Changes in Tourists’ Perceptions of Community-Based Ecotourism (CBET) After COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study on the Country of Origin and Economic Development Level

Abstract

(1) Background: This study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in Romania and Spain, taking into account country of origin and economic development. In order to provide insights for sustainable tourism development and policymaking, this study aims to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced tourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in Romania and Spain, taking into account differences in country of origin and economic development. (2) Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 703 ecotourists (353 Romanian, 350 Spanish). (3) Results: The results show statistically significant differences between the two countries regarding the perception of ecotourism principles, information sources and preferred activities. For example, Romanians showed stronger agreement with ecotourism’s positive contribution to local communities and minimal environmental impact than Spaniards (p < 0.01 for EP3, EP4 and EP6). Significant correlations were found between specific ecotourism elements and preferred activities within each country, highlighting different preferences. Multilinear regression analysis showed that gender and region of origin significantly predicted perceptions of the role of ecotourism in biodiversity conservation for Spain. (4) Conclusions: Policy recommendations include targeted awareness campaigns, increased community involvement and cross-cultural collaboration to promote sustainable CBET development. This comparative study fills a gap in CBET research by contrasting perceptions in Eastern and Western European countries with different levels of economic development.

1. Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism industry was most affected due to mobility restrictions. However, people still wanted to travel and looked for viable solutions away from overcrowded areas for travel. One of these solutions was ecotourism, sometimes in destinations near residential places and sometimes in well-known ecotourism destinations, which are a favorite type of tourism for getting out in nature—so necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tourism tour operators were forced, after the COVID-19 pandemic, to rethink most of their offers, but to sell to tourists after this time requires the need to know whether tourists’ preferences have really changed. Ecotourism, in our opinion, was a good response to (or even the opposite) all virtual and online activities (working, learning, shopping, etc.) developed during the pandemic. Ecotourism is a complex and efficient type of tourism, as it is a promoter of educating people in the spirit of nature conservation, in being more attentive to nature, and in protecting fauna; it also instills in tourists a respect for nature and educates in the spirit of preserving a healthy lifestyle and a healthy body, as it involves practicing activities in the middle of nature, such as hiking, climbing, wildlife observation, etc.

Community-based ecotourism (CBET) has gained global attention as a sustainable tourism model that not only promotes environmental conservation but also empowers local communities by involving them in tourism management and ensuring that economic benefits are equitably distributed [1,2,3,4]. However, despite its potential, CBET faces significant challenges, particularly in regions with uneven economic development and cultural differences. Starting with the interface of demand–offer in tourism, after the pandemic time, several questions need specific and updated answers, as follows:

(1)

Is the motivation to travel more in nature and to know local communities real?

(2)

Can this motivation differ according to the development level of the country?

(3)

Can the perception of the concept of ecotourism, preferences for ecotourism and, of course, knowledge about ecotourism be different between tourists from different countries?

This research investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in Romania and Spain, comparing countries with similar ecotourism potential but different economic development levels. By examining tourists’ perceptions and preferences, the study addresses a gap in existing research on CBET in Europe and globally, offering both theoretical and practical insights into sustainable tourism development and highlighting how education, income and cultural background shape tourists’ preferences and motivations. This comparative approach fills a gap in the theoretical and practical understanding of CBET in Europe, offering valuable implications for policymakers and tourism practitioners aiming to promote sustainable tourism and community development.

These are only a few questions in the context of concepts of ecotourism and community-based ecotourism (CBET) that have drawn our attention to start this comparative research; therefore, we chose to compare tourists’ perceptions of CBET in Romania and Spain, as both countries are known as ecotourism destinations. Romania is a country with rich tourist potential, being a Carpathian–Danubian–Pontic country; here, you can undertake a multitude of excursions to existing ecotourism destinations, such as the Danube Delta, Piatra Craiului, Țara Dornelor, Țara Maramureșului or Țara Hațegului [5]. Spain is the European country with the highest percentage of protected areas (27.4% of its total surface area) and the country with the highest number of biosphere reserves, with 53 reservations. Spain is also a tourist destination with very high tourist potential, including ecotourism destinations that can be chosen for an ecotourism getaway, such as the Ebro Delta, La Gomera Island, the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the La Palma Reserve [6]. Even though both Romania and Spain have good ecotourism destinations, there are visible differences referring to some ecological indicators for these countries, such as ecological footprint, incapacity, ecological deficit and ecological reserve, according to the Global Footprint Network [7]. From Figure 1a–c, the global hectares per person for Europe = 4.65, for Romania = 2.74 and for Spain = 3.92, according to the last available data from 2022, with Spain close to the European level but with Romania at almost half of it.

From the macroeconomic perspective, visible differences can also be seen between Spain and Romania for some important indicators linked to ecological indicators, respectively the HDI and GDP levels, in the context of global footprint indicators (Figure 2a,b and Figure 3a,b), with a little gap for Romania between biocapacity and ecological footprint in recent years and the opposite for Spain. Even the trend for HDI (Figure 2a,b) and GDP (Figure 3a,b) per capita for these countries is quite different.

In Europe, countries like Romania and Spain offer rich ecotourism opportunities but differ in terms of economic development, infrastructure and socio-cultural contexts. This macroeconomic context, which synthesizes the differences between Romania and Spain, and both countries share a similar capacity and rich heritage for ecotourism, as previously noted, represents another reason for this comparative research, with the following main question: do two countries with unequal economic development but good comparative ecotourism destinations have similarities or are they not referring to ecotourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism?

The main problems addressed by this research are as follows:

• Divergent perceptions and expectations: there is a gap in understanding how tourists from economically diverse countries perceive CBET, influencing their travel motivations and satisfaction levels.
• Inconsistent implementation and marketing: CBET is often marketed and implemented inconsistently, leading to varied tourist experiences and impacting the sustainable development of local communities.
• Lack of comparative studies: although CBET is widely studied, there is a lack of comparative research examining how economic and cultural differences shape tourists’ perceptions and behaviors, particularly between Eastern and Western European countries. In order to provide insights for sustainable tourism development and policymaking, this study aims to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced tourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in Romania and Spain, taking into account differences in country of origin and economic development.

This research will be conducted from three perspectives: the principles of community-based ecotourism, the benefits of CBET and the challenges in implementing CBET according to the details in

Table 1. CBET—principles, benefits, and challenges for implementation.

Principles of CBET	Benefits of CBET	Challenges in Implementing CBET
Community Participation: Local communities play a central role in decision-making processes, ensuring that their knowledge and interests are prioritized [1].	1. Environmental Conservation: By providing economic incentives for conservation, CBET helps protect biodiversity and ecosystems [3].	1. Capacity Building: Local communities often require training and education to effectively manage and benefit from ecotourism [8].
2. Sustainable Management: Tourism activities are managed to minimize environmental impact, promote conservation and maintain ecological balance [9].	2. Empowerment: CBET empowers local communities by involving them in tourism management and decision-making processes, enhancing their control over resources [10].	2. Balancing Interests: Aligning the interests of diverse stakeholders, including tourists, conservationists and local residents, can be challenging [11].
3. Economic Benefits: Revenue generated from ecotourism is reinvested into the community, supporting local development and poverty alleviation [2].	3. Economic Diversification: It provides alternative livelihood opportunities, reducing dependency on traditional and often unsustainable economic activities [4].	3. Resource Management: Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources requires robust management strategies and monitoring [12].
4. Cultural Preservation: CBET fosters respect for and preservation of local cultures and traditions, enhancing cultural heritage [13].	4. Cultural Exchange: Tourists gain authentic cultural experiences while local communities take pride in showcasing their heritage [14].	4. Market Access: Rural and remote communities may struggle to access tourism markets and attract visitors [15].

(Source: made by the authors based on cited sources in the table).

.

This study is significant because it provides a comparative analysis of CBET perceptions in two European countries—Romania and Spain—with similar ecotourism potential but differing economic development levels. By examining how socio-demographic factors (e.g., education, income and cultural background) influence tourist perceptions, motivations and preferences, this research offers valuable insights for policymakers and destination managers, as well as local communities and stakeholders.

This study also contributes to the broader field of sustainable tourism by linking CBET practices to the economic development context of tourist origins, thus bridging a critical gap in the literature.

The innovativeness of this paper lies in its comparative approach, which contrasts CBET perceptions between Eastern (Romania) and Western (Spain) European tourists. It is the first study to explore these differences within the European context, providing a cross-cultural perspective on ecotourism that is currently underrepresented in academic literature.

Furthermore, the research utilizes a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative data from online questionnaires and qualitative insights to provide a holistic understanding of tourists’ CBET experiences. The findings contribute to innovative marketing strategies and inclusive policy frameworks by offering actionable recommendations tailored to the specific cultural and economic contexts of diverse tourist groups.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

2.1. Perceptions of Ecotourism

Tourists’ perceptions of ecotourism and their behavior play an important role in the sustainable development of protected and other natural areas. Ecotourism offers a medium to engage with the environment [16,17]. Some authors have developed Ecological Footprint Accounting through quantitative analysis and measured the environmental pressures associated with ecotourism packages [18]. Most often, ecotourism is directly linked to rural tourism, nature-based tourism, and sustainable tourism [19], all of which are based on ecological principles. Ecotourism involves visiting natural areas for an educational purpose [20] and is not to be promoted as mass tourism but as a sustainable alternative to it.

