‘Should I Go or Should I Stay?’ Why Do Romanians Choose the Bulgarian Seaside for Their Summer Holiday?

Abstract

Until 2020, sea and sun destinations all over the world experienced a surge in the number of tourists, including those in Central and Eastern European countries. During and after the pandemic period, changes in the main source markets took place. Consequently, this paper aims to analyze the main reasons Romanian tourists choose a destination on the Romanian or Bulgarian seaside for their holiday, using semi-structured interviews with tourists and subsequently the narrative analysis technique. The results indicate that their reasons fall into four categories, namely: (i) hedonistic consumption (available products and services, amenities, and the physical environment); (ii) functional value (value for money, subsidies, quality of services, accessibility, and convenience); (iii) tourist hesitation (situational constraints and perceived risks); and (iv) social value. Additionally, based on their choices, we identified five main categories of tourists—two of them include tourists who travel to the Bulgarian resorts either due to the perceived higher quality of services or because it is the cheapest option, while the remaining three categories refer to tourists choosing the Romanian seaside. Implications for Romanian stakeholders are also discussed.

1. Introduction

The period 2010–2019 was considered a Golden Age for tourism, both globally and in Europe; in 2019, European destinations attracted over 51% of all tourist arrivals [1,2]. The same trend of a constant increase in the number of tourists was recorded for almost all countries, including Bulgaria and Romania, both at a national level and in the seaside resorts, in terms of domestic and international tourists. While the share of the European population aged 15 and over participating in tourism had been increasing for all countries until 2019, Romania remained in second to last place among the EU countries, with less than 30% of the population participating in tourism (29% in 2019, 27% in 2021 (Eurostat)); some 60% of the population is unable to afford to pay for a one week annual holiday, which is half of the average EU share. Moreover, the average expenditure of Romanian residents per night is among the lowest in the EU, at just above EUR 40/night, which is only half of the European average.

Nevertheless, the number of Romanians spending their holidays in domestic and outbound destinations has been continuously increasing, peaking at 11 million persons that spent at least one night in 2022 in a destination in Romania and 754,000 in Bulgaria. According to the official data published by the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, the number of Romanian tourists in Bulgaria for holiday and recreational purposes varied considerably between 2008 and 2022; however, apart from three years during this time span (2015, 2016, and 2017), Romania was always among the top three sending markets in terms of tourist arrivals for holiday and recreational purposes. For the last four years (2019–2022), Romania was ranked first, exceeding much stronger markets such as Germany, Turkey, Greece, or Ukraine.

The paper aims to analyze the main reasons for this considerable increase in the number of Romanians travelling to Bulgaria for recreational purposes and gauge their perception of the Romanian and Bulgarian seasides, emphasizing some implications for Romanian stakeholders.

As one of the study’s authors has been working for more than 20 years in a Romanian travel agency and continuously interacts with tourists, we started our research from the answers received from tourists in the last five years when the travel consultants advised about a holiday on the Romanian or Bulgarian seaside. This period overlapped with the application of the tourism support measure in Romania by granting holiday vouchers to employees by public institutions [3]. Therefore, we formulated two hypotheses that we decided to analyze in more detail in order to understand the opinions, expectations, and perceptions of Romanian tourists when choosing holidays and also to determine the pros and cons of the Romanian seaside in the eyes of potential tourists.

H1. 

The Bulgarian seaside can be described as the best value for money holiday for tourists on a tight budget.

This broad hypothesis was subdivided into three sub-hypotheses:

H1a. 

The Bulgarian Black Sea coast is the preferred choice for Romanian tourists who want an all-inclusive (A.I.) holiday at a seaside area not too far away.

H1b. 

More Romanians would choose the Bulgarian seaside for their holiday if they could.

H1c. 

There are also Romanians that avoid Bulgaria for various reasons.

H2. 

If the prices of tourist services in Romania were comparable to those in Bulgaria, Romanian tourists would choose a domestic holiday.

The paper aims to empirically contribute to tourist motivation studies and tourist behavior in a developing country, namely Romania. While most of the studies in the field explore tourists’ preferences for the world’s most popular destinations and their source markets, only few address a specific destination in the Central and Eastern European region, Romania and Bulgaria being among the countries that have been less researched so far. Also, there are few studies that focus on the choices of tourists on a tight budget.

The paper is structured as follows: first, we review work on tourism attractions and the factors influencing destination choice; then, we present the design of the survey, followed by a brief examination of Romanian and Bulgarian tourism development. The results are reported in the following section, highlighting the main factors influencing the vacation choice and the types of tourists based on their behavior. We end by discussing the implications for managers and local actors and drawing the main conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background

The competitiveness of a destination should take into account the characteristics of the demand and the quality of the various services provided. Fundamental elements for a competitive destination are the ability of the local tourism industry and the relevant governing bodies to cooperate as a driving force to sustain the destination [4].

