Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Tamara Gajić
 -- 1760 2024-01-20 13:46:57 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
-1 word(s) 1759 2024-01-22 03:18:03 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Gajić, T.; Đoković, F.; Blešić, I.; Petrović, M.D.; Radovanović, M.M.; Vukolić, D.; Mandarić, M.; Dašić, G.; Syromiatnikova, J.A.; Mićović, A. Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54146 (accessed on 02 July 2024).
Gajić T, Đoković F, Blešić I, Petrović MD, Radovanović MM, Vukolić D, et al. Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54146. Accessed July 02, 2024.
Gajić, Tamara, Filip Đoković, Ivana Blešić, Marko D. Petrović, Milan M. Radovanović, Dragan Vukolić, Marija Mandarić, Goran Dašić, Julia A. Syromiatnikova, Andrej Mićović. "Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54146 (accessed July 02, 2024).
Gajić, T., Đoković, F., Blešić, I., Petrović, M.D., Radovanović, M.M., Vukolić, D., Mandarić, M., Dašić, G., Syromiatnikova, J.A., & Mićović, A. (2024, January 20). Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54146
Gajić, Tamara, et al. "Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment." Encyclopedia. Web. 20 January, 2024.
Pandemic, Service in Rural Households and the Rural Environment
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12030624

Tourism is sensitive to all kinds of crises caused by natural disasters: infectious diseases, conflicts, energy losses, economic and political instability, etc. There is a large number of studies that deal with the negative consequences that the pandemic has had on tourism, and destruction of large tourist centers, but few of them have recorded the opposite effect or the importance of the expansion of visits to villages in that period, or saw the rural setting as an advantage to encourage investing in the quality of rural services recovery. The search for solutions to overcome the crisis in the tourism sector is an acute problem and focuses on changing the direction of tourism and its sustainable approach, and also focuses on mutual benefits for non-agricultural activities.

rural tourism COVID-19 service quality predictions Serbia

1. Introduction

Tourism is the branch of the economy most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, whose effects will be felt for a long time. Many countries have managed to return to normal flows of tourist traffic with the help of state donations, especially countries that recognize tourism as an economic mainstay. Measures that have been relaxed but are unfortunately still in effect in some countries, such as doing business online, keeping a distance, and developing and applying modern technology in all sectors, will definitely help in the recovery. However, the question is whether this will be possible within the framework of the development of tourism activities, and it will be of key importance to observe the measures necessary for the recovery of tourism, but that will not undermine security. Each country will find its own solutions as it re-enters the market and seeks to be ready for other similar unpredictable situations.

2. A Theoretical Approach to the Relationship between the Pandemic and the Rural Environment

In the period of the pandemic, rural and mountainous environments proved to be best suited as an escape from the disease’s catastrophic impact and negative consequences. Apart from travel to those destinations, demand for other types of tourism such as free and independent travel, luxury travel and health or medical tourism were observed [1], including sports tourism and smart tourism [2]. Most studies have shown that destinations in nature, which can be called units of internal tourism, were less affected than urban and coastal ones [3], and that being isolated gave them an advantage over other forms of tourism, because they reduced the risk of infections by offering unpolluted air, low population density, reduced interaction between people, easy social distancing and smaller-scale accommodation [4].
Many studies also debate the importance of rural areas, claiming that a rural area is not necessarily a tourist destination. However, it certainly becomes one when agricultural companies diversify economic activities by investing in rural tourism, and local actors provide active support and co-participation [5], and that rural tourism is characterized by key aspects: safety location, sustainable development, and community-based characteristics and experiences [6]. The reasons that rural areas are perceived as the opposite of urban ones [7] are precisely why they are suitable for health protection: they offer isolation, relaxation, outdoor activities and proximity to nature [8][9][10]. In the period of COVID-19, people’s recreational behavior also changed: they turned to unexplored natural regions, and had more contact with natural elements [11] because urban areas did not offer the best chance for survival during the crisis. The pandemic, in a certain way, led to an economic, social and cultural rural revitalization [12].
The situation that befell the world, followed by security measures and border closures, encouraged many countries to change their strategies in tourism and to turn to the less visited hidden natural areas [13], and this increased demand led to the strengthening of the market position of rural households [14]. However, the sudden shift to rural areas and staying in them for a long period of time led to the disclosure of numerous deficiencies within rural tourism businesses and their provision of services in terms of quality, thus providing new opportunities for the reorganization and future development of villages with the aim of better strategic planning [15]. In many countries, more than 70% of tourism resources are distributed in the countryside [15], which indicates that the tendency towards tourism in rural areas has increased significantly and that destinations that had the possibility of providing quality rural services experienced stronger and more permanent recovery of domestic demand [16]. The trend of going to rural areas has continued even during the waning of the pandemic [16], but the problems that were observed demand a solution, especially in terms of quality [17], and such a new orientation requires investment in infrastructure, marketing and regional cooperation, in order to draw both domestic and foreign tourists to natural, gastronomic and local attractions [18].