Perceptions of ecotourism can vary widely among different stakeholders, although they are usually positive. This highlights both the benefits and challenges associated with this form of tourism but is usually a potential lever for sustainable development [18], conservation of nature with socioeconomic development of many local communities [21], nature-based tourism where people visit rural areas [22,23] or cultural ecosystem services [24]. The consumption of media also has a no impact on shaping expectations and can result in dissatisfaction with the wildlife encounter under consideration [25]. On the other hand, a heightened overall fascination with the natural world seems to alleviate disappointment by fostering a more grounded set of expectations.

In Oman, tourists have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards ecotourism driven by its economic and sociocultural benefits, although there are concerns about its potential detrimental impact on the ecosystem [26]. Similarly, households in Ethiopia’s Simien Mountain National Park perceive the social, economic and environmental impacts of ecotourism favorably, with significant differences based on gender, education and location [27]; but, for example, for Nepal, Bookbinder et al., [28] pointed out the marginal effect on household income, low employment potential and that it offers few benefits for local people. In China, tourists’ perceived authenticity and values significantly influence their revisit intentions and environmentally responsible behaviors, indicating a strong positive perception of ecotourism’s benefits [29]. Residents and tourists in Qilian Mountains National Park also show a high level of environmentally responsible behavior, although their satisfaction levels vary. The article concludes that residents and tourists have a poor perception of ecological and environmental protection policies [30]. In Nepal’s Jagadishpur reservoir, both locals and visitors are positive about ecotourism’s suitability for biodiversity conservation and livelihood promotion despite differing views on cultural aspects. Here, lakes/scenic beauty and birdwatching are the highest-rated ecotourism products. Locals and visitors perceive picnic spots and view towers as additional ecotourism products [31]. In Kenya’s Gazi Bay, the local community recognizes the socio-economic and environmental benefits of mangrove-based ecotourism, emphasizing the need for effective local participation and capacity building; 81.4% of their respondents are aware of ecotourism activities, 62.8% acknowledge impacts and 66.0% see cultural traditions and local skills for sustainable ecotourism [32]. Public perception in Indonesia’s Mutiara Indah Beach is strongly positive towards the economic, social and environmental aspects of marine ecotourism, although educational principles and public-based economy perceptions are moderately positive [33]. In Turkey, forest villagers perceive ecotourism positively due to income opportunities despite recognizing its negative effects, suggesting that economic benefits can enhance satisfaction and support for ecotourism. This paper explored the attitudes of forest villagers toward ecotourism activities in Turkey using causal models and mediation effects and found that income opportunities made a strong positive contribution to their perceived ecotourism satisfaction. Moreover, the study revealed that factors such as environmental awareness and community involvement played significant roles in shaping the overall perception of ecotourism among forest villagers in Turkey [34]. In the Czech Republic, through a cluster analysis [35], two groups of opinions were identified from local people’s perceptions: optimists and grumblers.

In 2019, Koninx [16] showed the important role of ecotourism in the emergent concept of rewinding by investigating the conflicts between local views and institutional approaches. Also, the results of Mancini et al. in 2022 [18] indicate that managing tourism product development at the destination and investing in providing knowledge on the principles of sustainability could lower ecotourism’s impacts while contributing to building resilience and aiding the post-COVID recovery of destinations. Uliganets et al. [36] studied the natural prerequisites for developing ecotourism in natural conservation areas and the associated recreational activities. Stetic and Trisic [37] addressed the importance of ecotourism for the development of a tourism destination for Serbia near other types of tourism in protected areas, such as science tourism, trips, and bird- and animal-watching. In another paper about Serbian ecotourism, Trisic et al. [38], through the Prism of Sustainability (PoS) model, found that residents rated ecological and socio-cultural sustainability as the most important elements for sustainable tourism. By using the same model, Trisic et al. [39] measured the residents’ and visitors’ satisfaction with sustainable tourism, prioritizing ecotourism as successful for the Nature Park in Serbia, near to wellness and spa tourism, nature-based tourism, birdwatching, scientific research tourism and excursions.

Through a random parameter logit model, Zong et al. [40] revealed, for a forest park, that tourists’ preferences for community ecotourism increase with the inclusion of experiential activities, such as tasting local dishes and staying at a distinctive B&B.

Overall, while perceptions are generally positive, they are influenced by various factors, including economic benefits, environmental concerns and the level of local involvement, and sometimes there are negative impacts when the number of tourists is large or the resources are overused [22]. In a review paper, Donici and Dumitras [41] stated that while many studies are aimed at understanding tourists’ behavior, participatory strategies that include local communities are often indicated as beneficial. Schyvens [9] emphasized that ecotourism ventures should only be considered successful if local communities have some measure of control over them and if they share equitably in the benefits emerging from ecotourism activities. For Iran, Sobhani et al. [42] showed the negative effects of ecotourism in protected areas through the uncontrolled influx of visitors and the importance of the high level of restrictions to remaining a sustainable area. These concerns are debated in the context of increased urbanization, preferences for physical and economic activities in these areas and extended annual periods of ecotourism activities. For protected areas, Hornoiu [43] debated the issues of cultural degradation, disturbance of biodiversity conservation and the unequal distribution of benefits.

2.2. Community-Based Ecotourism (CBET)

CBET has become an interesting subject in recent years for scholars from the following points of view [44]: environmental understanding for sustainable development, motivation of local community in CBET and as a tool to increase economic, social and cultural benefits for locals. CBET also became a popular tool for biodiversity conservation [1,8,28,45,46,47] and a social transformation tool for rural communities [8,23,48,49]; it also plays a critical strategic role in regional development [50]. In international literature, CBET usually seems to enable community participation to achieve effective, sustainable management while also fostering environmental well-being and community development [44].

Community-based ecotourism (CBET) is a sustainable tourism approach that emphasizes local community involvement, environmental conservation, and socio-economic benefits. It is rooted in the principles of sustainable development, aiming to balance ecological preservation with economic growth and social well-being [51,52]. CBET is characterized by its focus on community participation in tourism management, decision-making and benefit-sharing, which distinguishes it from conventional tourism models [53,54].

Within the sustainable tourism framework, CBET plays a crucial role in promoting environmental conservation and community empowerment. It provides opportunities for local communities to influence and participate in tourism development, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility towards natural resources [51] This approach not only contributes to biodiversity conservation but also enhances the economic and social conditions of host communities [55,56]. Interestingly, the implementation of CBET can sometimes lead to contradictions between introduced democratic decision-making systems and traditional governance structures. For instance, in Fiji, the integration of Western business practices with Indigenous decision-making systems has created challenges in CBET management [53]. This highlights the importance of considering local cultural contexts and governance systems when developing CBET initiatives.

In conclusion, a comparative perspective on CBET is essential to understanding how economic development levels and cultural contexts influence tourist behavior and expectations. Research has shown that CBET experiences can serve as sites of experiential learning for visitors, potentially leading to transformative learning experiences [57]. However, the success of CBET initiatives varies across different regions and cultures, emphasizing the need for context-specific approaches [58,59] Future research should focus on addressing gaps such as the inclusion of indigenous populations, quantitative impact assessments and the role of social capital in promoting pro-environmental behaviors among residents and tourists in CBET destinations [58,59]. A study about CBET in Malaysia showed that several development accomplishments have decreased the fragile ecosystem to a specific degree and identified an absence of community well-being in ecotourism exercises [44] and a modest supplement to local livelihoods [1]. Also, the contribution of CBET to conservation and local economic development is limited by [1] small areas, limited earnings and the competitive specialized nature of the tourism industry. For developing countries, through a thematic analysis, Konjuraman et al. [48] results uncovered that CBET has delivered more positive social transformation impacts to the local community than negative ones. Their recommendations are directed at the local tourism policies that could emphasize the local community’s aspiration and development through ecotourism. Another important perspective researched by de Macedo et al. [60] was on the conceptual relations of ecotourism during the globalization process and the contradictions involving economic growth and development. Their perspective was given by the following research hypothesis: CBET is an ally of the construction of the development of local peoples.

A successful CBET for local communities is based on ecotourism activities [9], but their intention to engage in behavior to support it does not entirely match their positive views [61]. These authors introduce the idea of value conflicts introduced by ecotourism development because even if the local communities support ecotourism development, they will act in accordance with local environmental, social and political–economic conditions. Cobbinah [62] compared the local understanding of ecotourism from the perspectives of ecotourism-related agency staff and local communities in Ghana, and his results show a limited agency understanding of ecotourism and the local communities’ confusion between conservation and ecotourism.