Tourism attractions, a fundamental element for tourism, are considered elements of “non-home” places that draw travelers away from their homes and include landscapes, activities to participate in, and experiences to remember [5]. The concept of attractiveness for a tourism destination has been intensively studied [6], and the current literature defines it as a bundle of tourism facilities and services [7] that attracts visitors or leads them to choose that destination [8,9]. Attractiveness is considered a measure of the ability to attract tourists, an element that significantly influences the competitiveness of a destination [10]. Moreover, the fact that destinations represent an amalgam of services, such as accommodation, transportation, attractions, entertainment, recreation, and food services provides the means to compete effectively and profitably in the marketplace, but it is also a challenge [11]. Therefore, competitiveness is the ability to provide goods and services to tourists better than others do [12,13]. In order to remain competitive, destinations need to be aware of both the demand and supply factors [14,15]. While the traditional concept of competitiveness focused on the economic dimensions of destinations, Ritchie and Crouch showed that economic performance is only one aspect, and a more comprehensive definition refers to the ability to increase tourism expenditure at the same time as offering satisfaction and a memorable holiday to an increasing number of tourists, a state of wellbeing for residents, and the preservation of nature for future generations [16].

It is of utmost importance for tourism destinations throughout the world to understand the motives of prospective tourists in order to develop the exact aspects that would enhance tourists’ experience [17]; hence, a lot of research has focused on this topic. The destination choice is ‘a continuous process where thinking, dreaming, talking about vacations, and gathering information is ongoing’ [18]. When tourists consider purchasing a holiday, they usually follow a sequential process, starting with motivation (either travelling to a cultural destination or a recreational one). Choosing the holiday destination takes precedence over other decisions in the holiday planning process [19].

From the tourist’s point of view, the choice of a holiday destination is driven by attractions, the previous satisfaction regarding a destination, the tourist’s expectations, the destination image, the distance from home, interactions between tourists and residents, and not last by the tourist’s expenditure [3]. Income is a key external factor that affects all phases of the decision-making process for choosing a tourism destination, except for the first one—need awareness, with the need to travel being independent from the income level [20]. As proven by Djeri et al. [20], the monthly income of tourists severely impacts their purchase decision: while tourists with low incomes rank the price itself and means of payments as being crucial for choosing a particular destination, tourists with medium incomes focus on unplanned purchases, e.g., recommendations for additional purchases or promotions, with the prior buying prices definitely influencing the subsequent unplanned buying intentions during a trip [21]. Moreover, in families with low income, with non-working or part-time wives, women are the information seekers for determining the holiday destination [19].

Individual sociodemographic characteristics also have a significant influence on the perceptions of a destination’s personality and image [22]. Once the holiday has taken place, this experience modifies the perceptions of a particular destination and its image [23]. Overall trip satisfaction will definitely influence repetition behavior, both in the case of satisfied and dissatisfied tourists [24], who will also share their experience recommending various destinations based on good experiences and satisfaction with a destination [25]. Hence, word of mouth (WOM) is another key influencer regarding the choice of destination [25,26,27], with information and referrals from friends and relatives considerably empowering consumers [27].

The size of the traveling party has gained momentum and has forced tourism marketers and destination managers to adapt the family resort industry. During the last two decades, the family travel market, while expanding, has changed considerably, the focus shifting from rest and relaxation to the opportunity to reunite with family members [28], improving communication among family members, and creating memories that enhance family cohesion [29]. Families are currently the target for consumer markets, since they are ‘the most important consumption unit’ [19]. Moreover, families and couples have proven to be among the tourists that often choose to revisit a particular place, creating the highest linkages with destinations [24]. The frequency of revisiting a place is dependent on the sociodemographic characteristics (age, income, and employment status) as well as tourists’ satisfaction and expectations [30]. Escape, relaxation, and entertainment are among the most important push factors for leisure travel; in this instance, many tourists prefer tourist resorts [31].

Apart from all of these aspects, every environment could have some security risks, and tourist locations are no exception; tourists are outsiders, and the places intended for them should focus on security and minimalization of risks [5]. In most cases, security incidents from a travel destination are translated into travel decisions [32]. Even if the number of incidents in a given period of time is not high or the main crime is theft, the media use the incidents as news generators, and the information could create a negative image among potential tourists.

Due to globalization, apart from all these aspects, the prospective holidaymaker must also choose between a domestic or a foreign destination, the main variable influencing this choice being the purchasing power of the tourists [23]. The last years have proved, once again, that external factors, such as pandemics and military conflicts, severely affect tourism flows and destinations throughout the world, limiting the choices and freedom of movement of people in general and tourists in particular [33,34,35,36,37].

3. Materials and Methods

In order to determine what encourages or discourages Romanian tourists from choosing between the two coastal areas, we considered it appropriate to apply the semi-structured interview technique [38], a versatile, flexible, and powerful qualitative research method [34,39,40,41,42], We started the series of interviews with tourists at the same time as the start of sales for the 2023 tourist season in travel agencies, from October 2022, when early booking sales began, to June 2023. During this time, more than 100 tourists agreed to take part in this survey when they requested offers or further information in the travel agency. We used a purposive sample [38], a non-random sampling technique, including people who had in mind either a seaside holiday in a destination not too far away, accessible by car, or an all-inclusive holiday with low prices, or tourists who were loyal to at least one of the destinations.

A comprehensive questionnaire was used to survey 112 tourists, covering aspects regarding their opinion about the economic aspects, facilities, core attractions, products and services, satisfaction, intention, and previous experiences or impediments for a holiday abroad, the relevance of the means of transport between the residence place and the seaside area, and about the improvements they would consider necessary on the Romanian seaside to increase its competitiveness. Another aspect of the questionnaire dealt with the main source of information/inspiration in choosing the summer holiday. Sociodemographic data were also collected (age, education, employment—blue collar/white collar jobs, and marital status (single/married/with or without children)). Apart from this last section, all the others included open-ended questions. The discussions with the respondents were conducted in the Romanian language, as all the respondents were Romanians. The sociodemographic characteristics are presented in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

Age (Years)		Occupation		Income (EUR/Month)
18–24	14%	blue collar job	28%	≤800	54%
25–34	9.5%	white collar job	46%	800–900 (national average)	38%
35–44	15%	students	14%
45–64	49%	retired	12%	>1000	8%
65 and over	12.5%

(Source: authors’ own calculations, based on interviews).

.

The interviews were conducted at a travel agency from Craiova city, Romania, by one of the authors, and they were transcribed after the talks for further analysis [43]. Subsequently, we analyzed them using thematic analysis, which is the most frequent research method in tourism research for the interpretation of interview transcripts [44]; the findings of qualitative research give a richly detailed picture of the studied phenomenon [45,46]. In order to identify the major themes, we followed the standard procedure [47,48,49]. During the first step, the transcripts were read in order to familiarize ourselves with the text, and some preliminary thoughts were written downs. Then, we thoroughly read again, twice, for coding, checking for recurring words, ideas, patterns, repetitions, contradictions, and regularities. During the third step, we identified the basic themes considering the codes (such as products and services/core attractions, economic factors, constraints, and social value), which later on, after cutting and sorting, provided four major themes. The research process is briefly summarized in Figure 1.

The limitations of the method used included the following: although the people interviewed belong to various socioeconomic categories and overlapped all age categories, interviewing tourists of a single travel agency could bias the sample and impinge the generalizability of the findings regarding the options of Romanian tourists. For the accuracy of the overall image, the study should also be carried out in tourism agencies from other regions of the country. Moreover, for the accuracy of the overall image, further studies should also target tourists that spend their vacation in either country but book their holiday online without resorting to a travel agency.

4. Romanian Versus Bulgarian Seacoast—An Overview

The comparison of tourism development and the attractiveness of the Black Sea coastline in the two neighboring countries (Figure 2) has been approached in many studies during the post-communist period, after the political and economic changes of 1989 triggered the transition from a centralized economy to a market one [50].

While hotels were built in both countries towards the end of the 19th century, the proper development of the hotel industry had an earlier start and faster growth in Romania, compared to Bulgaria, where it expanded only after the 1960s [51]. Communists recognized tourism as an instrument for propaganda and also for obtaining economic benefits; so, both countries heavily invested in tourism infrastructure, mostly on the Black Sea coast, building both smaller and large resorts. In Romania, during 1960–1968, nine new tourist resorts and two youth camps were built, and improvement works were carried on in older resorts on the Romanian Black Sea Coast, making this the largest space-planning project ever undertaken in Romania [52], while in Bulgaria there were 20 resorts. The large scale tourism projects along the Black Sea provided cheap and subsidized accommodation mainly for industrial workers and their families [53], while also allowing domestic and foreign tourists to ‘lead a new lifestyle that served perfectly to escape the pressures of everyday life and political ideologies (be they communist or capitalist)’ [54].

Beginning with the early 1970s, the Romanian coastal resorts were quite popular among the nationals of other CEE countries (mainly Czechoslovaks), as well as among Western Europeans, for whom it offered a less expensive alternative to Greece and Spain [50], until the 1980s, when international tourism drastically decreased. Meanwhile, Bulgaria was the typical sea, sun, and sand destination beginning in the 1960s, rising as the most prominent foreign destination within COMECON countries until the 1980s, with vacations on the Black Sea coast being the most popular [55]. Nevertheless, before the fall of communism (1988), Romania reported some 5.5 million international tourist arrivals, outnumbered only by Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the former Yugoslavia and similar to the entire former Soviet Union [53]. However, in 1990, Romania and the former Yugoslavia were the only countries in the Eastern bloc that registered a decrease in the number of international tourists by 27% in Romania in this year alone, and this trend continued throughout the entire decade; Bulgaria registered an increase of almost 13% in 1990 [53], and after a period of a slowdown, stagnation, and regression, it emerged as a popular destination within the southeastern part of Europe, regaining its former foreign markets and gaining new ones, such as Romania.

Starting with the privatization of accommodation structures in the post-communist period, the solution seems to be the model used by Bulgaria, where investors purchased not only hotels but also restaurants and other related facilities, in order to offer tourists complete services. The faster privatization of the accommodation structures on the Bulgarian coast during the post-communist period, compared to the Romanian area, was a factor that offered increased competitiveness to the Bulgarian area. Bulgaria also faced several years of halting privatization, but in the end, the investment and construction boom from the late 1990s forced the privatization process also, ‘altering the face of holiday resorts and tourism architecture in Bulgaria’ [56]. Privatization reached its peak during the 1997–2000 period, and by 2007, all tourism assets underwent privatization deals, usually the privatization and renovation of units taking place within a 5-year maximum timeframe [57], while in Romania, although the privatization process of tourism assets began as early as 1991, in 2007, only 84% of the hotels in the country were privately owned [51]; this number also included the newly built ones. Another great advantage of Bulgaria was the attraction of German investors, who allocated sufficient funds to invest in old hotels or build new ones [58]. The development of 3–4–5-star accommodation structures on the Bulgarian coast, with higher quality standards, compared to the direction of accommodation structures on the Romanian coast towards 2–3 stars, often characterized by a dubious quality of services [59], together with not so clean beaches, a lack of entertainment facilities, and the poor quality of services outside hotels [60] were other factors affecting the image of the Romanian resorts while also increasing the attractiveness of the Bulgarian coast for Romanians. The Bulgarian government also helped the diversification of accommodation types by passing a law for an official classification of types of hotels, allowing the formations of aparthotels, spas, condo hotels, and holiday villages [61]. The predominance of all-inclusive services on the Bulgarian coast, which cover all the necessities of a holiday, exempting tourists from other expenses at the destination, was a novelty for Romanian tourists used to going to the Romanian coast, even more so as Bulgaria is recognized for its low tariffs in terms of tourist services. In addition, the southern Bulgarian coast, up to the border with Turkey, offers a more extended season, from a climatic point of view, compared to the Romanian coast, located further north.

A greater flexibility on the labor market, with a higher number of employees on a fixed-period or part-time job in the peak season and a more efficient organization could be considered another factor of the more intense competitiveness in the Bulgarian sector versus the Romanian sector of the Black Sea [62,63]. Moreover, the government thought to target the specific foreign sending countries during the communist period and in the early 1990s, namely Hungary, Germany, the Czech Republic [64], and Turkey.

Romania is an accessible destination for foreign tourists, in terms of the rates for accommodation services, public catering or airport taxes, ranking third at the European level, after Bulgaria, which is considered the absolute leader, and Poland, situated in second place [59,65,66].

A main factor of the tourist industry development is the general transport infrastructure, especially the air infrastructure [59]; the Bulgarian coastal sector is approximately 380 km long and benefits from two airports (Varna and Burgas), ensuring access for European tourists through regular direct flights and charters. The Romanian sector of the Black Sea coast has a length of approximately 245 km and only one airport catering for it (Constanta), with the only direct flights being to Istanbul and London.

Poor visibility and communication in the online environment in the case of Romanian hotels on the Black Sea coast are considered among the possible causes of a lower Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) in Romania versus the one in Bulgaria [67]. Costea et al. [68] argued that the difference in positioning on the scale of the TTCI index is due to the greater openness of tourism operators in Bulgaria to online services, referring to the translation of websites into several languages (English and Russian or Romanian), promotion on social media networks, and the design and functionality of the websites.

In 2022, Bulgaria had 19 “Blue Flag” certified beach sectors, whereas Romania had only six, with their promotion adding another advantage to the Bulgarian coast [69,70].

Due to a faster and timely privatization of facilities, a much better development strategy, and the promotion of coastal tourism, Bulgaria not only outranked Romania in international rankings but also turned Romania into a supplier of tourists for the Bulgarian coast, a disadvantage represented by the very short distance for Romanians to the resorts in Bulgaria [71].

Comparisons between Bulgaria and Romania were also made regarding the contribution of tourism to economic growth at the national level, the development of the tourist image and national brands [72], tourist seasonality in the coastal sector of the two countries [73], sustainability tourism potential [74], and the legislative framework in the field of business and tourism [75]. Cheap tourist services have been identified as Bulgaria’s strongest competitive advantage in the country’s strategy for the sustainable development of tourism [64].

5. Results

Our sample of respondents was made up mainly by tourists whose income was around the average net wage (EUR 850/month) in Romania (38%), with 54% earning below the average wage, and persons with higher income accounting for less than 8% of the sample. Generally, persons with a higher income chose different destinations for their holidays and only seldomly Bulgaria.

5.1. Main Motives

In order to understand Romanians’ preference for the Bulgarian seaside, the questions were focused on the economic factors (budget, tariff comparison, value for money, and subsidies), previous experiences and hence the satisfaction and intention to revisit, and other pull factors (facilities, core attractions, products and services, condition of the hotel buildings, diversity and quality of food, parking spaces, hotel swimming pools, playgrounds, beach areas, kindness and professionalism of the staff, entertainment possibilities for young people, tourist sights, and interaction with other tourists, hotel staff, and residents).

The thematic analysis of their answers indicated four higher level themes (Figure 3). The first category, which we termed ‘hedonistic consumption’ was related to the available products and services, amenities, on-site activities offered by the destination, and the qualities of the physical environment, proving once again that a considerable amount of consumption is hedonistic in the hospitality and tourism industry [76,77]. An overwhelming majority of the interviewees appreciated the all-inclusive system, as it allowed them to indulge (namely the food and beverage options, the availability of meals throughout the day, and no time lost for ordering and then waiting for the food to arrive). Among the advantages highlighted repeatedly by tourists regarding the Bulgarian coast, we mention: ‘the surface of the rooms is larger’, ‘the meal services are more diversified’, ‘a greater confidence in food preparation’, ‘cleaner beaches’, ‘sea water without algae’, ‘the existence of swimming pools in most hotels’, and ‘better maintained resorts overall’.

The second theme, called ‘functional value’, was equally present in all the answers given by the tourists. Not surprisingly, price was at the forefront of this category, either relating to the value for money or to subsidies offered by the government together with quality of services offered by the accommodation unit and the destination and the destination accessibility and convenience. All the interviewees who had previously spent their holidays both in Romania and Bulgaria pointed out that not only were there better facilities and on-site activities available for tourists along the Bulgarian cost, but the rates were, without question, lower in Bulgaria than in Romania at hotels of the same category. The possibility offered by many hotels from the Bulgarian seaside regarding the all-inclusive system, in which most of the holiday expenses are known from the very beginning and paid before departure, attracted tourists with an average income. Thus, they avoided too many additional expenses that might incur at the destination, especially in the case of families with children. Even in connection to the additional expenses incurred during a holiday, such as children’s toys or souvenirs, those who chose Bulgaria mentioned “the prices are lower’, and they do ‘not feel cheated by the merchants”.

For families with more children, another advantage offered by the Bulgarian coast is the development of apart-hotels, allowing for enough room for a family with two children, while paying a lower price. In Romania, and especially on the seaside, this type of facility is very recent (the first one being certified in 2010) and scarce. Moreover, most of the hotels on the Romanian seaside, even if they have been completely renovated, have kept the structure of the rooms from the communist period, with few apartments on a floor, and these are intended for tourists who want a more luxurious accommodation space (for two people), not for families with children.

For some tourists, situational constraints (such as the language barrier or the possibility of a health emergency) and the perceived risks at the destination (theft) were a major concern, considerably influencing their choice. The elements that did not encourage them to choose Bulgaria referred to the following: insufficient parking spaces at the hotel or being fined for various traffic violations, in addition to cases of car theft from hotel parking and robberies that can occur while crossing Bulgaria and stopping to refuel or get something to eat, which were presented in the media in the past. The fear of not being able to communicate, not knowing a foreign language, or possible medical emergencies in a foreign country were also high on the list. Other inconveniences mentioned by tourists regarding traveling abroad were ‘the difficulty of using another currency for on-the-spot expenses’, getting to the destination, in Romania being able to choose rail transport’ and also ‘a lot of time spent at customs, for border control, during high season’. However, not all the interviewed tourists that traveled to the neighboring county were hindered by not being able to speak a different language.

The holidays also had a social value attached, either from the point of view of spending time with family and friends or interacting with other tourists, fellow peers, and staff from the various facilities at the destination. Almost two thirds of the interviewees spent their holidays together with family or friends; so, in many instances, the choice of the destination was sort of a ‘group decision’ based on the functional value. Some of the tourists emphasized ‘the prompt intervention of the Bulgarian staff when requested’, the fact that they ‘felt welcomed’ in Bulgaria, and others also remarked that some of the staff from the hotel reception or restaurants knew some basic words and short sentences in Romanian, which definitely added to the feeling of being valued as a tourist. There were also a few cases when tourists chose a Bulgarian destination because their friends went there, and they preferred to spend time together and have fun, with the group and the company being more important than the characteristics of the destination itself.

5.2. Types of Tourists

A close inspection of the choices and sociodemographic characteristics of our sample allowed us to identify five main categories of tourists (Figure 4) that also validated our first hypothesis, namely:

• Tourists who choose the Bulgarian seaside due to the superior standard of services. This category had the largest representation at 38% of those interviewed; it was especially made up by families with children, 25–55 years old, and generally college graduates with white-collar jobs.
• Tourists who chose the Bulgarian seaside as it was the cheapest option for accommodation and meals. These tourists represented 31% of those interviewed, and they belong to all age categories, confirming the low willingness to spend of the Romanians visiting Bulgaria [64].

These two categories testified to the validity of H1, namely that the Bulgarian seaside can be described as the best value for money holiday, offering the most advantageous combination of cost and quality for low- and middle-income tourists [59].

3.

Tourists who chose the Romanian seaside, even if they would prefer the Bulgarian cost. These were mainly employees of public institutions who went on vacation in Bulgaria in the past and now receive holiday vouchers that can only be used in an authorized accommodation structure in Romania. This category represented 16% of the interviewed tourists, people aged between 25 and 64 years old, either single or families with one or more children; they would have preferred a holiday in Bulgaria, but since they can afford only one summer vacation, they chose the Romanian seaside, with part of the holiday being subsidized by the holiday vouchers. This category confirmed hypothesis H1b, that more Romanians would choose the Bulgarian seaside for their holiday if they could. However, due to the stipulations of the Romanian legislation for the use of holiday vouchers and their limited income, they spent their only holiday on the Romanian seaside. They generally chose budget or mid-range hotels, with breakfast only, and the rest of the meal expenses were paid on the spot.

4.

Tourists who choose the Romanian seaside considering that there were impediments to choosing Bulgaria or that the Bulgarian seaside was not even attractive, at 9% of the total. In this category, we included tourists who considered Bulgaria risky because of the car thefts and robberies presented in the media [78,79,80], tourists who did not travel abroad due to not knowing a foreign language or who foresaw a difficulty in using a foreign currency or means of transport to another country, and those who categorized the Bulgarian seaside as intended only for mass tourism, not seeing its attractiveness. This category was in line with hypothesis H1c, but it should be noted that only a small number of Romanian tourists (accounting for just 9% of the interviewed persons) supported this finding.

5.

Young people who definitely preferred the Romanian seaside. This category accounted for only 6% from the total number of tourists interviewed, and they overlapped the 18–24 age group, who were single and generally students. They chose the Romanian seaside for the entertainment possibilities in the youth resorts (Vama Veche and Costinesti, which are well known in Romania for targeting particularly this demographic) and for the chance to interact more easily with other young people. They did not know the equivalent resorts, dedicated to young people, in Bulgaria. The fact that they also benefited from subsidized rail transportation (those who were in high school could travel for free, no matter the distance, while college students had a 50% discount of the total price with another 5 to 10% discount for group travel) also added to the appeal of the Romanian resorts. However, in reality, the share of this group may be higher, since young people rarely rely on travel agencies for booking their holiday.

Regarding H2, ‘If the prices of tourist services in Romania were comparable to those in Bulgaria, Romanian tourists would choose a domestic holiday’, the interviewed tourists did not confirm it, many of them complaining not only about the high tariffs but also about the rigidity of the hotel staff on the Romanian seaside, the hotel aspect, and the unsatisfactory maintenance of the resorts.

Another question addressed to tourists was related to the way of informing about holidays, and among the most common answers were: “from discussions with friends/colleagues”, which proved that the experiences that tourists have during a holiday influence not only their future choices but also those of their acquaintances, by word-of-mouth promotion.

When they were asked about their opinion regarding the improvements that the Romanian seaside should make in order to be more competitive, all tourists, both those who preferred the Romanian seaside and those who chose to travel abroad, most frequently mentioned ‘the interaction of the staff from the resorts with the tourists’ and ‘the increase in the standards of accommodation and meal conditions’. Other opinions aimed at a better development of the railway infrastructure towards the resorts from the south of the seaside or increasing the number of parks and green spaces in the resorts.

A thorough review of the accommodation tariffs (including meals) available with tour operators for both study areas pointed without a doubt to the lower prices of holiday packages in Bulgaria for similar facilities. Thus, during high season, an all-inclusive holiday for two persons for 5 days exceeded EUR 1300 in Romania at a 4-star hotel, while in Bulgaria, the same package for a similar accommodation facility could be purchased for prices beginning at EUR 1000, depending on the resort, the location of the hotel (distance to the beach), and the beach services it offered. A similar gap price existed for the 3-star hotels. Moreover, on the Romanian seaside there are less than 10 hotels, located in just some of the resorts offering all-inclusive packages, mostly in Eforie Nord, Mamaia, and Venus, while all the resorts in Bulgaria have this offer, and in some resorts (e.g., Golden Sands and Sunny Beach), as many as 20 hotels have all-inclusive deals. All the interviewed persons that purchased a holiday on the Bulgarian seaside opted for an all-inclusive stay. In fact, throughout the years, all the clients of this travel agency have only been interested in the A.I. system, which is the best option for tourists on a lower tight budget. The advantages of such a vacation mainly reside in the fixed price of the holiday, as many of these tourists spend little to no money while on vacation in the resort apart from the expenses incurred by transportation. Since the costs of accommodation, meals, treats, and beverages are already covered, and the transportation costs can be estimated, tourists know from the very beginning the cost of their holiday and to what extent they can afford it. Moreover, since the A.I. system implies buffet style meals; there is no need to speak a foreign language, as they can choose whatever they like from the display. This aspect was emphasized by many tourists who do not speak English or any other foreign language for that matter. The fact that everything is ready to be served, and there is no need to place an order and then wait for it is also a plus. Unrestricted access to beverages throughout the day, at the hotel restaurant, pool bar, and sometimes beach bar depending on the hotel, for coffee, refreshments, and alcoholic drinks, even though mostly local and not international brands, are also appreciated by the interviewed tourists.

There were also tourists who acknowledged that not everything was perfect on the Bulgarian seaside, with most complaints relating to the diversity/quality of food and beverages, the busy facilities and the noisy tourists late into the night, and large crowds of tourists; however, on the whole, they would rather visit the neighboring country. Also, there were some cases when they were disappointed by either the Romanian/Bulgarian destination and decided to switch the next year and try the other country.

6. Discussion

Discussions held with tourists interested in a seaside holiday easily accessible by car firstly revealed an imbalance of rates on the two neighboring seaside areas, which directed Romanian tourists towards the Bulgarian seaside, especially those interested in all-inclusive services. Additionally, the general services offered on the Romanian seaside were perceived by tourists to be of a lower quality compared to the services offered by the hotels in the neighboring country, and neither the involvement of the authorities in the development of tourist attractions or public spaces in the resorts compensated for these disadvantages. Furthermore, Romanian tourists require a higher degree of professionalism in the attitude of workers in hotels, restaurants, beaches, and resorts overall.

Nevertheless, there were tourists who saw inconveniences in a holiday on the Bulgarian seaside and chose a domestic holiday. Not all tourists aimed for an all-inclusive stay, as in the case of young people. An advantage that young people benefit from is the free or partially subsidized rail transport in Romania, thus significantly reducing the total cost of a Romanian seaside holiday for this category of people. However, in order to attract as many young people as possible, the authorities must facilitate the development of more events or an attractive environment in more resorts [81,82,83]. Seniors in Romania benefit from similar facilities in terms of rail transport services, being a category of consumers who would have advantages to choose a domestic holiday. “Senior Holidays” with special rates, generally applicable in the low season [84], are not very familiar on the Romanian seaside, especially since the weather does not allow a too extensive season [59]. However, a type of program with lower tariffs, “The Seaside for All”, has been promoted in Romania for many years and is available in the months of June and September, accessible to all categories of tourists.

In addition to the category of young tourists for whom the Romanian seaside presents some appealing elements, Romanian resorts should also target tourists from the 45+ age group, highlighting melancholic elements [85], as these resorts represent youth holidays for these age categories. For the mature and senior tourists, familiarity, both informational (language proficiency and culture acquaintance) and experiential, has a great impact on the destination image [86] that stakeholders must capitalize on.

The hotels that offer all-inclusive services on the Romanian seaside are relatively few and have high prices, representing an attraction for families with children, included in the 25–44 age groups, but suitable only for tourists with high incomes. The “light all-inclusive” programs, which have recently appeared at Romanian hotels, could be a slightly more accessible solution for families with children.

Created with the aim of protection against erosion in the coastal area, the Program for Widening the Beaches on the Romanian Coast [87], which started in 2014 and will continue until 2026, has generated several disadvantages for tourists and another bad image element for the Romanian seaside; the distance between the hotels’ line and sea has increased significantly, the traditional fine sand in most of the resorts has been replaced by a coarse one, mixed in some places with shells, with the entrance to the sea no longer keeping its smooth line. These deficiencies could possibly be compensated by very good organization, which would be possible only through a good collaboration of the hotels and the institution that manages the beaches. Since the beach is much wider now, a segment of the beach could be allocated for most of the hotels in the resort, which would be an element of attraction for tourists, if they had services included on the beach, regardless of where the hotel is located in the resort. Promoting and increasing the number of Blue Flag beaches would also improve the situation [88].

Considering similar approaches in various destinations throughout the worlds, together with their outcomes and sometimes drawbacks, the following policy recommendation for the Romanian seaside, for both hotel managers and public authorities have been outlined:

■

The experience of some tourist regions, where the natural landscape is not the main attraction (Bulgarian seaside, Antalya), has shown that the all-inclusive system is a solution for a better capitalization on the tourism infrastructure; if the all-inclusive system proves to be profitable only for large hotels [89], the smaller hotels could offer the ’light all-inclusive’ option, in which the variety of food products is somewhat lower and which allows the exclusion of some alcoholic beverages, thus being able to be implemented with lower costs.

■

Early booking sales combined with all-inclusive services offer an advantage both for the accommodation structures, which receive money in advance, and can plan their supply flow much better knowing quite precisely the occupancy rate but also for tourists, who benefit from a lower price if they pay or book their holiday a few months in advance.

■

The all-inclusive system presents both advantages and disadvantages for stakeholders involved in the tourism industry, but it could offer Romanian tourists a higher standard of meal services, eliminating the consumption at public food establishments with questionable quality, which could also contribute to a positive shift in perception.

■

The partial renovations of the hotel buildings, carried out before the start of each season, would lead to an increased satisfaction of the tourists.

■

In addition to the greater interest that the local authorities must give to the development of public spaces in resorts (parks, promenade areas, and beaches), partnerships between local authorities and accommodation structures could also include the improvement of the public areas transited through by tourists from the hotel to the beach.

■

Facilitation by the public authorities of the creation and development of more events (festivals, sports, gastronomic and cinematographic events, and temporary exhibitions) and the involvement of hotels in sponsoring the events could lead both to higher occupancy rates and to the possibility of higher revenues (prices higher) during these events.