3. The Quality of Service in Rural Households as a Booster for the Recovery of Tourism

Although the number of tourists in some rural areas has increased, the rural tourism market has not fully recovered and is struggling to grow significantly after the pandemic [19]. Apart from the key strategic steps of recovery such as enhancing the local area’s self-governance ability, boosting rural social networks and skills, promoting innovation of development mechanisms and persistence in cultivating resilience [20], it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the level of service quality and determine strategic measures for its improvement [21].
The recovery of rural tourism in the era after COVID-19 should not mean only a temporary escape during crisis, but should also consolidate achievements in reducing poverty and promote rural revitalization and the return of youth to live and work in the countryside [22]. Furthermore, the controlled accelerated development of rural areas after the pandemic, with a focus on service quality, can contribute to higher incomes for rural households and rural enterprises in all sectors of Europe’s diverse rural economies, as well as to charities and social organizations, as previous crises have also highlighted the resilience and adaptability of rural economies [23].
Countries that saw a higher degree of economic crisis looked positively at investing in the quality of rural service development and generally in services of all forms of tourism, supporting its development [24]. Rural tourism with high-quality service is considered as a positive for the development of the entire tourism industry, and as offering an additional source of income that fits well with the existing sustainable means of living [25]. Furthermore, earlier research has shown that the pandemic had a positive impact on rural households and mountain tourism [26], and that rural tourism, by developing quality service in accordance with consumer demands, can influence the revitalization of rural areas and the entire local economy, especially in crisis conditions [27][28]. After the pandemic, the quality of services in rural areas becomes more and more important [29], because the strength rural tourism will have in stimulating economic development depends on the level of quality achieved [30].
The specificity of rural services is reflected in traditional and rustic accommodation, which is different from that of standard city hotels. It is increasingly difficult to achieve a high level of quality that satisfies modern consumers [31], but investment in quality is certainly of key importance because of the multiple benefits for local society and tourists [32][33]. A different arrangement of space and services, as well as a multifunctional prior village environment with the use of agricultural land and a tendency towards sustainable development, is a characteristic of areas that are far from urban centers and whose quality is very often difficult to determine [34][35][36]. Many rural areas have numerous natural resources needed to attract tourists, but there are other factors at play that serve to satisfy the needs of visitors, and they must attract them exclusively with quality, which is confirmed by numerous studies [37][38][39][40][41].
The evaluation of the current state of rural service quality depends on the fulfillment of visitors’ expectations [42], and the smallest gap between expected and received service [43][44]. This means that quality must be achieved in each of the stages of providing services to tourists [45]. Furthermore, there are studies that claim that more attention should be paid to the material elements of service quality, but in order to improve the overall tourist experience in the future, everything should be consolidated with the intangible elements of service quality [46].
In researching the quality of rural service, the main components are the examination of the difference in the expected and received responses from the visitor, and the task is to make the gap as small as possible [47]. Most studies use the SERVQUAL model [47], which has been adapted to rural service quality in the form of the RURALQUAL model [48]. When analyzing quality attributes, the IPA grid is most often used, where all attributes are divided into two dimensions: performance and importance [49]. The combination of the IPA grid and the gap between the expected and received rural service contributes to a better understanding of the position of the service and to finding key factors for success in providing quality services [50][51].
There are several issues of service quality in the literature. Parasuraman et al. [47] highlight several elements of quality: tangible elements, reliability, response capability, assurance, and empathy, while Babakus and Boller [52] claim that the elements of quality adapt to the type of service and do not have predetermined elements applicable everywhere, adding to that the elements of cost and convenience. Zhou et al. [53] distinguished the following elements of rural service quality: functional elements, satisfaction elements, emotional elements and price value. Additionally, they used the IPA network to investigate the importance-performance relationship between the mentioned quality elements. Functional elements refer to the basic objects and equipment of the household, emotional elements to the relationship of the host to the guests [54]. Elements of satisfaction also play a key role in creating a quality offering in rural households [55]. However, price value is often considered as a special element of quality that greatly influences the attitude and perception of tourists [53].
Agrarian cooperatives can play an active role in the development of quality rural tourism offerings, especially in Serbia [56]. Rural tourism in Serbia has flourished since the pandemic period, and some authors believe that these areas will become the very center of tourism in Serbia [29]. During the pandemic, more than 80% of all tourist movements took place within rural and mountain destinations [57]. In 2019, the authors of this research also conducted a similar survey of the quality of services in rural households on a smaller sample. It was observed that, comparing a repeated survey after the pandemic, the quality of the rural offering did not decline [29]. However, despite these data and the fact that the great importance of rural tourism in Serbia can be seen, there is very little literature and a small number of research studies on the topic and issues of service quality, especially after the pandemic [58].

References

  1. Seo, B.R.; Kim, K.L. The Post Pandemic Revitalization Plan for the Medical Tourism Sector in South Korea: A Brief Review. Iran. J. Public Health 2021, 50, 1766–1772.
  2. Wen, J.; Kozak, M.; Yang, S.; Liu, F. COVID-19: Potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel. Tour. Rev. 2020, 76, 74–87.
  3. Rebola, F.; Loures, L.; Ferreira, P.; Loures, A. Inland or Coastal: That’s the Question! Different Impacts of COVID-19 on the Tourism Sector in Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16248.
  4. Coroş, M.M.; Bode, O.R.; Săvan, E.E.; Ciucioiu, T.A. Rural Tourism During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study from North-Western Transylvania. Stud. Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Negot. 2021, 66, 7–22.
  5. Peira, G.; Longo, D.; Pucciarelli, F.; Bonadonna, A. Rural tourism destination: The Ligurian Farmers’ perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13684.
  6. Rosalina, P.D.; Dupre, K.; Wang, Y. Rural tourism: A systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 134–149.
  7. Lane, B. Sustainable rural tourism strategies: A tool for development and conservation. J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 102–111.
  8. Frochot, I. A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 335–346.
  9. Molera, L.; Albaladejo, P. Profiling segments of tourists in rural areas of south-eastern Spain. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 757–767.
  10. Park, D.; Yoon, Y. Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 99–108.
  11. Bielska, A.; Borkowski, A.S.; Czarnecka, D.M.; Malina, J.K.; Piotrkowska, M. Evaluating the potential of suburban and rural areas for tourism and recreation, including individual short-term tourism under pandemic conditions. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20369.
  12. Wang, L.; Yotsumoto, Y. Conflict in tourism development in rural China. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 188–200.
  13. Shrestha, R.K.; L’Espoir Decosta, P. Developing dynamic capabilities for community collaboration and tourism product innovation in response to crisis: Nepal and COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 31, 168–186.
  14. Silva, L. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism: A case study from Portugal. Anatolia 2022, 33, 157–159.
  15. Yang, J.; Zhu, G. The Recovery Strategy of Rural Tourism in the Post-Epidemic Period. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Social Sciences and Big Data Application (ICSSBDA 2021), Xi’an, China, 10–12 December 2021; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2021.
  16. Marques, C.P.; Guedes, A.; Bento, R. Rural tourism recovery between two COVID-19 waves: The case of Portugal. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 25, 857–863.
  17. Osman, Z.; Sentosa, I. Mediating Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Service Quality and Customer Loyalty Relationship in Malaysian Rural Tourism. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2013, 2, 25–37. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2196815 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  18. Vaishar, A.; Št’astná, M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia preliminary considerations. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 25, 187–191.
  19. Li, L.; Tao, Z.; Lu, L. Understanding differences in rural tourism recovery: A critical study from the mobility perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 1, 1368–3500.
  20. Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; He, Y.; Zhu, Z. Exploring the Factors of Rural Tourism Recovery in the Post-COVID-19 Era Based on the Grounded Theory: A Case Study of Tianxi Village in Hunan Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5215.
  21. Cró, S.; Martins, A.M. Structural breaks in international tourism demand: Are they caused by crises or disasters? Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 3–9.
  22. Aithal, R.; Anil, R.K.; Angmo, D. Rural tourism in India: Case studies of resilience during crisis. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 15, 63–73.
  23. Phillipson, J.; Gorton, M.; Turner, R.; Shucksmith, M.; Aitken-cDermott, K.; Areal, F.; Cowie, P.; Hubbard, C.; Maioli, S.; McAreavey, R.; et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for rural economies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3973.
  24. Chatzigeorgiou, C.; Simeli, I. Delegate Satisfaction. Service quality, satisfaction, future behavioural intentions. J. Tour. Herit. Serv. Mark. 2020, 6, 3–8.
  25. N’Drower, F.; Moscardo, G.; Murphy, L. Tourism brings good things: Tourism and community development in rural Papua New Guinea. Tour. Rev. Int. 2021, 25, 229–245.
  26. Seraphin, H.; Dosquet, F. Mountain tourism and second home tourism as post COVID-19 lockdown placebo? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2020, 12, 485–500.
  27. Chuang, S.T. Residents’ attitudes toward rural tourism in Taiwan: A comparative viewpoint. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 15, 152–170.
  28. Hwang, J.; Lee, S. The effect of the rural tourism policy on non-farm income in South Korea. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 501–513.
  29. Gajić, T.; Vukolić, D.; Petrović, M.; Blešić, I.; Zrnić, M.; Cvijanović, D.; Sekulić, D.; Spasojević, A.; Obradović, A.; Obradović, M.; et al. Risks in the Role of Co-Creating the Future of Tourism in “Stigmatized” Destinations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15530.
  30. Albacete-Sáez, C.A.; Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M.; Javier Lloréns-Montes, F. Service quality measurement in rural accommodation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2007, 34, 45–65.
  31. Choi, H.; Ann, S.; Lee, K.W.; Park, D.B. Measuring Service Quality of Rural Accommodations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 443.
  32. Augustyn, M.; Ho, S.K. Service quality and tourism. J. Travel Res. 1998, 37, 71–75.
  33. Sharpley, R. Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 233–244.
  34. Wos, B.; Gawlik, A.; Drobek, W. Obiekty hotelarskie na terenach wiejskich—Nowa jakość usług (Hotel enterprises in rural areas—New quality of services). Study Obsz. Wiej. 2018, 49, 173–185. Available online: https://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/publication/86996/edition/67966/obiekty-hotelarskie-na-terenach-wiejskich-nowa-jakosc-uslug-hotel-enterpri (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  35. Št’astná, M.; Vaishar, A.; Brychta, J.; Tuzová, K.; Zloch, J.; Stodolová, V. Cultural tourism as a driver of rural development. case study: Southern Moravia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064.
  36. Fanelli, R.M.; Romagnoli, L. Customer satisfaction with farmhouse facilities and its implications for the promotion of agritourism resources in Italian municipalities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1749.
  37. Blaine, T.; Golam, M.; Var, T. Demand for Rural Tourism: An Exploratory Study. Ann. Tour. Res. 1993, 20, 770–773.
  38. Fleischer, A.; Pizam, A. Rural Tourism in Israel. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 367–372.
  39. Yague, P.R. Rural Tourism in Spain. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 1101–1110.
  40. Tian-Cole, S.; Crompton, J. A Conceptualization of the Relationships between Service Quality and Visitor Satisfaction, and their Links to Destination Selection. Leis. Stud. 2003, 22, 65–80.
  41. Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Smiglak-Krajewska, M.; Viti, D. Identification of the Quality Gaps in the Services Offered in Accommodation Facilities in Rural Areas: The Case of the Lublin Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16873.
  42. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2003, 26, 45–56.
  43. Chi, C.G.-Q.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–663.
  44. Rahimizhian, S.; Avci, T.; Eluwole, K.K. A conceptual model development of the impact of higher education service quality in guaranteeing edu-tourists’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions. J. Public Aff. 2020, 20, e2085.
  45. Puri, G.; Singh, K. The role of service quality and customer satisfaction in tourism industry: A review of SERVQUAL Model. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2018, 5, 745–751. Available online: http://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_20542271.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  46. Marković, S.; Kljaic Šebrek, J. Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism: Application of RURALQUAL Model. Acad. Tur. Tour. Innov. J. 2020, 13, 215–227.
  47. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 1985, 49, 41–50. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430 (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  48. Loureiro, S.M.C.; González, F.J.M. The importance of quality, satisfaction, trust, and image in relation to rural tourist loyalty. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 25, 117–136.
  49. Ennew, C.T.; Reed, G.V.; Binks, M.R. Importance-performance analysis and the measurement of service quality. Eur. J. Mark. 1993, 27, 59–70.
  50. Deng, W. Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach: The case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1274–1284.
  51. Hudson, S.; Shephard, G. Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: An application of importance performance analysis to an Alpine Ski Resort. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1998, 7, 61–68.
  52. Babakus, E.; Boller, G.W. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J. Bus. Res. 1992, 24, 253–268.
  53. Zhou, B.; Qi, F.; Riaz, M.F.; Ali, T. An Analysis of the Factors behind Rural Residents’ Satisfaction with Residential Waste Management in Jiangxi, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14220.
  54. Jiang, X.; Sheng, X. A study on the development strategy of rural residential accommodation in Suzhou based on customer satisfaction. J. Sha Chau Polytech. 2020, 23, 18–23.
  55. Wang, G.-L.; Liu, C.-C.; Tseng, S.-R. An evaluation of Taiwanese B & B service quality using the IPA model. J. Bussiness Res. Turk 2012, 4, 20–27. Available online: https://isarder.org/index.php/isarder/article/view/76/73 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  56. Đoković, F.; Pejanović, R.; Mojsilović, M.; Đorđević Boljanović, J.; Plećić, K. Possibilities of revitalization of rural tourism in the functioning of agricultural cooperatives. Econ. Agric. 2017, 64, 1115–1132.
  57. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 29, 1–20.
  58. Cvijanović, D.; Gajić, T. The Level of Engagement of the Female Workforce in the Rural Tourism Development of Serbia. J. Tour. Leis. Hosp. 2020, 2, 36–42. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/toleho/issue/53785/739476 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Tamara Gajić
,
Filip Đoković
,
Ivana Blešić
,
Marko D. Petrović
,
Milan M. Radovanović
,
Dragan Vukolić
,
Marija Mandarić
,
Goran Dašić
,
Julia A. Syromiatnikova
,
Andrej Mićović
View Times: 155
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback