e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 192 Αntonios Dalakis Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science Georgia Yfantidou Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science George Costa Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science Ourania Matsouka Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science Efstratia Tsitskari Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science Tourists' perspective and nationality impact on destination competitiveness Tourism is an important social phenomenon that impels travel to new destinations. The purpose of this paper is to examine destination competitiveness regarding the tourists’ perspective in Greece. The guiding principle of this study concerns the tourists’ perspective, the overall competitiveness of a destination and whether or not it is dependent upon the perceived quality of tourism experience. A comparative work on a wide range of tourists’ behaviour from different nations about destination competitiveness has multiple benefits for tourism stakeholders. Key words: destination competitiveness, tourist involvement, motivation, tourist experiences, travel behaviour, nationalities Antonios Dalakis Teacher of Physical Education and Sport Science Democritus University of Thrace Department of Physical Education and Sport Science University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Rodopi Greece Phone: +30 6972290257 Email: forest@otenet.gr Georgia Yfantidou Educational Personnel Democritus University of Thrace Department of Physical Education and Sport Science University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Rodopi Greece Phone: +30 25310 39707 Email: gifantid@phyed.duth.gr George Costa http://ertr.tamu.edu/ mailto:forest@otenet.gr mailto:gifantid@phyed.duth.gr e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 193 Professor Democritus University of Thrace Department of Physical Education and Sport Science University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Rodopi Greece Phone: +30 25310 39701 Email: gkosta@phyed.duth.gr Ourania Matsouka Associate Professor Democritus University of Thrace Department of Physical Education and Sport Science University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Rodopi Greece Phone: +30 25310 39706 Email: oumatsou@phyed.duth.gr Efstratia Tsitskari Assistant Professor Democritus University of Thrace Department of Physical Education and Sport Science University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Rodopi Greece Phone: +30 25310 39684 Email: etsitska@phyed.duth.gr Antonios Dalakis has a Ph.D. in sports tourism and he is a teacher of physical education and sport at public schools. He worked also for many years at outdoor recreational companies in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Georgia Yfantidou has a Ph.D. in sports tourism. She is an educational personnel at Department of Physical Education & Sport Sciences at Democritus University of Thrace in Greece, where she teaches on the Undergraduate level. George Costa works as a Professor at Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace in Komotini, Greece. He received his doctoral degree in recreation management from University of Oregon. Ourania Matsouka works as an Associate Professor at Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace in Komotini, Greece. Her area of expertise is physical education with an emphasis on outdoor activities. Efstratia Tsitskari works as an Assistant Professor at Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace in Komotini, Greece. Her area of expertise is sports marketing and communication. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ mailto:gkosta@phyed.duth.gr mailto:oumatsou@phyed.duth.gr mailto:etsitska@phyed.duth.gr e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 194 Introduction Tourism is a rapidly developing global economy, which brings together social, cultural, spatial and environmental changes in the structure of modern societies (Yfantidou, Spyridopoulou, Kouthouris, Balaska, Matarazzo, & Costa, 2017). This explains the great difficulties involved in conceptual delimitation and classification of the main elements articulating the concept of “tourism”. The conceptual approaches and definitions of tourism vary depending on the particular context in which they are examined, the context refers to various disciplines (economics, sociology, geography, etc.), and various public and private planners and policy either national or international (Comilis & Vagionis, 1999). Since the early 20th century, many international organizations and experts in tourism, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, tried to define the concepts of tourist and tourism on the basis of certain structural analysis models, expanding different types of tourists (Tsartas, 1996; Varvaressos, 1998). States with economic systems and tourism sectors that are transitioning, evolving, with time, from being centrally controlled to becoming market-driven, face changes that profoundly affect the countries, their economic systems, and their cultures (Andrades, & Dimanche, 2017). In particular, destination competitiveness in developed countries is sensitive to changes in the business environment, macroenvironment, and general infrastructure (Knežević Cvelbar, Dwyer, Koman, & Mihalič, 2016). A greater emphasis on the productivity-enhancing effects of investment should be made for greater efficiencies in capital expenditure, thus helping to foster destination competitiveness. Furthermore, the tourism sector requires a highly skilled tourism workforce as tourism is a service-oriented sector where labor mainly drives overall tourism productivity growth. Tourism training and education are crucial to enhancing industry productivity (Armenski, Dwyer, & Pavluković, 2017). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 195 Destination competitiveness Dwyer and Kim (2003) highlight that a competitive destination ought to be more successful than competitors in various aspects of the overall tourist experience. Thus, to be competitive in the global tourism marketplace, destinations have to be innovative, distinctive, and continuously intensifying either the tourist’s experience or their satisfaction. The increasing number of tourism destinations with similar tourism supply attributes, promotion efforts, and market segments, means that a clear definition of major brand determinants will become an imperative for maintaining competitiveness in the future. Results indicate that the level of tourist satisfaction is significantly and positively associated with the level of branding process implementation, which is a favorable prerequisite for providing and marketing tourism products adapted to tourist needs and expectations (Miličević, Mihalič, & Sever, 2017). The natural and cultural resources represent only a comparative advantage of tourist sites; i.e. they are a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to be competitive. This means, destination management organizations should act on the complementary elements of tourist supply to maintain or improve the competitive position because they have a greater weight on the evaluation process of tourists (Cracolici, & Nijkamp, 2009). Concerning the tourism infrastructure, it is also remarkable that variables such as the number of star-rated hotels and the number of natural attractions were found to be good proxies for tourism as an input in a production function. Following this logic, tourism infrastructure may be used as an indicator of the tourism activity in a given territory (Andrades, & Dimanche, 2017). The determinant attributes identified by Crouch (2011) are infrastructure and accessibility. A destination’s basic infrastructure provides an important foundation on which tourism and other industries rely. Where infrastructure is poor, a destination’s tourism industry is likely to find its http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 196 competitive position significantly compromised. This result suggests that, particularly for developing economies like the Greek economy, investment in basic infrastructural improvements is pivotal to enhancing the position of the tourism industry to compete effectively should be to. Competitive advantage can only be created by improved responsiveness to customer needs and preferences, innovativeness, service quality, price and the so-called non-price factors, etc. Competitiveness indices can provide tourism managers with better insights into the reasons for a destination’s success over time (Gomezelj, & Mihalič, 2008). By comparing and evaluating the tourism competitiveness of cities Zhang, Gu, Gu, & Zhang (2011) identified that the evaluation results could help to deduce problems in tourism development and provide solutions for tourism administration. Mendola and Volo (2017) provided an analytical and statistically sound protocol to build composite indicators “CIs” and, an assessment of tourism destination competitiveness “TDC” indicators. Competitiveness is determined by the synergy of interrelations of primary, secondary and tertiary offerings of tourist destinations, the evaluation of competitiveness is based on clearly quantifiable comparative indicators primarily influenced by their prioritization (Pavolová, Bakalár, & Pavol, 2016). Increasingly, research is focusing on various aspects of consumer satisfaction in tourism and hospitality (Kozak et al., 2000, Lam et.al., 2012) and internet on travel satisfaction (Castañeda et al., 2007; Dwivedi, 2009). As suggested by the theory of expectancy disconfirmation, customers purchase goods and services with prepurchase expectations about anticipated performance. After purchasing and consuming the goods and services, the results are compared to the initial expectations. Disconfirmation only arises if the results do not meet the expectation. Positive disconfirmation occurs when perceptions of real performance are more positive than was expected. Customer satisfaction is therefore http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 197 related to positive disconfirmation or confirmation (Barsky, 1992; Hill, 1986; Oliver, 1980). In tourism, destination satisfaction refers to the degree of overall pleasure or contentment felt by the tourists, resulting from the ability of the destination to fulfill their desires, expectations, and needs (Beerli & Martin, 2004a, 2004b; Lama, Tanb & Ohc, 2014). Muller, Hallmann and Brother (2016) investigate the relationship between the perceived destination competitiveness and tourist satisfaction on the one hand and the relationship between the perceived destination competitiveness and satisfaction with the tourism service from suppliers’ perspective on the other. There are differences regarding the interdependencies of destination competitiveness and satisfaction as perceived by different stakeholders. Different dimensions foster satisfaction for the different stakeholders. Interestingly, there was a negative effect of policy on satisfaction in the tourist sample. Furthermore, sports tourists were more satisfied with destination performance compared to suppliers. There is potential for suppliers to re-consider some policy strategies to be more positively perceived in the future. The tourist destination is the principal component of the functional tourism system. In the current competitive tourism market, competitiveness has been increasingly seen as a critical influence on the performance of tourism destinations. A growing body of literature is being established regarding tourism destination marketing, management, and competitiveness issues. A successful tourism destination must embrace an integrated approach towards many components of the tourism system (Jones & Haven-Tang, 2005; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). The major players in the tourism system – the government, tourism enterprises, tourists, and local communities – may have very different approaches to destination competitiveness. To date, most studies have evaluated destination competitiveness from the industry practitioners’ perspective, generally considered a supply- http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 198 side approach. The existing literature rarely examined the competitiveness of tourism destination from the demand side, i.e., the tourists’ perspective. Novais, Ruhanen and Arcodia (2018) present three qualitatively different conceptions of destination competitiveness. Conception one, the perception of a destination, has a narrower approach and focus and destination competitiveness is delimited to a composite of several separate destination attributes or elements. The scope of competitiveness is expanded in conception two, performance, with an increased focus on the ability of the destination to achieve identifiable outcomes. In conception three, a long-term process, the degree of complexity and sophistication is further extended as the competitiveness of a destination involves a time dimension where vision and strategic orientation are fundamental. In addition, this last conception subsumes each of the lower-ordered understandings. Tourist perspective The tourist perspective analyses co-creation as it happens in the tourist sphere, encompassing the behavior and psychology involved in experiences, before, during and after the travel. The following sections identify and discuss the key dimensions found in the literature. The tourist contributes to some aspect, phase or the overall tourism experience. Co- creation involves processes of interrelated interactions and activities that connect the tourist and other actors before travel (before consumption), during a stay at the destination (during consumption) and/or after the travel (after consumption). The tourist actively participates in on-site experience activities. Travel to visit attractions and destinations involves participation in entertainment-focused or learning-based activities that are perceived as stimulating, different from everyday routines and potentially meaningful. This participation generates the tourist’s interest and purpose while in situ and consequently confers meaning to the travel holiday. The tourist interacts with others during the on-site experience. On-site co-creation http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 199 experiences engage the individual physically, emotionally, and intellectually, while connecting tourists, their relatives and friends, other tourists, locals, staff, and diverse types of suppliers in the experience space or environment (Campos, Mendes, Valle & Scott, 2018). Karl (2018) concluded that the application of a tourist and destination perspective allows further understanding about the decreasing deviation between tourist types from hypothetical to realistic destination choices. But, some factors that have been integrated into the tourist typology are influenced by nationality or cultural background of the respondents and therefore the limitation of his study is the transferability and generalization of these results. The results of Prayag and Ryan (2011) enable common cognitive images to be identified as well as nationality-based differences in image perceptions. For this reason, they presented text analysis programme “CatPac” which is particularly suited for the identification of positive and negative images of a destination and differences by tourists’ characteristics such as nationality. Some tourist motives differed between nationalities and place visited (Kozac, 2002), as such nationality tends to be a common variable used in understanding differences in place perceptions. The aim of the study The purpose of this paper was to examine the destination’s competitiveness from the tourists’ perspective in Greece based on previous research conducted in Virginia USA (Meng, 2006). The guiding principle of this study is that the overall competitiveness of a destination depends on the perception of the quality of the tourist experience with a specific destination. The research seeks to identify factors that are likely to affect tourist perception of the competitiveness of destinations. A theoretical model for exploring the concepts of quality of tourist experience and the perception of tourists on the competitiveness of a destination is suggested. Furthermore, this paper will provide an overview of travel behavior of different http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 200 nationalities, including preferred outdoor recreational activities. Monitoring tourist experience is crucial for the competitiveness of a destination. From a scientific perspective, this research examines the validity of the questionnaire used in a prior study with American citizens (Meng, 2006). The study utilizes factor analysis to discover the underlying dimensions and for this reason, a large sample was used to verify factors. For this research, the questionnaires were translated from English to Greek, German, Polish and Bulgarian languages and culturally adapted to approach foreign tourists coming to the destinations in Greece. Methodology Sample For the purposes of this research 4,000 questionnaires were surveyed by using random sampling to tourists who visited the region of Eastern Macedonia and Trace in Greece. 3637 were returned and 3070 which were totally completed were evaluated. The number of men in the survey was 1596 while the women were 1302. There were 172 people who did not answer this question. There were three age groups divided the survey sample. The first was from 17- 39 years (original maturity), the second from 40-59 years (middle adulthood) and the third 60 years and over (final maturity) (Gibson, 1994). Questionnaire Meng’s (2006) scale of Destination Competitiveness from the Tourists’ Perspective was used in this research. The theoretical concepts of the research were four. First the Quality of vacation Experience (with 4 phases): Pre-trip planning, En-Route Experience, Destination On-site and After-trip. Second the Perceived Destination Competitiveness, third the Tourist Involvement and fourth Motivation. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 201 The first theoretical concept of the research was the Quality of vacation Experience which had 4 phases. Pre-trip Planning Phase with 4 questions, the En-route Experience Phase with 6 questions, the Destination On-site Phase with 10 questions and the After-trip Phase with 5 questions. The second theoretical concept of the research was the Perceived Destination Competitiveness with 21 questions. The third theoretical concept of the research was the Tourist Involvement with 11 questions based on two scales for the involvement: Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) and Consumer Involvement Profile (CIP). The fourth theoretical concept of the research was the Motivation of tourists with 12 questions. Finally, the questionnaire had five questions regarding general travel behavior of tourists and at the last page there were 7 questions for the description of their holidays, 1 question about the area of the 13 regions of the country where they usually go on vacation and 1 question about the sport activities they choose to perform in the vacation area. The last part contained 10 questions about demographic characteristics such as residence place, gender, age of participants, marital status, number of people included in the family, the number of children and their ages, educational level, annual income, and occupation. The questionnaires were in English and translated in Greek, German, Polish and Bulgarian. The procedure of double translation for each of the languages was followed and afterward the questionnaire was translated from English (original) to Greek and adapted to the needs of the research. The Romanian participants in the research completed questionnaires which were in English. Popular sporting outdoor recreation activities were included in the questionnaire and divided into two categories a) moderate activities: canoeing on lakes, rivers and sea, archery, sport shooting, orientation & hiking and intense activities, b) vigorous: rafting, diving, M.T.B. (Mountain bike), climbing - rappel, Flying-fox (rope games), mountain hiking, water sports, paragliding, motorsports and other. All the questionnaire responses were given in http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 202 5point scale of Likert from 1 "not at all important" to 5 "very important". In the case of the tourist involvement on vacation, the 5point scale of Likert was from 1 "absolutely disagree" to 5 "totally agree". Process The survey was conducted in the 13th Region of the country, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, including five prefectures with a total area of 14,157 km² (GNTO, 2003). The total population of the region is 608,182 inhabitants (census 2011) (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2017). The prefectures of the region are the prefecture of Drama, the prefecture of Kavala, the prefecture of Xanthi, the prefecture of Rodopi and the prefecture of Evros. The capital of the region is the city of Komotini, the capital of the Rodopi prefecture. There are two islands in the area, the island of Thassos, which administratively belongs to the prefecture of Kavala and the island of Samothraki, which administratively belongs to the prefecture of Evros. In the south, the region is washed by the sea in four of the five prefectures, the Thracian Sea. The northern borders of the region are covered by the mountain range of Rodopi with the highest mountain Mount Falakro (2,229 meters) in the prefecture of Drama. The eastern point of the region is the country's border with Turkey, divided for the most part by the river Evros, the second largest river in the Balkans (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2017). The western border is the prefecture of Serres. The survey was conducted in northeastern Greece in the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. This region is a large tourist destination in northern Greece. Furthermore, the area is famous for its incredible natural beauty, with areas protected by the international convention RAMSAR (Ramsar Convention, 2018) and the European treaty NATURA 2000 (European Union, 2009). Thus, there are 4 of the 11 areas of the country protected by the Ramsar Convention, the delta of the River Evros, Lake Ismarides, Lake Vistonida and the delta of the Nestos http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 203 River. Of the 24 areas protected by the European treaty NATURA in the region there are 4: Dadia-Lefkimmi-Soufliou Forest National Park, Evros Delta National Park, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace National Park (Nestos, Vistonida, Ismarida) and National Park Rodopi mountain range. The district has 638 different categories of accommodation (from 5- star hotels to ecotourist hostels) (EMT, 2018). The survey sample was comprised of tourists and visitors found in the research area between 1-1-2015 to 31-12-2015. The questionnaire was distributed at the hotel Thraki Palace in Alexandroupolis, the hotel Agriani in Xanthi, on ships (ferry boat schedules Keramoti - Limenas Thasos Alexandroupolis - Samothrace line), at beaches (the island of Thasos and Samothrace, in Xanthi and Alexandroupolis), at destinations where outdoor recreational activities took place (in different points of the river Nestos delta Evros river, the canyon of the river Aggitis, in Vistonida lake in Livaditi waterfall in Xanthi, the narrow river Nestos, the ski center of Falakro Drama), and at the city centers of Drama, Kavala, Xanthi, Komotini and Alexandroupoli or outdoor in the suburban forest of Xanthi, the monasteries of Xanthi, in Nymfaia area in Komotini, in St. Barbara park in Drama, at the Kavala castle in Dadia forest. Results A total of 3070 participants from 7 different countries were surveyed. 1666 were from Greece (873 men and 793 women), 251 were from Great Britain (138 men and 113 women), 233 were from Germany (152 men and 81 women), 156 were from Poland (67 men and 89 women), 461 were from Bulgaria (292 men and 169 women), 67 were from Cyprus (36 men and 31 women) and 64 were from Romania (37 men and 27 women) (missing values 172). The Greek participants resided in 47 of the 51 prefectures. The ages of participants were: 17- 39 years 69.8%, 40-59 years 24.7% 60 years and over 1,7% (Gibson, 1994). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 204 To detect scale dimensionality, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component method was conducted for each construct and sub-construct. A separate principal component analysis was conducted for each sub-construct because the items of each sub- construct were pre-determined. Seven-factor analyses through the principal component analysis and the varimax rotation were implemented. For this reason, a large sample was used to verify initial factors. The number of the factors were determined by using the criterion of eigenvalues, which should have been greater than one (>1). Also, the maximum iterations number of convergence should have been equal to .40. The factorial and reliability analysis of the research are presented in the below tables. Table 1: Factor analysis for the Pre-Trip Planning Experience. Quality of Pre-Trip Planning Experience Factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Variance percentage Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 3. Being able to find plenty of information about my destination. 2. Having easy access to information about my destination. 1. Having enough time to plan the trip. 4. Receiving high-quality services by professionals (travel agents, booking staff in hotels, service staff at visitor centers etc.) when I plan my holidays. (If you do not usually use these services put an X here). .78 .75 .67 .67 1.97 49,33% 49,33% .627 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 205 Table 2: Factor analysis for the En-Route Experience. Quality of En-Route Experience Factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 1st Factor 11. Receiving high-quality services on the way to and from the place of my destination. 7. Having easy access to my destination from my place of residence. 9. Having convenient transportation to and from the place of my destination. 2nd Factor 8. Having safe transportation to and from the place of my destination. 10. Receiving clear directions and guidance (either at the airport or driving myself the way etc.). 12. Having a trouble-free journey to and from the place of my destination. .79 .73 .69 .82 .76 .58 1.78 1.72 29.62% 28.61% 58.23% .640 .613 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 206 Table 3: Factor analysis for the On-Site Instrumental Experience. Quality of On-Site Instrumental Experience Factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 1st Factor 15. High-quality accommodation at the place of destination. 17. High-quality food at the place of destination. 16. Good facilities at the accommodation place. 20. To receive high-quality services at the place of destination. 2nd Factor 22. Pleasant relationships/communication with local people at the place of destination. 23. Friendly guidance/information at the place destination. 25. Pleasant relationships/communication with the customer service staff at the place of destination. 3rd Factor 21. Clean environment at the place .83 .72 .71 .52 .82 .74 .68 .76 2.05 1.93 1.72 20.52% 19.31% 17.20% 57.03% .687 .686 .527 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 207 of destination. 24. My safety to be assured at the place of destination. 19. Reasonable prices, in general, at the place of destination. .66 .60 Table 4: Factor analysis for the After-Trip Reflection. After-Trip Reflection Factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 31. Having the feeling that my life was "enriched" by my holidays. 32. Having a sense of personal reward after my holidays. 28. Having experienced a sense of freedom during the holidays. 29. Feeling well-rested and refreshed after the holidays. 30. Having the feeling that I have spent quality time with my family and friends. .77 .75 .66 .63 .55 2.29 45.78% 45.78% .701 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 208 Table 5: Factor analysis for the Perceived Destination Competitiveness. Perceived Destination Competitiveness Factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 1st Factor: Destination management and marketing 19. The price - quality ratio is good for the overall travel experience. 14. The overall stay experience at the place of destination 'fits' the visitor's needs. 18. The dedication of the place of destination to provide an adequate holiday experience. 12. Competitive prices for the whole package holidays in relation to competing destinations. 16. The nature of the location of the destination helps guests to work with comfort in their daily activities (exchange money, knowledge of the language of the visitor, ease in bookings, etc.). 20. The constant dedication of .70 .64 .58 .56 .52 .50 3.09 14.70% 48.59% .780 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 209 destination to the continuous improvement and development of quality benefits. 13. The dedication of the place destination to promoting its positive image. .48 2nd Factor: Accessibility and Information Availability 1. Easy access to the place of destination (frequency/possibility of transferring). 2. Smooth journey to and from the place of destination. 4. Travel arrangements according to the place of destination without experiencing any problems. 3. Easy access to important information about the destination before traveling. 7. High-quality tourism infrastructure (accommodation, restaurants, local transportation network, telecommunications systems, provision of health services, etc.). 3rd Factor: Tourism attributes 21. The overall favorable image that the destination has in the global community. 22. The alliance/connection of the place of destination with intermediaries in the tourism sector (travel agents, airlines, hotel chains, .78 .71 .60 .55 .40 .78 .75 2.33 2.60 11.09% 12.38% .719 .743 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 210 etc.). 9. A satisfactory variety of activities offered to tourists at the place of destination (festivals, entertainment, nightlife, etc.). 15. Easy access to important information about the destination before traveling. 17. Political instructions favorable to tourists (low or no tax on tourist services, access to public facilities such as museums and public buildings, etc.). 4th Factor: Price and value 8. The dedication to the preservation of the environment of the place of destination. 6. Unique tourist sights (natural environment, historical/cultural/world heritage sights, local culture, customs, etc.). 10. Friendliness and hospitality of local people. 11. High-quality services/facilities at the place of destination. .57 .48 .42 .70 .64 .59 .50 2.19 10,42% .662 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 211 Table 6: Factor analysis for the tourists’ involvement. Tourists’ involvement factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 1st Factor: Interest/Pleasure 1. I attach great importance to the holidays. 11. I am quite interested in holidays. 3. It gives me pleasure to buy a vacation package. 2. The holidays that I buy 'say' something about me. .80 .73 .61 .56 1.92 17.48% 60.60 .653 2nd Factor: Sign 7. You can tell a lot about a person by the vacation he/she chooses. 14. The vacation I buy gives a glimpse at the type of person I am. .82 .80 1.85 16.84% .716 3rd Factor: Risk Probability 12. When someone buys a vacation package, she/he is never sure for her/his choice. 6. When someone buys holidays, she/he can never be sure if they were that had to be purchased. 5. Buying holidays is complicated. 8. When I buy holidays, it is not very important if I am wrong. 10. When confronted with a variety of options for holidays, I always feel "lost” to make my choice. .78 .77 .70 .67 .67 2.89 26.28% .804 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 212 Table 7: Factor analysis for the motivation. Motivation factor Factor Loading Eigen - value Explained Variance Performance percentage Reliability Coefficient 1st Factor: The external environment 9. Getting involved in various activities. 10. Coming closer to nature. 8. Meeting new people and being social. 7. Developing my personal interests. 13. Seeking intellectual enrichment/increasing knowledge. 4. Visiting new places and experiencing new experiences. .76 .71 .68 .59 .56 .40 2.47 20.61% 49.98% .749 2nd Factor: Love and safety 12. Feeling personally secure. 3. Enjoy peace and quiet. 11. Being with family and friends. 6. Feeling physically and mentally refreshed. 3rd Factor: Self-actualization 2. Having fun and do exciting things. 1. Having the feeling of freedom and looseness. .65 .64 .56 .49 .75 .71 1.96 1.56 16.36% 13.01% .536 .506 Each scale was tested separately about the reliability and structural validity (table 8). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 213 Table 8: A comparative table of the results of factorial analysis and reliability analysis of both researches. Virginia Research – Meng (2006) Greek research – 2016 Theoretical Concepts Factors % of Variance – Reliability % of Variance - Reliability Quality of vacation Experience Pre-trip planning experience 55.75% ,69 49.33% .627 Quality of vacation Experience En-route experience 1 58.76% ,83 29.62% .640 Quality of vacation Experience En-route experience 2 - 28.61% .613 58.23% Quality of vacation Experience On-site instrumental experience 59.61% ,84 20.52% .687 Quality of vacation Experience On-site expressive experience 52.97% ,76 19.31% .686 Quality of vacation Experience On-site security - 17.20% .527 57.03% Quality of vacation Experience After-trip reflection 61.45% ,76 45.78% .701 Perceived Destination Competitiveness Destination management and marketing 37.11% ,86 14.70% .780 Perceived Destination Competitiveness Accessibility and information availability 7.63% ,79 11.09% .719 Perceived Destination Competitiveness Tourism attributes 5.88% ,76 12.38 .743 Perceived Destination Competitiveness Price and value 5.26% ,79 10.42% .662 55.88% 48.59% Tourist Involvement Interest/pleasure 25.70% .795 17.48% .653 Tourist Involvement Sign 17.11% .838 16.84% .716 Tourist Involvement Risk probability 11.90% 690 26.28 .804 Tourist Involvement Risk importance 8.39% .631 - 63.1% 60.6% Motivation The external N/A 20.61% ,749 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 214 environment Motivation Love and safety N/A 16.36% ,536 Motivation Self- actualization N/A 13.01% ,519 49.98% Furthermore, tourists were asked about the sports activities that they participated in or would like to participate in. 14 sports activities were presented in the questionnaire (figure 2). Figure 1: The number of tourists that selected moderate-intensity activities. Figure 2: The number of tourists that selected vigorous intensity activities. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 215 Crosstab analyses were run between the above categories of recreational activities and the different nationalities of the tourists. The positive answers and the results according to their nationalities in Table 9. Table 9: Activities that are selected by different nationalities. Greek British German Polish Bulgarian Cypriot Romanian Canoe-Kayak 794 177 169 61 406 44 17 47,60% 10,60% 10,10% 3,70% 24,30% 2,60% 1,00% Rafting 671 143 33 55 380 41 12 50,30% 10,70% 2,50% 4,10% 28,50% 3,10% 0,90% Archery 522 105 27 49 302 33 7 50,00% 10,00% 2,60% 4,70% 28,90% 3,20% 0,70% Diving 665 123 170 58 277 37 19 49,30% 9,10% 12,60% 4,30% 20,50% 2,70% 1,40% Sport shooting 503 116 159 42 308 36 11 42,80% 9,90% 13,50% 3,60% 26,20% 3,10% 0,90% Mountain bike (M.T.B.) 620 142 155 45 380 37 7 44,70% 10,20% 11,20% 3,20% 27,40% 2,70% 0,50% Mountain hiking 571 127 110 39 299 35 20 47,50% 10,60% 9,20% 3,20% 24,90% 2,90% 1,70% Orienteering 323 64 132 34 144 14 5 50,10% 8,90% 18,40% 4,70% 20,10% 2,00% 0,70% Climbing-Rappelling 582 135 171 41 326 38 25 44,20% 10,30% 13,00% 3,10% 24,70% 2,90% 1,90% Flying-fox 545 121 155 41 329 34 12 44,10% 9,80% 12,50% 3,30% 26,60% 2,70% 1,00% Mountaineering 427 56 103 37 59 12 17 60,10% 7,90% 14,50% 5,20% 8,30% 1,70% 2,40% Water sports 943 159 154 81 198 44 29 58,70% 9,90% 9,60% 5,00% 12,30% 2,70% 1,80% http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 216 Paragliding 447 85 31 43 201 30 13 52,60% 10,00% 3,60% 5,10% 23,60% 3,50% 1,50% Motor sports 263 48 58 23 54 9 11 56,40% 10,30% 12,40% 4,90% 11,60% 1,90% 2,40% Recreational activities were most welcomed by Greek, Bulgarian and German tourists. Below (table 10) it is presented for each nationality the three preferential recreational sports activities. Table 10: The recreational sports activities preferences by each nationality. Nationalities Recreational sport activities preferences by each nationality Canoe- Kayak Water sports Rafting Climbing- Rappelling Diving Mountain hiking Mountain bike (M.T.B.) Flying- fox Greek 33% 39% 28% British 37% 33% 30% German 33% 34% 33% Polish 31% 40% 29% Bulgarian 27% 25% 25% 22% Cypriot 26% 26% 25% 23% Romanian 39% 34% 27% http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 217 Discussion and conclusions The questionnaire of this survey was first utilised the US (Meng, 2006), only minor changes were made to the questionnaire to measure the choices of tourists on the selection of outdoor leisure activity. Popular outdoor recreation activities were selected divided into two categories, moderate and vigorous, to explore the preferences of tourists and provide the entrepreneurs of the area the necessary information to build their recreation activities programs in a way that is suited to different nationalities. Water sports were the primary choice for six of the seven nationalities. Water sports may have been preferred because a) close proximity to the sea (Aegean Sea), b) proximity to rivers and lakes, c) there are many activities offered in the area. The factorial analysis revealed a general agreement between the two questionnaires for the four phases of the tourist experience. Specifically, for the Pre-trip planning both revealed one factor, for the En-Route Experience there was one factor and now two, for the Destination On-site there were two and three accordingly and for the After-trip phase one and one respectively. The destination competitiveness analysis revealed four factors for both research projects. For the tourist involvement, there were four factors in Meng’s (2006) research and three in this one. Destinations compete to attract travellers by emphasizing the experience they should offer (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000, 2003; Dalakis, Yfantidou, Tsitskari, Costa & Tzetzis, 2016). To achieve competitive advantages for a certain tourism destination, the destination must ensure that its overall attractiveness and the tourist experience offered are superior to the visitor’s alternative destinations (Dwyer et al., 2004). Therefore, the quality of tourism experiences is the key to the competitive advantages of the destinations. From the tourists’ perspective, a quality tourism experience could be considered as the major contributing factor http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 218 to their perception of the competitiveness of a specific destination and would influence their decision-making, image, and future behavioural intention toward the destination. Consequently, there is an integrated link between destination competitiveness and the quality of tourism experience and there is a need to examine this issue from the tourists’ perspective. In today’s fast growing economic environment, competitiveness has been examined in general terms in the academic fields of economics, marketing and management. The literature presents two perspectives regarding the definition of “competitiveness”. From a macro perspective, competitiveness is considered a national concern with its goal to improve real income. Competitiveness, in this case, is a very broad construct engaging all social, cultural, and economic aspects which may influence the performance of a nation in international markets (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). To be a competitive destination involves the ability to provide the right product (with the expected quality) at the right time to the right consumer segment. In other words, a destination can be considered competitive if the destination is able to attract and satisfy consumers. This involves high knowledge standards about the destination, entrepreneurs, supplier and tourists (Pechlaner, 1999). Future research could control this scale using adaptations (new factors of motivation, use of outdoor recreational activities, etc.) and could be used in other populations or nations. Therefore, further research can extend the number of nationalities and tourist destinations to be taken into consideration the results of the empirical studies and the findings, where possible. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 219 References Agorastakis, C. (2006). The tour Management. Prentice Hall, University of Crete. Evaluation. Athens: Editions Propompos. Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2017). Destination competitiveness and tourism development in Russia: Issues and challenges. Tourism Management, 62, 360-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.05.008 Armenski, T., Dwyer, L., & Pavluković, V. (2017). Destination Competitiveness: Public and Private Sector Tourism Management in Serbia. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287517692445. Barsky, J. D. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: meaning and measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16, 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809201600105 Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004a). Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: A quantitative analysis- a case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism Management, 25(5), 623-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.06.004 Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004b). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010 Campos, A. C., Mendes, J., Valle, P. O. D., & Scott, N. (2018). Co-creation of tourist experiences: A literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 369-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1081158 Castañeda, J. A., Frías, D.M., & Rodríquez, M. A. (2007). The influence of the internet on destination satisfaction. Internet Research, 17(4), 402-420. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240710828067 Cracolici, M. F., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management, 30(3), 336- 344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.07.006 Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776 Dalakis A., Yfantidou G., Tsitskari E., Costa G., & Tzetzis G. (2016). Location and activities that eco-tourists prefer in Greece. The case of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), 16 Supplement Issue (1), Art 101, 633 - 639. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2016.s1101 Dwivedi, M. (2009). Online destination image of India: A consumer based perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(2), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110910935714 Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962 Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D., & Kim, C. (2004). Attributes of destination competitiveness: a factor analysis. Tourism Analysis, 9, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.3727/1083542041437558 EMT - Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Region (2018). The region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Official site. Retrieved February 25, 2018 from https://www.emtgreece.com/en/access Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in Asia Pacific: comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 339-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274647 European Union (2009). Natura 2000. Cooperation for the nature protect. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274647 e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 220 Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500403 Gibson, H. (1994). Some predictors of tourist role preference for men and women over the adult life course. Dissertation thesis. AAT: 9525663, Connecticut. Gomezelj, D. O., & Mihalič, T. (2008). Destination competitiveness - Applying different models, the case of Slovenia. Tourism Management, 29(2), 294-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.009 Greek National Tourism Organization “GNTO” (2003). Report of tourist development of the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Retrieved February 24, 2018 from http://www.gnto.gov.gr/sites/default/files/files_basic_pages/perilipsi_anat_makedonia.p df Hellenic Statistical Authority (2017). Greece in figures. October - December 2017. Piraeus: Statistical Information and Publications Division, Hellenic Republic. Retrieved February 20, 2018 from http://www.statistics.gr/documents/20181/1515741/GreeceInFigures_2017Q4_EN.pdf/d 77cccd0-8fcf-401d-8651-ded36a6012ce Hill, D. J. (1986). Satisfaction and consumer services. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 311-315. Hudson, S., Ritchie, B., & Timur, S. (2004). Measuring destination competitiveness: an empirical study of Canadian ski resorts. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 1(1), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479053042000187810 Jones, E., & Haven-Tang, C. (2005). Tourism SMEs, service quality and destination competitiveness. In E. Jones & C. Haven-Tang (Eds.), Tourism SMEs, Service Quality and Destination Competitiveness (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: CABI publishing. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990118.0000 Karl, M. (2018). Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making: Tourist and destination perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 129-146. http://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516678337 Knežević Cvelbar, L., Dwyer, L., Koman, M., & Mihalič, T. (2016). Drivers of destination competitiveness in tourism: a global investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 55(8), 1041-1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515617299 Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tourism management, 23(3), 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261- 5177(01)00090-5 Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off- season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003800308 Kyle, G.T., Graefe, A.R., Manning, R.E. & Bacon, J. (2004). Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density. Journal of leisure Research, 36(2), 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950020 Lam, J. M. S., Chong, V.S.W., Yeo, S.F., Goh, M. L., and Oh, Y.L. (2012), Exploring tourists’ satisfaction in 600-year-old city of Historic Malacca. Advances in Education Research Journal, 7, 412-418. Lama J.M.S., Tanb S.H., & Ohc Y.L. (2014). Exploring Internet Influence towards Travel Satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 130, 542 – 551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.063 Meng, F. (2006). An Examination of Destination Competitiveness from the Tourists’ Perspective: The Relationship between Quality of Tourism Experience and Perceived http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 221 Destination Competitiveness. Doctoral thesis, Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Mendola, D., & Volo, S. (2017). Building composite indicators in tourism studies: Measurements and applications in tourism destination competitiveness. Tourism Management, 59, 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.011 Miličević, K., Mihalič, T., & Sever, I. (2017). An investigation of the relationship between destination branding and destination competitiveness. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(2), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1156611 Muller, S., Hallmann, K., & Brother, G. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions on the interdependencies of destination competitiveness and satisfaction in winter sport destinations. Novais, M. A., Ruhanen, L., & Arcodia, C. (2018). Destination competitiveness: A phenomenographic study. Tourism Management, 64, 324-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.014 Oliver, R. L. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460- 469. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150499 Pavolová, H., Bakalár, T., & Pavol, M. (2016). Evaluation of competitiveness of selected geotourist destinations in Slovakia-case study from the Malá Fatra and Central Spiš area. E-review of Tourism Research, 13(5/6), 561-574. Pechlaner, H. (1999). The competitiveness of alpine destinations between market pressure and problems of adaptation. Turizam, 47(4), 232-242. Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2011). The relationship between the ‘push’and ‘pull’factors of a tourist destination: The role of nationality–an analytical qualitative research approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683501003623802 Ramsar Convention (2018). RAMSAR convention - Greece. Retrieved February 25, 2018 from https://www.ramsar.org/wetland/greece Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: a sustainability perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1-7. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Cambridge: CABI Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996646.0000 Stanners, D., & Bourdeau, P. (1995). Europe's environment: The Dobrís assessment. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, 676 (92-826-5409-5), Luxembourg. Tsartas, P. (1996). Tourists, Travel, places: Sociological Approaches in Tourism. Athens: Exantas. Varvaressos, S. (1998). Tourism: Concepts, sizes, structures: The Greek reality. Athens: Propompos. Wong, P. P., & Teoh, K. (2015). The influence of destination competitiveness on customer- based brand equity. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.05.001 Yfantidou G., Spyridopoulou E., Kouthouris Ch., Balaska P., Matarazzo M., & Costa G. (2017). The future of sustainable tourism development for the Greek enterprises that provide sport tourism. Tourism Economics, 23(5), 1155-1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816616686415 Zhang, H., Gu, C. L., Gu, L. W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy–A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management, 32(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.007 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 2018 http://ertr.tamu.edu 222 Zehrer, A., & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of destination competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2), 120-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.003 http://ertr.tamu.edu/