■

Not least, a sincere and fair promotion of the accommodation structures (presentation of the year of total/partial renovation, room size, meals, and entertainment descriptions) will lead to an increase in the degree of trust for the repeat tourists.

Many of the Bulgarian resorts chosen by Romanians to spend their summer holiday are dependent on international mass tourism for their survival, as proven by their design, the services offered and marketing plan, displaying features of tourist enclaves to some extent (facilities that comply with international standards, local dishes adapted for international tourists, staged folklore shows, and sanitized expressions of local culture) [90].

The findings in the current study are in line with the previous literature on Bulgaria as a destination for sun, sea, and sand with low package prices [90,91]. However, the lower prices coupled with perceived better quality of accommodation facilities compensate for the overcrowding and the ‘concrete jungle’ of the main resorts, such as Sunny Beach, where the beach availability reaches only 0.4 m²/visitor [92]. While few people outside the EU think of Bulgaria as a tourist destination, and increasingly fewer Westerners choose Bulgaria as their destination [93], Romanians have targeted the neighboring country for the last two decades and have begun descending en mass following the pandemic. They value the product attributes (amenities, standard of rooms, and customer service) as well as the price–quality relationship and entertainment possibilities, just like their Polish and Hungarian counterparts [64,94]. In this respect, price is the key factor for the buying decision process and relates not only to the lump sum the tourists pay but also to the access to a variety of facilities, attributes, and characteristics that contribute to the overall experience [95].

7. Conclusions

The present study aimed to assess the perception of Romanian tourists interested in a summer holiday accessible by car, comparatively analyzing the interest for the Romanian and Bulgarian seasides of the Black Sea.

The answers of the 112 interviewed tourists confirmed the first hypothesis of the study, with 38% of them choosing the Bulgarian seaside due to the perceived better quality of the services. In this respect, they referred to the room space in the accommodation structures, the building maintenance, the facilities included like swimming pools, umbrellas and sunbeds at the beach and pools, the beach bars, the quality of meals in restaurants, the sea front and beach areas, public areas from resorts, and also the attitude and professionalism of the resort employees. Another category of tourists, representing 31% of those interviewed would choose the Bulgarian coast, their target being a low-budget holiday with meals included, excluding as much as possible other additional expenses related to the holiday. The “all-inclusive system” is a concept that most hotels on the Bulgarian seaside offer, compared to Romania, where accommodation with breakfast or a half-board system prevails. The second hypothesis of the study, i.e., if prices for the holidays were similar for the Romanian and Bulgarian seaside destinations, Romanians would choose a domestic holiday, was not validated by the answers of the interviewed tourists, many of them pointing to the fact that price, while very important, is not the only factor affecting tourist choice.

For the Romanian seaside, it is probably difficult now to keep up with the developments already achieved in the years that have passed since the fall of communism on the Bulgarian seaside, but it should, at least, not neglect the young generation that chooses the Romanian seaside for various reasons and improve the attractions for this group of consumers. It has been proven from our study that young people choose their holiday based on other aspects, such as the probability of interaction with other tourists, the free or subsidized transport to the destination, and the entertainment possibilities. In addition to young people, the study revealed the fact that there are other categories of tourists who would choose the Romanian seaside, those who perceive Bulgaria as a somewhat risky destination, the difficulties of communication and payment in a foreign country, the advantage of transport in Romania, or tourists who prefer luxury hotels on the Romanian seaside, even if they are few and expensive. Moreover, the existence of holiday vouchers offered by state institutions to their employees and also by some private companies that can only cover the costs for holidays in Romania should also help business owners to diversify their services and improve their quality.

Through this study, we propose to raise an alarm signal regarding the loss of a consistent segment of the market for the Romanian seaside and its migration to the neighboring country, to highlight the reasons that determine this shift, and at the same time, the opportunities that must be exploited in Romania. For the Romanian seaside to thrive, following the principles of sustainable development, all stakeholders, be it planning authorities, private investors, or local communities, must understand what draws tourists to a particular destination and, most of all, what the reasons for repeat visitation are, so that they can accommodate the needs and requests of domestic tourists. The results of the study offer a better understanding of tourist behavior from a sociodemographic perspective, assessing the main factors in the decision-making process, that should help DMO find solutions for price strategies and enhance the appeal of their tourism offerings. Although the findings of the current study focus on Romanians’ choices, they are relevant for other European countries as well. First, since there are several countries with high shares of the population that cannot afford one week’s holiday, a less expensive destination can be an important opportunity and incentive to travel, given tailored programs. Second, understanding tourist behavior is valuable for tourism planners who should tailor and market tourism packages and products according to the needs and preferences of low- and middle-income tourists.

A suggestion for further study is to focus on the choices of the Romanian tourists that spend their vacation in Bulgaria but book online their holiday, as their experiences might be different and could have other perspectives or constraints. There is also a need for a deeper analysis regarding to what extent the all-inclusive facility factors in tourists’ choice of a particular destination.