Walter and Reimer [63] demonstrated for Thailand and Cambodia the importance of an “ecotourism curriculum” and visitors’ learning as a basic component of CBET. Another study dedicated to Cambodia by Reimer and Walter [64] used an analytical framework for the authentic ecotourism of honey to examine the social dimensions of sustainable ecotourism. They identify the importance of local context to the management of ecotourism and the social dimension of gender as a key analytical category for CBET and sustainable development. Through a random parameter logit model, Zong et al. [40] reveal, for a forest park, that the best combination of CBET is a small group size and experiential activity. If there are still natural reservations and/or CBET in some regions of China that are underpromoted or underdeveloped, Su et al. [45] showed the importance of the mutual relationship between people, resources and tourism for successful ecotourism and that the low involvement of the local community is due to a lack of mechanism for participation. A study about a rainforest in Mexico by Ramos and Prideaux [65] emphasizes that even the local community wishes to participate in CBET, but lack of knowledge, limited economic resources and poor negotiation skills have disempowered them from undertaking ecotourism ventures. By using logistic regression and OLS methods on households, Kim et al. [46] demonstrated that CBET has the potential to become a transformative form of economic growth for local communities based on attitude to environment conservation, village life and demographic factors. For Korea, Lee [66] used a Q-methodology approach to confirm that ecotourism facilities should focus more on providing educational service support (for both tourists and local communities) rather than promoting personal business interests. For Italy, Stănciulescu and Felicetti [67], through quantitative research, showed a positive correlation between attitude and intent by minimizing socio-cultural damage and maximizing the economic benefits of local communities. Studies have also investigated travelers’ intentions to visit ecotourism destinations, finding strong correlations between environmental concern, future time perspective and eco-destination image [68]. Some research h)as explored cultural aspects of ecotourism. For instance, a study in Vietnam examined factors affecting travelers’ intentions to visit ecotourism locations, suggesting that tourism providers and marketers should invest in building eco-images of travel locations [68].

For Bali, Satrya et al. [69] explained the positive relationship between environment awareness; cultural and natural attractiveness; and ecotourism attributed to destination image and intention to visit. For Ghana, Adom [49] indicates that whenever the culture and traditions of rural people ensure the conservation of natural sites are not properly considered and local people are not actively involved in ecotourism planning and development, the ecotourism wanes, affecting the income generated from ecotourism sites.

2.3. Ecotourism and CBET in Romania

Ecotourism in Romania plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable travel practices, preserving natural and cultural heritage and boosting local economies [70], especially in the local rural communities [19,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. The pandemic contributed to the development of Romanian ecotourism businesses. And during that time, virtual communities played a role in the brand–consumer relationship in ecotourism [77]. Despite Romania’s significant ecotourism potential, the sector faces challenges such as limited promotion, poor infrastructure and inadequate training for employees [78,79]. Research highlights the importance of identifying visitor profiles to Romanian ecotourism destinations to tailor management and marketing strategies effectively [80]. In this paper, the authors demonstrate that this branch of the hospitality industry can differentiate between past and future, and ecotourism is the best method of capitalizing on nature, traditions, culture and economic growth. The COVID-19 pandemic has also influenced the tourism industry, with a local trend in Romania showing that ecotourism businesses fared better than mass tourism due to the pandemic’s impact [81]. Regions like Bucovina in northern Romania offer a rich tapestry of natural beauty, cultural heritage and hospitable locals, making them ideal for ecotourism development. Efforts to enhance infrastructure, promote sustainable practices and engage with virtual communities can further propel the growth of ecotourism in Romania. Romanian ecotourism utilizes green marketing practices to promote sustainable activities. The typical ecotourism activities in Romania are hiking, specialized tours, horseback riding, cycling and rock climbing [78]. Also, it is important to include cultural ecotourism as a tourist product for ecotourism [82] and to adapt the criteria, principles and European standards of ecotourism to the needs of Romanian tourism [83]. In the same paper, the author emphasizes the importance of environmental awareness and integrating the concept of ecotourism through basic and support services and activities for ecotourism (such as nature-based outdoor activities) [84]. Romanian rural areas do not have sufficient qualified workers, and ecotourism could be a sustainable solution for young people to remain in their communities. The business should also offer the opportunity to local entrepreneurs to sell products that are based on the area’s nature, history and culture [83,84]. Romanian ecotourism also needs certification of ecotourism guesthouses [85] so that they can offer high-quality services in the context of natural and cultural heritage. For protected areas such as Natura 2000, Nicula [84] and Stanciu et al. [86] point out the importance of the quality of the ecotourism experience and of establishing consumer confidence in green tourism products and the eco-friendly tourism industry. A study by Botos et al. [87] on young Romanian tourists researched their perceived attitudes and dimensions relating to an eco-friendly lifestyle and the expectations, preferences and intentions for possible ecotourism activities. Popescu and Zamfir [88] pointed out the major advantages of Romanian ecotourism, as it is chosen by 40% of all foreign tourists in the context of its strategic role in regional development. Arsene et al. [89] addressed destination identification from a cultural ecotourism product point of view, researched young people’s opinions on the cultural identity of the potential ecotourism destination and identified the preferred cultural activities for ecotourism. Sasidharan and Hall’s [75] research results suggest that for successful sustainable rural tourism, a community-defined cultural and ecological tourism framework is needed, created by the involvement of community members in the tourism planning and decision-making process. A study by Vijulie et al. [90] discussed the opportunity to capitalize on Transylvanian wood pastures through nature-based tourism for a well-known village in Romania, Viscri, by using GIS and remote-sensing techniques. They pointed out the existence of a community-managed wood pasture that is well preserved through traditional agricultural practices and marked by significant biodiversity; even though the wood pasture is not yet attracting strong tourist flows, tourists indicate a very high level of satisfaction and intention to revisit and/or recommend it.

A comparative study of ecotourist profiles in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria [91] suggested that an ecotourist is characterized by a high level of education and training, above-average income and willingness to spend more in a destination during an extended stay.

One of the well-known Romanian authors in ecotourism states that the lack of a legislative framework for green labeling may affect the destination brand [92]. Hornoiu et al. [93] proposed the ECOROM as an indicator system for quality certification in ecotourism for local communities by starting from 30 international certification systems and adapting them to national specificities. The tendency of tourism stakeholders to apply for an accreditation system provided by a non-governmental organization instead of choosing a European accreditation shows the impact of such a national initiative and emphasizes the need to develop a legal framework for green ecotourism practices.

In relation to the perception of ecotourism in Romania, one study evaluated and analyzed the knowledge of young Romanian students about ecotourism and the main ecotourism destinations in Romania, their behavior in relation to the practice of sustainable tourism at the local level in the last two years (2020 and 2021) and people’s use of the internet and digital applications for planning holidays while traveling in nature [94]. Also, an important aspect linked to the promotion of ecotourism in Romania was studied by Chirita and Matei [95]. They draw attention to the proliferation of pseudo-ecotourism and aggressive tourism, both being less adapted to protected areas in Romania, and recommend protective measures as well as cultural dimensions of the protected space itself.

2.4. Ecotourism and CBET in Spain

Spain is known for its extensive natural parks and protected areas, which offer a rich biological heritage and diverse habitats. Studies have shown that ecotourism in Spain is motivated by various factors, including self-development, interpersonal relations, escape and appreciation of nature, with segments like “reward and escape” showing high satisfaction and loyalty [96]. Carrascosa-López et al. [97] also identified other motivational dimensions for ecotourism, such as building personal relationships, nature, ego-defensive function, rewards and fun. The most recent research by Carvache-Franco et al. [98] increased the amount of motivation by adding security measures, establishing personal bonds and entertainment. These authors also identified only two segments of ecotourists in Spain: one focused on nature and the other encompassing multiple motives.

Most of the recent studies were focused on the segmentation of ecotourists and investigated motivation, loyalty and perceived values of ecotourism either directly on Spanish tourists or by comparison with other cultures, such as Brazil [99] or Chile [100,101].

Another research direction identified in the literature is the relationship between ecotourism and other types of tourism or activities related to it. Such an example is the paper of Silva et al. [99] about the growth of ecotourism and the practice of adventure physical activities in nature in Spain and Brazil. These authors browse a new direction for ecotourism and explain the motivation for it by people’s growing interest in physical activities in nature (AFAN).

The study by Alarcon-del-Amo et al. [100] analyzes whether there are differences according to the country of origin (Spain or Chile) through ecotourism segmentation. Even the ecotourists were divided into three segments: basic ecotourists (ecotourists of thought); average ecotourists; and conscientious and active ecotourists. The second segment, the average ecotourists, was identified as more prevalent in Spain compared to Chile. The average ecotourist has a moderate attitude and intention to engage in ecotourism. Another comparison between Spain and Chile was made by Lorenzo-Romero et al. [101] using the value–belief–norm (VBN) theory and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) for countries with different cultures but with similar importance placed on ecotourism. The results show that the cultural differences between Spain and Chile do not affect the causal relations established between the strong influence of the intention to practice ecotourism based on the construct of conscience and the construct of personal norms. Lorenzo-Romero et al. [102] continued the research on ecotourism by identifying an explanatory model of the ecotourist’s behavior and the proposed management strategies for the tourism sector. Their basic idea is that the environment can influence consumer behavior and, specifically, the way tourists consume.

Sánchez-Rivero et al. [103] identified four factors that influence the decision to visit a Spanish protected area: gender, traveling with one’s partner or family, the type of accommodation and the importance given to nature conservation.

Barrena et al. [104] proposed a model for planning ecotourism routes in Nature Parks in Spain, starting from the idea that ecotourism is gaining acceptance as a tool for sustainable development since the income of visitors to protected areas can contribute significantly to supporting the economy of these areas and of the rural communities in Spain.

Caceres-Feria and Ballesteros [105] debated the concept of neo-rurality, which must be taken into consideration when studying community-based tourism. In the same framework, Jeong et al. [106] searched to identify an operational method to support siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites by Spanish consumers.

The perceived value of ecotourism is categorized into functional, emotional, economic and social dimensions, with functional and emotional values being significant predictors of satisfaction and loyalty [107]. The typical profile of an ecotourist in Spain is a male over 45 years old with a university education, living in towns with more than ten thousand inhabitants and earning an average salary [108,109]. Eco-innovation is also emerging as a crucial aspect, with Spanish hotel companies integrating environmental quality with business performance, driven by factors like accommodation capacity and financial performance [110]. Ecotourism activities in Spain include visiting emblematic natural locations, engaging in nocturnal walks and connecting with local culture and cuisine [111,112]. The country is also notable for its numerous ecovillages, highlighting its prominence in Europe for sustainable living practices [113]. However, the growth of ecotourism necessitates accompanying business initiatives with environmental education to mitigate resource overexploitation and ensure sustainable development [114]. Through a structural equation model, Perez-Calderon et al. [115] found a significant relationship between the perception of economic development and quality of life but not with social development. Also, a positive relationship between quality of life and social development was demonstrated for the Spanish National Park from three perspectives: public use, tourism activities and rural development [115].

Overall, ecotourism in Spain not only contributes to environmental conservation but also supports economic and social development, making it a vital component of the country’s tourism industry [116,117].

Based on the above-mentioned literature review and theoretical background from previous research, our research hypothesis is presented in

Table 2. The research hypothesis.

	Research Hypothesis	Theoretical Background for Research Hypothesis Based on Cited Sources in Section 2
1	H1 = The economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced tourists’ willingness to participate in CBET in Romania and Spain.	[36,77,80]
2	H2 = The perception of economic, social and environmental impacts of ecotourism and its ecotourism principles differs by education, gender, income and country of origin.	[27,29,30,33,34,114,116,117]
3	H3 = Motivation for ecotourism depends on the quality of basic tourism facilities (accommodation, food, infrastructure).	[78,79,96,110,113]
4	H4 = Cultural factors significantly influence tourists’ preferences for CBET in Romania and Spain, with variations observed between the two countries.	[29,31,32,78,80,111]
5	H5 = The support from local communities for sustainable tourism development has a positive impact on tourists’ perceptions and participation in CBET.	[30,34,80,107]

.

3. Materials and Methods

According to the aim and the objectives of the research, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire. Data were collected from 15 April to 20 May 2024. The questionnaires were distributed in Romania and Spain in the native language of the respondents through convenience sampling [118] for members of thematic groups (ecotourism) on social media platforms such as Facebook and groups such as “Ecoturismo en Espana”, “Călător prin România”, ”Via-Transilvanica—Grup oficial”, etc.

The questionnaire has 19 questions structured in two sections according to the research objectives: (a) the first 12 questions are regarding ecotourism data; and (b) the last seven questions refer to socio-demographic data for describing the ecotourist profile. All the research variables transposed into the questions (with one or multiple responses) for collecting the data are presented in Appendix A, together with the codification in the SPSS 29.0 software; all the variables presented are categorical except the scores from the Likert scale.

By applying the questionnaire, an analysis was made of some important aspects referring to the following:

• The source and awareness of the term ecotourism;
• The perceptions and opinions on ecotourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation and/or education for tourists and locals and/or as a strategy/tool for the development of local communities and ecotourism principles;
• The aspects linked to travel in general and ecotourism in particular (travel news and trends, budget, travel frequencies, the source of tourism package, the main motivation for ecotourism, the activities associated with ecotourism, national ecotourism destinations visited by respondents);
• Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (sample description).

The research sample had 703 respondents—353 Romanian and 350 Spanish. The comparative structure of the samples’ socio-demographic characteristics is presented in

Table 3. Sample description—general socio-demographic data.

Characteristics	Absolute Frequencies		Relative Frequencies (%)		p-Value *
	Romania (n = 353)	Spain (n = 350)	Romania (n = 353)	Spain (n = 350)
Gender					<0.001
Male	84	175	23.8	50.0
Female	269	175	76.2	50.0
Age					0.383
18–25 years old	122	105	34.7	30.0
26–35 years old	46	88	12.9	25.0
36–45 years old	84	105	23.8	30.0
46–55 years old	87	35	24.8	10.0
>56 years old	14	17	4.0	5.0
Environment of origin					0.728
Urban	238	228	67.3	65.0
Rural	115	122	32.7	35.0
Education level					<0.001
Gymnasium	4	105	1.0	30.0
Vocational school	17	0	5.0	0.0
High school	67	123	18.8	35.0
Post-secondary education	42	17	11.9	5.0
University studies	223	105	63.4	30.0
Civil status					0.190
Married	171	158	48.5	45.0
Communion	2	122	7.9	35.0
Unmarried	115	53	32.7	15.0
Widowed	11	17	3.0	5.0
Divorced	28	0	7.9	0.0
Occupational status					0.173
Freelance	35	17	9.9	5.0
Student	88	53	24.8	15.0
Employed with secondary education	52	123	14.9	35.0
Employed with higher education	129	53	36.6	15.0
Unqualified worker	11	70	3.0	20.0
Retired	17	17	5.0	5.0
Domestic	21	17	5.9	5.0
Net income per month					0.229
Below average household income	60	70	16.8	20.0
Average household income	195	210	55.4	60.0
Above average household income	98	70	27.7	20.0

(Source: own calculations) (Note: * Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test).

together with the statistical significance of the differences between the sample structure from two countries based on the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test. The results show that only for gender and education level, the distributions are different; for the rest of the characteristics, both samples could be considered homogeneous. The average age for Romania is 36 years, and for Spain, it is 34 years.

To emphasize the relation between ecotourist profiles (results are presented in the next section), the perceptions and opinions referring to ecotourism and ecotourism principles, we applied non-parametrical statistical methods due to the categorical data of the research and non-normal distribution of the data according to the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, respectively, as follows:

• The Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test to analyze and test the differences between opinions and perceptions between Romania and Spain for all variables from the research;
• The Spearman correlation coefficient for each country applied to ecotourism-specific elements and for preferred activities (supplementary services) during the ecotourism stays to identify the associations between each ecotourism-specific element and ecotourism activities;
• The multilinear regression model for each country, with the ecotourism elements as the dependent variable and the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents as the independent variables, to identify the best predictors for Romania and Spain for ecotourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation and as a tool/strategy for the development of the local community.

For the statistical analysis of the data collected, SPSS 29.0 (licensed) software was used, and Microsoft Excel was used for graphical representations. In the Results section of the article, all the research results are presented comparatively, not separately, for Romania and Spain.

4. Results

The results of the horizontal analysis are presented comparatively for Romania and Spain by also presenting the p-value for each comparison. Thus, referring to the term ecotourism, 94% of Spanish and 97% of Romanian respondents know the term, but the distribution of sources from where they first heard about ecotourism is different according to Figure 4. An approximately equal number of people for each country, 38% for Romania and 35% for Spain, consider that an ecotourism holiday is more expensive than a traditional/usual one. The Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test showed that for the following sources, there were statistically significant differences between Romania and Spain (p-value < 0.01): family/friends/colleagues, TV shows and travel agencies; Romanian tourists prefer personal sources, but Spanish tourists prefer TV shows and travel agencies, as presented in Figure 4.

Regarding the direct link to information sources about ecotourism and the intention to participate in events and/or webinars dedicated to ecotourism and to education for ecotourism, both Romanian and Spanish tourists are positive (with an average score of 2.15/5 for RO and 1.7/5 for ES with 1 = sure yes, …, 5 = sure no), but the distribution of the answers is statistically significant (p-value < 0.001).

Regarding usual travel habits, Figure 5a and Figure 2b present the structure of travel frequencies, and in Figure 5a and Figure 3b, the structures of travel groups are compared for Romania and Spain. It can be observed that Romanian tourists prefer short vacations (maybe around the residence and/or city breaks) more than the Spanish (28% versus 15% for Spanish), but 40% of Spanish tourists travel twice per year compared with 26% of Romanians (maybe the usual seasonal vacations).

