their Next Travel Destinations. 2022. Available online: https://repositorio.ucp.pt/handle/10400.14/38503 (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  20. Shin, H.; Nicolau, J.L.; Kang, J.; Sharma, A.; Lee, H. Travel decision determinants during and after COVID-19: The role of tourist trust, travel constraints, and attitudinal factors. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gupta, S.; Shukla, V.; Pandiya, B. Tourists’ motivation towards destination visit intention post-pandemic: Scale development and validation. Int. J. Tour. Policy 2022, 12, 60–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Etc Market Study Study On Generation Z Travellers. 2020. Available online: www.toposophy.com/ (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  23. Gracan, D.; Sotosek, M.B.; Honovic, N.S. Analysis of Tourism Motives and Preferences Characteristics of Generation Y; Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings. 2021. Available online: http://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/5371/1/1757201440_0.pdf#page=177 (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  24. Rita, P.; Brochado, A.; Dimova, L. Millennials’ travel motivations and desired activities within destinations: A comparative study of the US and the UK. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 2034–2050. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500.2018.1439902 (accessed on 28 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  25. Rončák, M.; Scholz, P.; Linderová, I. Safety Concerns and Travel Behavior of Generation Z: Case Study from the Czech Republic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13439. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13439/htm (accessed on 10 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  26. Chebli, A.; Ben Said, F. The Impact of COVID-19 on Tourist Consumption Behaviour: A Perspective Article. J. Tour. Manag. Res. 2020, 7, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wachyuni, S.S.; Kusumaningrum, D.A. The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic: How are the Future Tourist Behavior? J. Educ. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2020, 33, 67–76. Available online: https://journaljesbs.com/index.php/JESBS/article/view/950 (accessed on 10 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  28. COVID-19: Travel Planning by Generation—Development Counsellors International. Available online: https://aboutdci.com/research/generation-study/ (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  29. Coronavirus Travel Research: 44% of Millennials Would Book with a Travel Agent in the Future [Internet]. Available online: https://www.advantagemembers.com/news-listing/coronavirus-travel-research-book-travel-agent.html (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  30. Perčić, K.; Spasić, N. How Millennials and Generation Z organise travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Menadzment u hotelijerstvu i turizmu 2021, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Morrone, D.; Tarulli, A.; Silvestri, R.; Santovito, S. Generation Z, tourism and hospitality: The legacy of COVID-19. Br. Food J. 2023, 126, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Uysal, D. Gen-Z’s Consumption Behaviours In Post-Pandemic Tourism Sector. J. Tour. Leis. Hosp. 2022, 4, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wendt, M.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Waage, E.R.H. A Break from Overtourism: Domestic Tourists Reclaiming Nature during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Tour. Hosp. 2022, 3, 788–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tănase, M.O.; Nistoreanu, P.; Dina, R.; Georgescu, B.; Nicula, V.; Mirea, C.N. Generation Z Romanian Students’ Relation with Rural Tourism—An Exploratory Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghadban, S.; Shames, M.; Arrage, J.A.; Fayyad, A.A. Rural tourism in Lebanon: What does the market reveal? Rev. Manag. Avenir 2017, 6, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cvijanović, D.; Pantović, D.; Đorđević, N. Transformation from urban to rural tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Serbia. In Proceedings of the Sustainabele Agriculture and Rural Development, Themanic Proceedings, Belgrad, Serbia, 17–18 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Polukhina, A.; Sheresheva, M.; Efremova, M.; Suranova, O.; Agalakova, O.; Antonov-Ovseenko, A. The Concept of Sustainable Rural Tourism Development in the Face of COVID-19 Crisis: Evidence from Russia. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Foris, D.; Bangala, S.I. Improving Leisure Services for Generation Z Tourists in Rural Destinations. Lucr. Științifice Manag. Agric. 2021, 23, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sitinjak, M.F.; Arief, M.; Kuncoro, E.A.; Hamsal, M. The impact of COVID-19 on millennial perceptions of experience quality and flow of experience and its influence on behavior intention to revisit a nature and rural destination (Case on Jakarta, Indonesia). In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Voluem 704, No. 1; p. 012030. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. National Institute of Statistics, Tempo Online. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 3 May 2024).