Referring to the travel group (Figure 6), the structure for both countries is approximatively equal, with little differences for family in favor of Romanian (74% versus 70% for Spanish) and with friends for Spanish (20% versus 19% for Romanians) or alone (5% for Spanish versus 1% for Romanians). No statistically significant differences were observed for the travel group (p-value = 0.638) and travel frequencies (p-value = 0.124) according to the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test.

Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which changed travel habits, we asked the respondents if, in this context, they explored more of the ecotouristic destinations from their country; 43% of Romanians and 65% of Spanish chose these destinations during the pandemic, and these differences are statistically significant (p-value < 0.001) according to the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test.

To measure the agreement with ecotourism principles, a 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = Totally disagree, …, 5 = Totally agree). The average score for each principle is presented in

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for ecotourism principles.

	Ecotourism Principle (EP)	Romania	Spain	p-Value *
EP1	Ecotourism decreases tourist satisfaction	1.95 ± 1.244 (1–5)	2.15 ± 1.242 (1–5)	0.212
EP2	Ecotourism does not contribute to nature conservation	2.20 ± 1.435 (1–5)	2.75 ± 1.452 (1–5)	0.003
EP3	Ecotourism focuses on natural areas	4.04 ± 1.095 (1–5)	3.55 ± 1.290 (1–5)	0.004
EP4	Ecotourism makes a positive contribution to the development of local communities	4.46 ± 0.878 (1–5)	3.80 ± 1.214 (1–5)	0.001
EP5	Ecotourism is not educational for tourists and communities	2.25 ± 1.479 (1–5)	1.85 ± 1.114 (1–4)	0.091
EP6	Ecotourism has minimal impact on the environment	3.73 ±1.415 (1–5)	3.30 ± 1.389 (1–5)	0.014

(Note: * Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test).

as mean ± std. deviation (minimum-maximum) and boxplots are shown for those with statistically significant differences (Figure 7a–c).

The results of the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test indicate statistically significant opinions linked to ecotourism principles as follows:

• Romanian respondents disagree with the second principle EP2—Ecotourism does not contribute to nature conservation—(2.2) compared with the Spanish, who are quite neutral about it (2.75);
• Romanian respondents agree with the principle EP3—Ecotourism focuses on natural areas—(4.04) compared with the Spanish, who are quite neutral to agreement with it (3.55);
• Romanian respondents totally agree with the principle EP4—Ecotourism makes a positive contribution to the development of local communities—(4.46) compared with the Spanish, who also agree (3.80);
• Romanian respondents agree with the principle EP6—Ecotourism has minimal impact on the environment—(3.73) compared with the Spanish, who are quite neutral about it (3.3).

The box plots presented in Figure 7 indicate, comparatively for Romania and Spain, the following: through the median line, the value for average scores for each ecotourism principle according to the indicators of descriptive statistics from Table 4; the blue box shows the range for standard deviation of each variable; and the lines outside of the box indicate the minimum and maximum values for each variable according to the five-level Likert scale used to measure the opinions referring to ecotourism principles. So, the following can be seen:

• The average scores for EP2 of Romanian responders of 2.25 (disagree) statistically differ from Spain of 2.75 (neutral); the Spanish respondents are more in agreement with this principle.
• For EP3, the box plot indicates that the average score of 4.04 (agree) of Romanian responders statistically differs from the Spanish score of 3.55 (neutral to agree) due to the fact that the range of awarded values for Romania (from 3 to 5) is narrow compared to Spain (from 1 to 5).
• The situation for EP4 is the same as for EP2; the box plot indicates that the average score of 4.46 (totally agree) of Romanian responders statistically differs from the Spanish score of 3.80 (agree) due to the fact that the range of awarded values for Romania (from 3 to 5) is narrow compared to Spain (from 1 to 5).
• For EP6, the box plot indicates that the average score of 43.73 (agree) of Romanian responders statistically differs from the Spanish score of 3.30 (neutral); even though the range of awarded values for Romania and Spain is the same range (from 1 to 5), for Romania, the most scores were from 3 to 5 but with Spain, they were between 2 and 4.

All these results regarding the perceptions of ecotourism principles reflect that the local communities’ and potential ecotourists’ perceptions are both crucial for a comprehensive understanding of ecotourism’s impact. Communities directly affected by ecotourism development have an insider’s perspective on the benefits and challenges. On the other hand, the perception of potential ecotourists plays a crucial role in the success and sustainability of ecotourism since their choices affect the demand for such initiatives. Because our research is focused on the perception of potential (eco)tourists, we examine the extent to which they agree with the various principles of ecotourism. This approach allows us to understand the level of acceptance of the concept and how the benefits for local communities are perceived by those who may become visitors. As a result, the findings can contribute to the improvement of promotional and implementation strategies for ecotourism, aligning them both with the expectations of tourists and the needs of local communities.

In the next paragraphs, we will present the results for items referring to ecotourism. Therefore, by applying Spearman correlations inside of each sample for specific elements of ecotourism, we identify the correlations presented in

Table 5. Correlations for Romanian ecotourism elements.

		Natural Setting	Local Culture	Infrastructure	Quality and Appearance of Accommodation and Food Facilities	Recreational Activities, Sports, etc.
Natural setting	Correlation Coefficient	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)
	N	353
Local culture	Correlation Coefficient	0.230 *	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.021
	N	353	353
Infrastructure	Correlation Coefficient	0.180	0.385 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.072	0.000
	N	353	353	353
Quality and appearance of accommodation and food facilities	Correlation Coefficient	0.213 *	0.124	0.413 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.032	0.216	0.000
	N	353	353	353	353
Recreational activities, sports, etc.	Correlation Coefficient	0.348 **	0.143	0.358 **	0.534 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.153	0.000	0.000
	N	353	353	353	353	353

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

for Romania and

Table 6. Correlations for Spain—ecotourism elements.

		Natural Setting	Local Culture	Infrastructure	Quality and Appearance of Accommodation and Food Facilities	Recreational Activities, Sports, etc.
Natural setting	Correlation Coefficient	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)
	N	350
Local culture	Correlation Coefficient	0.571 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	350	350
Infrastructure	Correlation Coefficient	0.416 **	0.232 *	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.020
	N	350	350	350
Quality and appearance of accommodation and food facilities	Correlation Coefficient	0.564 **	0.403 **	0.721 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	350	350	350	350
Recreational activities, sports, etc.	Correlation Coefficient	0.646 **	0.656 **	0.532 **	0.582 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	350	350	350	350	350

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

for Spain. For Spain, all the correlations are statistically significant.

It can be observed that for Romania, the correlations are from low to medium intensity compared with the Spain sample, where the correlations are from medium to power intensity and are statistically significant for the majority of associations between ecotourism-specific elements, as follows:

• Direct correlation of power intensity for Spain (0.721) and medium intensity for Romania (0.413) between the quality and appearance of accommodation and food facilities and infrastructure;
• Direct correlation of medium intensity for both Romania (0.534) and Spain (0.582) between quality and appearance of accommodation and recreational activities, sports, etc.;
• Direct correlation of medium to power intensity for Spain (0.646) and low intensity for Romania (0.348) between recreational activities, sports, etc., and natural setting;
• Direct correlation of medium to power intensity for Spain (0.656) and no statistically significant correlations for Romania between recreational activities, sports, etc., and local culture;
• Direct correlation of medium intensity for Spain (0.571) and low intensity for Romania (0.230) between the natural setting and the local culture.

By applying Spearman correlations inside each sample for specific activities (supplementary services) of ecotourism stays, we identified the correlations presented in

Table 7. Correlations for Romanian ecotourism activities.

		Exploring Nature/Environment	Photographing Landscapes/Locals	Cycling/Climbing	Visiting Ethnographic/Cultural/Historical Sites	Activities with Locals/Seasonal Activities	Workshops for Learning Traditional Crafts
Exploring nature/ environment	Correlation Coefficient	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)
	N	353
Photographing landscapes/ locals	Correlation Coefficient	0.203 *	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.042
	N	353	353
Cycling/climbing	Correlation Coefficient	0.269 **	0.275 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.007	0.005
	N	353	353	353
Visiting ethnographic/ cultural/historical sites	Correlation Coefficient	0.129	0.344 **	0.074	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.198	0.000	0.464
	N	353	353	353	353
Activities with locals/seasonal activities	Correlation Coefficient	0.187	0.187	0.176	0.384 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.061	0.061	0.078	0.000
	N	353	353	353	353	353
Workshops for learning traditional crafts	Correlation Coefficient	0.248 *	0.178	0.001	0.381 **	0.433 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.013	0.075	0.990	0.000	0.000
	N	353	353	353	353	353	353

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

for Romania and

Table 8. Correlations for Spain—ecotourism activities.

		Exploring Nature/Environment	Photographing Landscapes/Locals	Cycling/Climbing	Visiting Ethnographic/Cultural/Historical Sites	Activities with Locals/Seasonal Activities	Workshops for Learning Traditional Crafts
Exploring nature/ environment	Correlation Coefficient	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)
	N	350
Photographing landscapes/ locals	Correlation Coefficient	0.378 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	350	350
Cycling/climbing	Correlation Coefficient	0.058	0.154	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.566	0.127
	N	350	350	350
Visiting ethnographic/ cultural/historical sites	Correlation Coefficient	0.406 **	0.066	0.010	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.515	0.921
	N	350	350	350	350
Activities with locals/seasonal activities	Correlation Coefficient	−0.058	−0.154	0.010	0.192	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.566	0.127	0.921	0.056
	N	350	350	350	350	350
Workshops for learning traditional crafts	Correlation Coefficient	−0.290 **	0.066	0.010	0.192	0.394 **	--
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.003	0.515	0.921	0.056	0.000
	N	350	350	350	350	350	350

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

for Spain. It is important to mention that, in the case of Spain, there are fewer statistically significant correlations compared to Romania for the preferred activities during the ecotourism stays.

The correlation coefficient indicates, in this case, a low intensity of association for the majority of statistically significant correlations for both Romania and Spain, as follows:

• The inverse correlation of low intensity for Spain (−0.290) and the direct correlation for Romania between workshops for learning traditional crafts and exploring nature/environment indicated that those tourists who prefer nature do not agree or do not combine this with traditional craft activities during ecotourism stays;
• The direct correlation of medium intensity both for Spain (0.394) and for Romania (0.433) between workshops for learning traditional crafts and activities with locals/seasonal activities indicated similarities for tourists regardless of country of origin;
• Direct correlation of medium intensity for Spain (0.406) and no correlation for Romania between visiting ethnographic/cultural/historical sites and exploring nature/environment;
• Direct correlation of low to medium intensity for Spain (0.378) and low intensity for Romania (0.203) between photographing landscapes/locals and exploring nature/environment;

Therefore, a correlation analysis of ecotourism activities and/or supplementary services revealed some differences between Spaniards and Romanians, as follows:

(1)

For Romania, moderate associations exist for cultural activities and interactions with locals: workshops for traditional crafts, activities with local/seasonal activities, visiting ethnographic/cultural/historical activities; and there is a low intensity correlation for activities in nature;

(2)

For Spain, there is a dichotomy between ecotourists who prefer to explore nature compared with those who prefer workshops for learning traditional crafts and a group that prefers both types of activities (moderate correlation)—visiting ethnographic/cultural/historical activities and exploring nature/environment (+0.406). Also, Spaniards prefer to both explore nature and photograph landscapes/locals (+0.378). Therefore, we can confirm the research hypothesis H4 = The demand for supplementary services and/or additional products associated with ecotourism varies according to cultural norms.

In terms of habits for preparing and/or information for an ecotourism stay, 38% of Romanians and 35% of Spanish consider that an ecotourism stay is more expensive than a usual vacation, with no statistically significant differences between two samples according to the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test. The respondents from both countries give increased importance to news about ecotourism (2.41 for Romania and 2.35 for Spain on the Likert scale, with 1—very important, …, 5—insignificant). When tourists prepare for their ecotourist stay, they have different options according to the results presented in Figure 8: Romanians prefer to use tourism agencies and on their own, compared to the Spanish, who prefer to use the ecotourism-dedicated internet pages and family/friends’ recommendations. These differences are statistically significant for all these options except for option “on their own” according to the Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test.

The descriptive statistics for ecotourism elements taken into consideration for this research (

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for ecotourism elements.

	Ecotourism Elements (Ei)	Romania	Spain	p-Value *
E1	Natural setting	4.74 ± 0.462 (3–5)	4.00 ± 1.189 (1–5)	0.001
E2	Local culture	4.44 ± 0.654 (3–5)	4.05 ± 0.978 (2–5)	0.008
E3	Infrastructure	3.97 ± 0.953 (1–5)	3.30 ± 1.106 (1–5)	0.001
E4	Quality and appearance of accommodation and food facilities	4.45 ± 0.640 (3–5)	3.95 ± 0.744 (2–5)	0.001
E5	Recreational activities, sports, etc.	4.00 ± 1.189 (1–5)	4.15 ± 1.158 (1–5)	0.398

(Note: * Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U-test).

) and measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1—very important, …, 5—insignificant) indicate differences between Spain and Romania that are statistically significant for the following: natural setting, local culture, infrastructure and the quality and appearance of accommodation and food facilities, but there are no differences for recreational activities and/or sports. In detail, Romanian tourists better appreciate the first four elements (E1, E2, E3, E4), and the Spanish appreciate the last one, E5—recreational activities and/or sports.

For the activities preferred by ecotourists, the absolute frequencies presented in

Table 10. Preferred activities during ecotourism stays.

	Ecotourism Activities (Ai)	Romania	Spain	p-Value *
A1	Exploring nature/environment	298	263	0.108
A2	Photographing landscapes/locals	214	245	0.154
A3	Cycling/climbing	98	158	0.011
A4	Visits to ethnographic, cultural and historical sites	207	193	0.626
A5	Activities, including local and seasonal activities	165	193	0.231
A6	Workshops for learning traditional crafts	189	193	0.828

(Note: *Independent – Samples Mann–Whitney U Test).

indicate some differences, but for the majority, they are not statistically significant, excluding A3—cycling/climbing, which is more appreciated by Spanish tourists.

To identify the best predictors in terms of socio-demographic characteristics of ecotourists separately for Romania and Spain, for ecotourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation (EP2 principle from Table 4) and as a tool/strategy for the development of the local community (EP4 principle from Table 4), we applied the multilinear regression model with the Enter method with these two ecotourism principles (EP2 and EP4) as dependent variables and all the socio-demographic characteristics from Table 3 as independent variables of the model. Thus, for the first model with the EP2 ecotourism principle (Ecotourism does not contribute to nature conservation), the results of multilinear regression indicate a low level of the coefficient of determination R² for both models (

Table 11. Model summary.

Romania/Spain	Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
Romania	1	0.297 a	0.088	0.011	0.881
Spain	2	0.391 b	0.153	0.085	0.950

a,b, predictors: (Constant), monthly net income, gender, age, environment of origin, education level, civil status, and occupational status.

), and the ANOVA test (

Table 12. ANOVA.

Romania/Spain	Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Romania a	1	Regression	6.220	7	0.889	1.144	0.344 b
		Residual	64.462	83	0.777
		Total	70.681	90
Spain a	2	Regression	14.163	7	2.023	2.243	0.038 c
		Residual	78.468	87	0.902
		Total	92.632	94

a, dependent variable EP2—Ecotourism does not contribute to nature conservation; b,c, predictors: (Constant), monthly net income, gender, age, environment of origin, education level, civil status, and occupational status.

) indicates a statistically significant model only for Spain.

Table 13. Regression coefficients.

Romania/Spain	Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients Beta	t	Sig.
			B	Std. Error
Romania a	1	(Constant)	2.155	0.939		2.296	0.024
		Gender	0.172	0.235	0.079	0.730	0.467
		Age	−0.030	0.084	−0.043	−0.352	0.726
		Environment of origin	0.038	0.215	0.020	0.179	0.858
		Education level	−0.241	0.098	−0.274	−2.453	0.016
		Occupational status	0.005	0.063	0.009	0.078	0.938
		Civil status	−0.004	0.077	−0.006	−0.050	0.960
		Net income per month	0.170	0.154	0.129	1.106	0.272
Spain a	2	(Constant)	0.241	0.640		0.376	0.708
		Gender	0.616	0.247	0.311	2.496	0.014
		Age	0.166	0.174	0.169	0.951	0.344
		Environment of origin	0.717	0.283	0.350	2.528	0.013
		Education level	−0.020	0.090	−0.037	−0.225	0.823
		Occupational status	−0.087	0.123	−0.123	−0.709	0.480
		Civil status	−0.045	0.125	−0.047	−0.360	0.720
		Net income per month	−0.108	0.255	−0.071	−0.424	0.673

a, dependent variable EP2—Ecotourism does not contribute to nature conservation.

presents the regression coefficients of the first regression model. For Romania, even if the education level is statistically significant, the model is not statistically significant. In Spain, gender and environment of origin are the best predictors of ecotourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation, as follows:

• an increase with 1 unit for gender with SPSS codes (1 = male and 2 = female) from male to female—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle increases with 0.616 (from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree); therefore, the males had more appreciation for this type of tourism as a tool for nature conservation;
• an increase with 1 unit of environment of origin (with SPSS codes: 1 = urban and 2 = rural) from urban to rural—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle increases with 0.717 (from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree); therefore, the urban people from Spain appreciated this type of tourism as a tool for nature conservation.

For the second model with EP4 ecotourism principle (Ecotourism makes a positive contribution to the development of local communities), the results of multilinear regression indicate a low level of the coefficient of determination R2 for Romania and for Spain indicate that only 46% of the total variance of the dependent variable are explained by independent variables introduced in the model (

Table 14. Model summary.

Romania/Spain	Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R2 value	Std. Error in Estimation
Romania	1	0.281 a	0.079	0.005	0.401
Spain	2	0.678 b	0.460	0.414	0.640

a,b, predictors: (Constant), monthly net income, gender, age, environment of origin, education level, civil status, occupational status.

). In addition, the ANOVA test (

Table 15. ANOVA.

Romania/Spain	Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Romania a	1	Regression	1.207	7	0.172	1.074	0.387 b
		Residual	14.126	88	0.161
		Total	15.333	95
Spain a	2	Regression	28.630	7	4.090	9.984	<0.001 c
		Residual	33.592	82	0.410
		Total	62.222	89

a, dependent variable EP4: Ecotourism contributes positively to the development of local communities. b,c, predictors: (Constant), monthly net income, gender, age, environment of origin, education level, civil status, occupational status.

) indicates a statistically significant model only for Spain.

Table 16. Regression coefficients.

Romania/Spain	Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
			B	Std. Error	Beta
Romania a	1	(Constant)	3.456	0.406		8.505	<0.001
		Gender	−0.109	0.097	−0.119	−1.123	0.264
		Age	−0.060	0.036	−0.197	−1.654	0.102
		Environment of origin	−0.021	0.093	−0.025	−0.231	0.818
		Education level	0.005	0.043	0.014	0.127	0.900
		Occupational status	−0.024	0.030	−0.090	−0.791	0.431
		Civil status	−0.015	0.035	−0.048	−0.434	0.665
		Net income per month	−0.040	0.069	−0.065	−.0577	0.566
Spain a	2	(Constant)	0.950	0.453		2.096	0.039
		Gender	0.805	0.159	0.481	5.068	<0.001
		Age	0.955	0.140	1.338	6.828	<0.001
		Environment of origin	0.234	0.204	0.126	1.145	0.255
		Education level	−0.200	0.064	−0.420	−3.113	0.003
		Occupational status	−0.623	0.098	−1.121	−6.343	<0.001
		Civil status	0.910	0.153	0.800	5.931	<0.001
		Net monthly income	−0.393	0.168	−0.315	−2.337	0.022

a, dependent variable EP4: Ecotourism contributes positively to the development of local communities.

presents the regression coefficients of the second regression model. For Spain, all the independent variables are good predictors—except for environment of origin and gender—for ecotourism as a tool/strategy for the development of local communities, as follows:

• An increase with 1 unit of gender (with SPSS codes: 1 = male and 2 = female) from male to female—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle increases with 0.805 (from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree); therefore, we can conclude that, for Spain, females appreciated this type of tourism more as a tool for local community development;
• An increase with 1 unit of age (with SPSS codes: 1 = 18–25 years old to 5 = > 56 years old) from young to old people—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle increases with 0.955 (from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree); therefore, old people from Spain consider ecotourism as a tool and/or strategy for local community development;
• An increase with 1 unit of education level (with SPSS codes: 1 = gymnasium old to 5 = university) from a low level of education to a university degree—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle decreases with 0.200 (from 5 = totally agree to 1 = totally disagree); therefore, educated people from Spain consider that ecotourism does not represent a real/only tool and/or strategy for local community development;
• An increase with 1 unit of occupational status (with SPSS codes: 1 = freelancer to 7 = domestic)—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle decreases with 0.623 (from 5 = totally agree to 1 = totally disagree); therefore, retired persons, unqualified workers, and domestic persons from Spain consider that ecotourism does not represent a real/only tool and/or strategy for local community development;
• An increase with 1 unit of civil status (with SPSS codes: 1 = married to 5 = divorced)—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle increases with 0.910 (from 1= totally disagree to 5 = totally agree); therefore, single persons (widows, divorced, unmarried) from Spain consider ecotourism as a tool and/or strategy for local community development more than married people and/or communion people;
• An increase with 1 unit of income (with SPSS codes: 1 = below average household income to 3 = above average household income)—the appreciation for this ecotourism principle decreases with 0.393 (from 5 = totally agree to 1 = totally disagree); therefore, the persons with income above average household income from Spain consider that ecotourism does not represent a real/only tool and/or strategy for local community development, one of the explanations being that maybe these persons usually choose another type of tourism.

So, based on the regression models’ results for each country from the study, there are no best predictors for Romania for the perception of the positive contribution of ecotourism to the development of local communities—CBET—(the EP4 ecotourism principle) and only the age registered a p-value = 0.102. For Spain, the best predictors are gender, age, educational level, occupational status, civil status and net income per month.

Therefore, the research hypothesis H5 = Ecotourism promotes cultural preservation and emotional awareness among authenticity and values for tourists could be considered confirmed due to statistically significant differences between a lack of predictors for Romanians and all the socio-demographic characteristics (except the environment of origin) for Spaniards. Practically, as previous authors have shown, the perceived value of ecotourism is categorized into functional, emotional, economic and social dimensions, with functional and emotional values being significant predictors of satisfaction and loyalty [100].

5. Discussion

Our research provides valuable insights into the ecotourism behaviors and perceptions of Romanian and Spanish tourists, confirming or partially confirming our research hypotheses. Key findings indicate both similarities and differences across cultural contexts, shaping distinct ecotourism preferences and practices, such as the following:

• General trends and knowledge: Both Romanian and Spanish tourists exhibit similar levels of awareness regarding the term “ecotourism”, as well as comparable patterns in travel group composition and frequency, a finding that aligns with previous studies emphasizing the increasing global interest in sustainable tourism [42]. However, sources of ecotourism information vary by country: Romanians rely more on personal networks (family, friends, colleagues), while Spaniards turn to television and travel agencies. These findings imply that cultural differences play a significant role in shaping awareness of ecotourism, which is consistent with the research by Koninx (2019) [16] and Schyvens (2007) [9], both of which highlight the importance of participatory methods in sharing information about ecotourism.
• Perceptions of ecotourism education: The perception of ecotourism education differed between the two groups, indicating that educational strategies should be culturally adapted to improve awareness and engagement.
• Travel frequency and preferences: According to recent data, the pandemic has had a significant impact on travel preferences, with 65% of Spanish respondents and 43% of Romanian respondents choosing ecotourism destinations. Our findings partially support hypothesis H1 that COVID-19 has boosted interest in ecotourism, but the data indicate a more significant effect in Spain. Studies by Mancini et al. [18] have shown that post-pandemic recovery strategies that focus on sustainability have led to increased interest in nature-based tourism.
• Ecotourism principles are perceived by many: Whether ecotourism contributes to nature conservation remains a topic of disagreement among Romanians and is viewed as neutral by the Spaniards (EP2), which aligns with studies in China [40] and Indonesia for Mutiara Indah Beach [33], which suggest that cultural factors influence conservation attitudes.

Ecotourism is primarily centered on natural environments, as noted by Romanians, with a neutral attitude observed among Spaniards (EP3). The study’s results are consistent with those of Trisic et al. [37,38,39], who found that rural communities tend to have a greater connection with the natural environment than their urban counterparts. Ecotourism has a positive impact on local communities, as acknowledged by the Romanians (EP4). Research by Cobbinah [62] and Farrelly [53] has also highlighted the cultural context in which the benefits of CBET are perceived. For EP6—Ecotourism has a minimal environmental impact—Romanians agree, with a neutral stance from Spaniards. For Romanians, education levels significantly impact their views on the environment, whereas in Spain, gender and whether one resides in a city or rural area have a greater influence on their perceptions of environmental impact. Previous studies in protected areas [43] support the notion that views on ecotourism’s sustainability are influenced by a country’s environmental laws and regulations. The results support hypothesis H2, indicating that perceptions of economic, social and environmental impacts differ depending on education level, gender, income and country of origin.

• Accessing ecotourism information sources. Romanians primarily use self-organization and tourism agencies for information, whereas Spaniards rely more on dedicated ecotourism websites and personal recommendations.
• Elements of Ecotourism and Motivators for Satisfactory Experiences. Spanish tourists reported a significant link between the quality of their accommodations and the quality of food they experienced, with a correlation coefficient of +0.721. They also noted moderate associations between engaging in recreational activities and the surrounding natural environment, with a correlation coefficient of +0.646, as well as the local culture, with a correlation coefficient of +0.656. This supports previous findings that infrastructure investment enhances visitor satisfaction [103].

Romanians reported a moderate connection between leisure activities and the quality of accommodations and food, as well as a less significant relationship between local customs and the local infrastructure. This finding aligns with Adom [49], who emphasized the cultural sustainability aspect of ecotourism. The research results support hypothesis H3, which states that the motivation and satisfaction levels in ecotourism are influenced by the availability of basic tourist facilities.

• There is a growing need for additional ecotourism services. Romanians exhibit moderate correlations between engaging in cultural pursuits and interacting with the local population, as seen in activities such as traditional crafts, seasonal events, and historical site visits. A clear distinction exists among the Spaniards between those who favor nature exploration and those who prefer cultural immersion, with a moderate association between ethnographic visits and nature exploration found to be +0.406. In addition, a preference among the Spaniards exists for integrating nature exploration with photography, as shown by a +0.378 increase. Hypothesis H4 is supported by patterns, which indicate that the demand for supplementary ecotourism services is influenced by cultural norms.
• Contribution to local community development. Regression analysis revealed that in Romania, no strong predictors were found for the perception of ecotourism’s positive contribution to local communities (EP4). In Spain, multiple socio-demographic factors (gender, age, education, occupational status, civil status and income) significantly influence this perception, which aligns with the findings of Guerrero-Moreno and Oliveira-Junior (2024) [58], who found that socio-economic status shapes ecotourism preferences. Given these differences, hypothesis H5 (Ecotourism promotes cultural preservation and emotional awareness) is confirmed, reinforcing the idea that perceived ecotourism value is shaped by functional, emotional, economic and social factors.
• The study’s findings and significance. The impact of cultural factors on ecotourism preferences and information sources is a key area of focus in the research on cultural differences and marketing strategies. Romanians tend to rely on word-of-mouth recommendations, whereas Spaniards prefer to trust information from official institutions. Regarding adapting and customizing CBET initiatives, Romanian and Spanish tourists alike acknowledge the benefits of ecotourism on local communities, but Romanians are more firmly convinced of its positive impact. Customized CBET strategies should consider the unique socio-cultural characteristics of each country.

Regarding education and communication, surveys suggest that Spaniards hold more neutral views on ecotourism’s contribution to environmental protection, underscoring the importance of providing further education on this subject. Spaniards typically opt for adventure-based pursuits such as cycling and climbing, in contrast to Romanians, who tend to favor cultural and nature-based experiences. Designing tailored ecotourism packages relies heavily on this vital insight. Social and economic background factors, including gender, age, educational level and income, play a substantial role in influencing tourists’ views and actions. Women in Spain, along with older people, tend to see ecotourism as a means of community growth.

The analysis of supplementary services showed additional cultural differences. There is a distinction between tourists who prioritize nature and those who prefer cultural activities, as indicated by the statistically significant negative relationship between nature-based excursions and crafts workshops (−0.290).

In Romania, preferences are more evenly distributed, with moderate links between photography, cultural sightseeing and local engagement. Studies in Malaysia [48] show a similar pattern, indicating that the success of CBET relies on matching its offers with local cultural norms.

• Guidelines for policy and growth suggestions. Increasing local community participation in Community-Based Environmental Transition; improving the infrastructure and training for ecotourism services; and developing marketing strategies that are tailored to specific cultural contexts. Efforts are being made to close the perception gaps on environmental benefits through educational initiatives.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists’ perceptions of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in Romania and Spain. The study highlighted how economic development and cultural factors shape preferences and attitudes.

In conclusion, one of the important remarks of this paper is that even ecotourism destinations are developed in time, and local residents have a minimal perception of this development. Therefore, we recommend making some efforts to develop more activities linked to ecotourism that can sustain CBET.

For some specific recommendations for Romania, we start with Gorjanc et al. [119], who proposed a new ecosystem services approach to enable the identification of pro-biodiversity businesses of protected karst areas in Central and Southeastern Europe by using BIO maps to foster the development of pro-biodiversity businesses (PBBs), which have the capacity to improve local livelihoods.

Our results show that tourists’ perceptions of CBET vary significantly depending on their country of origin and economic context. Romanians showed a stronger belief in the role of ecotourism in benefiting local communities and preserving biodiversity, while Spaniards showed a greater interest in infrastructure and organized ecotourism services.

Starting with our research results, we can also suggest a few policy recommendations for tourism officials, local administrations, and destination marketing organizations (DMO), such as the following:

(1) Enhance ecotourism awareness and education campaigns:

• Create specific, targeted awareness campaigns that use the most effective information channels in each country. In Romania, they should focus on using personal networks, such as community events and local influencers, to spread the word. In Spain, the use of mass media channels like TV shows, travel agencies, and online platforms could be more successful.
• In Romania, educational programs (in schools) have been conducted on the benefits of ecotourism for the environment and local communities. Best practices and success stories can be presented to attract locals.
• High-tech visitor centers and modern technological solutions will undoubtedly boost interest and genuine motivation for ecotourism.
• Developing certification programs or eco-labels for ecotourism service providers that meet high standards of sustainability, community engagement and environmental conservation helps tourists make informed choices. In addition, by promoting sustainable resource use and environmentally friendly practices, for example, ecotourism lodges often use renewable energy, recycle waste and educate visitors and locals about conservation [120].

(2) Strengthening local community involvement in ecotourism planning:

• Local communities can be involved in decision-making on ecotourism development. This participatory approach empowers communities and gives them control over tourism development in their area [121]. This would ensure that the benefits of ecotourism are fairly distributed and that local needs and values are reflected in ecotourism strategies.
• Local communities must be educated to benefit from ecotourism initiatives. This includes skills in hospitality, sustainable practices, entrepreneurship and marketing and enhances the community’s ability to manage tourism sustainably and independently [9].
• Incentives, such as grants, subsidies or tax breaks, should be introduced for businesses that adopt sustainable practices in their tourism operations. These practices could include renewable energy, waste management, water conservation and local and eco-friendly products.

(3) Facilitating cross-cultural and international collaboration:

• Ecotourism packages should be developed and promoted to meet specific Romanian and Spanish tourist preferences. Romania should focus more on cultural immersion activities, such as workshops on traditional crafts and visits to historical sites. Spanish packages should emphasize adventure activities such as cycling, climbing and nature exploration.
• Promoting cross-cultural exchange programs and collaboration between Romanian and Spanish providers is also a priority for sharing best practices, challenges and solutions in community-based ecotourism. Such exchanges will foster mutual learning and help develop more effective sustainable tourism strategies.
• Engaging with international ecotourism networks and organizations to align local policies with global standards and benefit from global expertise and resources can bring substantial value for ecotourism businesses.

These findings can guide policymakers and tourism stakeholders in tailoring ecotourism strategies to meet the specific expectations of tourists from different economic and cultural backgrounds. Improving awareness campaigns and fostering community engagement are key to promoting sustainable CBET practices in different regions.

The results of this study corroborate existing literature on community-based ecotourism (CBET), which emphasizes the significance of cultural background and economic development in shaping tourists’ perceptions and behaviors. Similar to findings by Lorenzo-Romero et al. [101,102], this study confirms that socio-demographic factors such as education and income significantly influence tourists’ motivations and preferences for CBET. Additionally, the observed differences between Romanian and Spanish tourists align with the research of Alarcon-del-Amo et al. [100], who highlighted cultural variations in ecotourism engagement within Europe. The results also echo Sánchez-Rivero et al. [103], demonstrating that tourists from economically advanced countries prioritize infrastructure and recreational activities, whereas those from emerging economies value local culture and community involvement. Furthermore, consistent with Cobbinah [62], this study underscores the importance of educational initiatives to enhance ecotourism awareness and responsible travel behaviors. These corroborations strengthen the study’s findings and validate its comparative approach to understanding CBET perceptions across different European contexts.

Referring to the limitations of the present research, the main one is linked to sampling representativeness due to the fact that the respondent selection was made based on convenience sampling using an online questionnaire.

In conclusion, even Spanish ecotourism has been studied compared with other countries like Chile and Brazil (Latin American countries, not Europeans); our study is the first to compare a Western European country (and more specifically, a European Union country) with an Eastern one, and this is one of the contributions from the practical perspectives of CBET. Another major contribution is linked to the fact that two European countries with similar engagement for ecotourism but different levels of economic development were compared; Romanian ecotourism was, for the first time, analyzed comparatively in the European context. Therefore, we consider that our research fills a gap in the theoretical and practical literature on CBET in Europe and worldwide, emphasizing that the country of origin and, implicitly, the cultural differences can bring similarities between ecotourists, but the level of economic development of a country can highlight significant differences between European countries with similar ecotourism potential. Therefore, this paper provides answers to three important questions for CBET:

(1)

Are tourists from different cultures motivated to travel more in nature and learn about local communities?

(2)

Can this motivation differ according to the economic development level of a country? and

(3)

Can the perception of the concept of ecotourism and, of course, knowledge about ecotourism differ between tourists based on country of origin?

This study explores how economic development and cultural background impact tourist perceptions and motivations within community-based ecotourism (CBET) across Europe. It reveals how socio-economic factors (education, income, nationality) shape ecotourism experiences, enriching our understanding of sustainable tourism and the interplay between ecotourism principles, community development, and environmental conservation. By contrasting perceptions of CBET in Eastern and Western Europe, this study provides a basis for future research on the role of economic and cultural factors in the shaping of sustainable tourism initiatives.

The findings offer practical guidance for tourism professionals. By understanding diverse tourist preferences, operators can tailor ecotourism packages more effectively. Educational initiatives promoting responsible tourism are also crucial.