  42. Ruel, E.; Wagner, W.E., III; Gillespie, B.J. The Practice of Survey Research: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  43. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jollitte, I.T. Principal Component Analysis; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hair, J.F., Jr.; William, C.B.; Barry, J.B.; Rolph, R.A. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Smith, J.; Johnson, K. Exploring the Travel Preferences of Generation Z: A Socioeconomic Perspective. J. Millenn. Stud. 2023, 10, 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vera, N.; Chang, S. The indirect experiences of young adult tourists with hypothetical cultural festivals/events via Twitter and an official homepage amid COVID-19: Focusing on destination image. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022, 23, 100694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. García, M.J.; Chico, J.R.; Sánchez, A.R. Generation Z and Intention to Travel: Effects of the Perception of COVID-19. RIMCIS Rev. Int. Multidiscip. Cienc. Soc. 2023, 12, 40–68. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jones, A. Understanding the Travel Trends of Generation Z; Smith Travel Research (STR): Hendersonville, TN, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, X.; Li, Y. Exploring Young Chinese Travelers’ Attitudes Toward Cleanliness and Hygiene in Accommodations. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 375–390. [Google Scholar]
  53. Aina, A.O.; Alabi, O.J. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Kwazulu-natal generation Z attitude towards domestic tourism. Afr. J. Inter/Multidiscip. Stud. 2022, 4, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Twenge, J.M. More Time on Technology, Less Happiness? Associations Between Digital-Media Use and Psychological Well-Being. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pew Research Center. Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues. Pew Research Center. 2019. Available online: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PewGenZ.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2024).
  56. Wu, G.M.; Chen, S.R.; Xu, Y.H. Generativity and inheritance: Understanding Generation Z’s intention to participate in cultural heritage tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2023, 18, 465–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Barbe, D.; Neuburger, L. Generation Z and digital influencers in the tourism industry. In Generation Z Marketing and Management in Tourism and Hospitality; Stylos, N., Rahimi, R., Okumus, B., Williams, S., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 167–192. [Google Scholar]
  58. Haddouche, H.; Salomone, C. Generation Z and the tourist experience: Tourist stories and use of social networks. J. Tour. Futures 2018, 4, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dunne, F.D. Festival Feels: Exploring the Motivations of Generation Z Festival-Goers in Ireland. Event Manag. 2023, 27, 691–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Raggiotto, F.; Scarpi, D. Generation Z active sports tourism: A conceptual framework and analysis of intention to revisit. In Generation Z Marketing and Management in Tourism and Hospitality: The Future of the Industry; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 281–302. [Google Scholar]
  61. Süli, D.; Martyin-Csamangó, Z. The impact of social media in travel decision-making process among the Y and Z generations of music festivals in Vojvodina and Hungary. Turizam 2020, 24, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Overview of Romanian domestic tourism.
Table 1. Overview of Romanian domestic tourism.
Development
Region		Total Tourist
Arrivals (Number)		Tourist Arrivals in Agritourist
Guesthouses (Number)		Average Length of Stay in
Agritourist Guesthouses (Days)
North-West1,494,798244,2842.00
Centre2,645,097379,4732.05
North-East1,197,264212,6531.93
South-East1,782,43080,1052.11
South-Muntenia943,00491,4661.70
Bucuresti-Ilfov1,012,91436521.18
South-West
Oltenia		748,69790,1802.07
West9,824,20469,9771.81
Total1,494,7981,171,7901.85
Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents.
Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents.
CharacteristicsVariableFrequencies (%)
GenderFemale392 (67.2%)
Male171 (32.8%)
EducationHigh school125 (22.2%)
University degree438 (77.8%)
Income (RON/month)<4500239 (42.4%)
>4500324 (57.6%)
Children under 18 yearsYes296 (52.5%)
No267 (47.5%)
Table 3. Principal component analysis.
Table 3. Principal component analysis.
EigenvalueVariance %FactorItemFactor LoadingMeanSD
5.36534.978Sanitary and administrative
α = 0.881
Mean = 4.05
SD = 0.798		Sanitary measures in the accommodation units (S1)0.8114.110.964
Pandemic situation (S2)0.7764.250.948
COVID-19 insurance (S3)0.7244.001.051
Self-isolation at return (S4)0.7144.251.019
COVID-19 test (S5)0.6904.041.115
Sanitary and safety measures at the destination (S6)0.6684.160.920
Visa requirements (S7)0.6503.841.095
Health condition (S8)0.5934.210.961
1.29320.503Economic and social
α = 0.727
Mean = 3.56
SD = 0.879		Working schedule (E1)0.8033.531.240
Expenses (E2)0.7923.801.044
Income (E3)0.7633.661.095
Special offers (E4)0.4383.581.097
Total variance %55.481α = 0.884
Table 4. Comparing Gen Z and Gen Y.
Table 4. Comparing Gen Z and Gen Y.
CharacteristicsZ Generation Frequency (Percent)
(n = 180, 32.0%)		Y Generation Frequency (Percent)
(n = 383, 68.0%)		p-Value
Gender
Female118 (65.5%)274 (71.5%)>0.05
Male62 (34.5%)109 (38.5%)
Education
High school82 (45.5%)43 (11.2%)<0.05
University degree98 (54.6%)340 (88.8%)
Income (RON/month)
<4200108 (60.0%)131 (34.2%)<0.05
>420072 (40.0%)252 (65.8%)
Children
No104 (57.8%)163 (42.6%)<0.05
Yes76 (42.2%)220 (57.4%)
Domestic destination
No53 (29.4%)190 (49.6%)<0.05
Yes127 (70.6%)193 (50.4%)
International destination
No77 (42.7%)164 (42.8%)>0.05
Yes103 (57.3%)219 (57.2%)
Existence of festivals and fairs
No86 (47.7%)249 (65.0%)<0.05
Yes94 (52.3%)134 (35.0%)
Table 5. Comparative analysis of perceptions between the two groups.
Table 5. Comparative analysis of perceptions between the two groups.
VariableSanitary and AdministrativeEconomic and Social
Generation
Z generation3.96 ± 0.8483.68 ± 0.830
Y generations4.17 ± 0.6893.63 ± 0.872
p-valuep < 0.05p > 0.05
Education
High school3.83 ± 0.9733.54 ± 0.877
University degree4.18 ± 0.6523.67 ± 0.852
p-valuep < 0.05p > 0.05
Income
<42003.93 ± 0.8283.73 ± 0.842
>42004.23 ± 0.6583.58 ± 0.866
p-valuep < 0.05p < 0.05
Children
No4.09 ± 0.7053.66 ± 0.823
Yes4.12 ± 0.7873.63 ± 890
p-valuep > 0.05p > 0.05
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Poruțiu, A.R.; Brata, A.M.; Dumitras, D.E.; Oros, O.P.; Muresan, I.C. Understanding Romanian Generational Preferences and Travel Decision-Making When Choosing a Rural Destination. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104074

AMA Style

Poruțiu AR, Brata AM, Dumitras DE, Oros OP, Muresan IC. Understanding Romanian Generational Preferences and Travel Decision-Making When Choosing a Rural Destination. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Poruțiu, Andra Ramona, Anca Monica Brata, Diana E. Dumitras, Olivia Paula Oros, and Iulia C. Muresan. 2024. "Understanding Romanian Generational Preferences and Travel Decision-Making When Choosing a Rural Destination" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104074

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop