The moderating effect of tourism type on the co-creation of a “slow destination” image and on tourist well-being

As economies grow and develop, people increasingly aspire to enhance their personal well-being (e.g. Han et al., 2018). Although, traditionally, the consumption of tourism experiences has long been considered one way for people to achieve greater well-being, the intense expansion of demand for “fast tourism” modes in particular can be counterproductive when it comes to the achievement of well-being and sustainability of destinations (Lee et al., 2025).

Against this backdrop, the present study proposes an explanatory model of how marketing strategies can contribute to the reorientation of popular tourism specialties—specifically, coastal tourism and rural tourism—toward sustainability and tourist well-being. One possible marketing strategy that has been shown to deliver results in this direction is to offer “slow tourism”, which has been found both to enhance well-being among tourists who enjoy slow experiences (Chi and Han, 2020b) and to contribute to destination sustainability (Park and Kim, 2016). However, further research is required to better understand the role of this form of tourism in achieving tourist well-being (Balaban and Keller, 2024).

Given the potential of slow tourism as a source of visitor well-being, it is of interest to achieve a better grasp of how tourists perceive the various elements that constitute this style of tourism. One major variable in the market's perception of a given destination is its image (Lam et al., 2020). More research is needed, however, to inquire further into which features of the tourism offer, as perceived by tourists, help them to form a “slow destination” image (Losada and Mota, 2019), and, more specifically, how this image may influence their well-being (Chi and Han, 2020a).

Another marketing strategy examined in the present work that may help in the development of popular tourism specialties is online value co-creation, based on Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) (Lusch and Vargo, 2006). The SDL literature has empirically demonstrated that users' interactions via social media play an influential role in the formation of a destination's image (e.g. Borges-Tiago et al., 2021) and also in enhancing tourist well-being (e.g. Fan et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the effect on tourist well-being of the two aforementioned marketing strategies—offering slow tourism and developing online value co-creation—may be moderated by the tourism specialty in which they are applied. Among the most popular modalities worldwide are rural tourism and coastal tourism (Dodds and Holmes, 2019; Guaita-Martínez et al., 2019). Rural tourism is a tourism segment that has experienced a growing demand among consumers seeking nature-based travel experiences, coupled with government initiatives to boost rural economies, while coastal tourism is a consolidated segment that faces significant challenges vis-à-vis overcrowding and questions over destination sustainability (Rajaonson and Tanguay, 2022). Although they offer different characteristics, both must deal with the issue of how to achieve tourist well-being (Gossling et al., 2020).

Therefore, the present study proposes an original perspective and model to determine the effect of “slow destination” image on tourist well-being and the effectiveness of online value co-creation as a means to convey that image and generate greater well-being among tourists, according to the tourism type in question (rural vs coastal).

The concept of slow tourism can be understood as tourism that involves genuine and worthwhile relationships with people, places, cultures, food, heritage, and environment (Caffyn, 2012), in contrast to mass-tourism consumption. It takes local, original elements and combines them with a modern outlook to help improve the quality of life and sustainability of the destination (Chi and Han, 2020b).

In light of the findings of the literature ( Supplementary Material 1), it is of interest to achieve a deeper understanding of how tourists perceive the various components that, together, constitute this style of tourism. The works of Chi and Han (2020a, b) make a valuable contribution in this regard, studying tourists' assessment of the performance of the individual elements that make up the slow tourism offer.

One important variable that points to the market's perception of the characteristics of a destination is its image (Li et al., 2023). Baloglu and McCleary (1999) defined destination image as “an attitudinal construct consisting of an individual's mental representation of knowledge, feelings, and global impression about a destination” (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999, p. 870). According to the literature (e.g. Beerli and Martín, 2004), a destination's image comprises both affective and cognitive elements—that is, a blend of emotions, on the one hand, and factual knowledge and beliefs, on the other.

Scholars concur, to some degree, that the cognitive element acts as an antecedent of the affective element (Polo-Peña et al., 2012; San Martín and Rodríguez del Bosque, 2008). To the extent that this is true, it signals the importance, for destinations, of positively leveraging their strong points and raising awareness of them among target markets, communicating them effectively to help foster an appealing cognitive image (Polo-Peña et al., 2012).

Measurements for tourist destination image vary widely across the literature, mainly because the cognitive tourist destination image scales have to be adapted in line with the different types of tourism on offer (Cooper Villagran, 2017). In contexts close to that of slow tourism, there are different works that have sought to adapt destination image scales, such as Cooper Villagran (2017) for the “green destination” image, Polo-Peña et al. (2012) for the image of rural destinations or Thi Khanh and Phong (2020), for the nature-based destination image. It is also worth mentioning recent works that highlight aspects related to the slow philosophy (cultural heritage, nature, friendliness of local residents, etc.) as components of the cognitive destination image (e.g. Nematpour et al., 2025).

The literature has called for further research into which specific characteristics of the “slow tourism” offer contribute to the formation of a “slow destination” image (Losada and Mota, 2019). Table 1 sets out the dimensions of “slow destination” image proposed in the present study, considering the dimensions identified by the literature in contexts pertinent to slow tourism (such as rural, green, or environmentally sustainable destinations) and incorporating the relevant attributes of slow destinations as identified by authors such as Chi and Han (2020a, b).

Consumer well-being, according to Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007), can be defined as “consumers' perception of the extent to which a brand positively contributes to a quality of life enhancement” (p. 289). Slow tourism offers a range of experiences geared toward delivering enhanced well-being for the visitor (Balaban and Keller, 2024; Lee et al., 2025) ( Supplementary Material 2).

Tourist destinations that offer a “slow destination” image, then—based on experiences that are geared toward visitors' enjoyment of the slow pace, consciously savoring the sights, sounds, and sensations, and immersing themselves in the local landscape—present a series of “ingredients” capable of influencing the well-being of visitors (Lee et al., 2025). What is more, in contexts other than slow tourism, the literature has empirically demonstrated the effect of destination image on tourist well-being (e.g. Moreno-González et al., 2020). However, empirical evidence is lacking when it comes to the effects of conveying a “slow destination” image on tourists' overall well-being. The works that come closest to this perspective are that of Chi and Han (2020a), who examine the influence of “slow city” attributes on mental well-being, and that of Lee et al. (2025), who demonstrate the effect of the slow tourism experience on tourists' subjective well-being. Therefore, there are calls in the literature for a deeper examination of the potential of “slow destination” image to produce tourist well-being (Chi and Han, 2020a). In light of these calls, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

To better understand how a “slow destination” image is generated, we must take into account the type of tourism in which the destination specializes, and it is for this reason that the literature demands that tourism typology be taken into account when investigating slow tourism (Chi and Han, 2020a). Two of the most popular tourism modalities worldwide are rural and coastal tourism (Dodds and Holmes, 2019; Guaita-Martínez et al., 2019).

Although there is no agreed-upon definition of rural tourism, according to Lane (1994), this modality is characterized as: located in rural areas, small-scale; traditional in nature; and gradually grown and controlled by the local community (de Sousa and Kastenholz, 2015). In the case of coastal tourism, this type covers the entire range of leisure and recreational tourism activities that take place in the coastal zone and in offshore coastal waters (Gelbman, 2022).

The present study proposes that fostering a “slow tourism” image may constitute a valid means by which different types of destinations can contribute to a transformation in the sector that is better aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations Agenda 2023, which highlight the need to refocus all tourism activities toward destination sustainability and the well-being of the population (Gossling et al., 2020). The study also examines online value co-creation as a mechanism by which both the rural and the coastal tourism offers might enhance the development of a “slow destination” image and thus deliver a benefit to tourists, in the form of greater overall well-being.

Hollebeek et al. (2019, p. 172) define value co-creation as customers' “perceived value arising from interactive, joint, collaborative or personalized activities for or with [brand-related] stakeholders.” As noted earlier, this variable is grounded in the SDL theoretical framework, which supports the multi-agent nature of co-creation in online media (Vargo and Lusch, 2016).

The theoretical literature defends the proposition that the co-creation of value that is generated through the interactions between tourists and destination agents is crucial for building destination image (Yilmaz, 2021). The notion of agent is broad and extends from destination residents, other tourists, and small local traders or craftspeople to large professional firms or destination marketing organizations (Frías-Jamilena et al., 2017). The literature also empirically demonstrates the role of online media interactions among tourists in co-creating destination image (e.g. Borges-Tiago et al., 2021; Lam et al., 2020). Indeed, in this vein, Asyraff et al. (2024a, b) demonstrate the effect of the quality of user-generated online content on destination image.

However, these empirical studies primarily concentrate on the interactions between tourists, while overlooking other agents present at the destination. Against this backdrop, then, it is of interest to analyze whether online value co-created by tourists and destination agents may exert an influence on the creation of a “slow destination” image (Manthiou et al., 2022). The little literature that deals specifically with slow tourism demonstrates that online media can play an important role in creating a “slow” image (Le Busque et al., 2021; Losada and Mota, 2019; Manthiou et al., 2022). Wang et al. (2024) empirically demonstrate the effect of travel blogs dealing with slow destinations on destination image.

However, this effect of value co-creation between tourists and destination agents on the destination's image may be shaped by the tourism type in question. Rural tourists are generally more motivated to seek out new experiences and empathize with unfamiliar cultures, and even feel a higher level of commitment to the destination, compared to coastal tourists (Frías-Jamilena et al., 2018). Hence, rural tourists will likely have a greater interest in personalizing their experience (and more scope for doing so than in other types of tourism), in which they enjoy an authentic local experience that simultaneously enables them to respect the local community and the environment (Kastenholz et al., 2018). This profile of tourist is therefore more likely to seek to actually interact with the destination and design experiences that bring them closer to its natural heritage (Frías-Jamilena et al., 2018).

By contrast, coastal tourists are generally not known for seeking-out new and unfamiliar experiences; rather, they derive enjoyment from seeing and doing familiar things at the coastal destination of their choice (Frías-Jamilena et al., 2018). Thus, they are typically more drawn to an offer that consists of normalized, standardized tourism packages that they can enjoy away from, or separate from, local residents (Franco and Zamudio, 2021). In short, this profile of tourist aims for experiences that prioritize reliably sunny weather, beautiful beaches, and a good infrastructure, and will interact with the destination to a much lesser extent than their rural tourism counterparts (Frías-Jamilena et al., 2018).

No empirical evidence has been produced, to date, regarding whether online value co-creation contributes to conveying a “slow” image for rural vs coastal destinations. Nor have the differences in the effectiveness of the use of online value co-creation according to these two particular tourism types been identified, considering that the interests of the tourists who are attracted to these modalities differ considerably. The three studies that deal with topics tangentially relevant to these questions are that of Frías-Jamilena et al. (2018), which demonstrates the moderating effect of tourism type on the relationship between cultural intelligence and brand equity; that of Zhou and Chen (2023), which finds that value co-creation exerts an effect on the brand equity of rural tourism destinations; and, in the context of rural tourism, that of Liu et al. (2024), which demonstrates the effect of tourists' use of the destination's own social media on its image. Therefore, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

Based on the findings of studies examining SDL (e.g. Lusch and Vargo, 2006), it is argued that value co-creation generates a process that ultimately results in an increase in consumers' well-being, and that travel-related websites also trigger cognitive and affective experiences that enhance the well-being of the tourist (Awan et al., 2022).

Online media—as tools that facilitate two-way communication between destination agents and tourists—support the co-creation process. These media are also aligned theoretically with SDL as they enable both parties to engage in conversation and knowledge-exchange, which leads to positive experiences for tourists (Awan et al., 2022). Thus, recently, the literature has identified a relationship between value co-creation and well-being in the tourism field ( Supplementary Material 3). Taking the findings of these studies as a whole, it can be argued that, when tourists successfully play their part in the co-creation of a trip, they contribute resources to successful interactions with destination agents, and that these interactions result in improved well-being (Shulga and Busser, 2020). However, none of these studies addresses co-creation with the overall destination, examining instead each destination agent separately (such as other tourists, hotels, restaurants, or travel agencies).

Notwithstanding, the contribution of online value co-creation to tourist well-being could be enhanced—or undermined—by the motivations and functions that tourists actually pursue when co-creating. On the one hand, in the case of rural tourists, the relationship between rural tourism and well-being is well documented (e.g. Zhang et al., 2023). This link is due, among other reasons, to the fact that rural destinations offer a clear psychological break from the stresses and strains of everyday life, providing travelers with the opportunity to escape their hurried daily routines and immerse themselves in a different pace of life that improves their sense of well-being (Li et al., 2024a).

When it comes to online value co-creation in the rural tourism context, it is more oriented toward co-creating experiences featuring contact with nature, traditions, local culture, health, authenticity, and uniqueness—and all on a small scale (e.g. Li et al., 2024a). Theoretically, the literature associates these characteristics with the achievement of well-being (Chi and Han, 2020b).

Turning to coastal tourists, on the other hand, the literature contends that the overcrowding experienced at many coastal destinations and the deterioration that this causes to their main source of appeal—beaches—are detrimental to tourist well-being (Dodds and Holmes, 2019). Furthermore, when it comes to value co-creation in coastal tourism, this remains somewhat limited as it is more oriented toward achieving a good price–quality ratio for the product in question. Importantly, other important aspects for coastal tourists—such as the weather, infrastructure, quality of beaches, and the standardized package offer (Dodds and Holmes, 2019; Friedrich et al., 2020)—also lend themselves less readily to co-creation and personalization. This, in turn, may mean that, even taking into account the benefits of the consumption of tourist experiences on tourist well-being (e.g. Zheng et al., 2022), the co-creation of value, in and of itself, may not make a large enough contribution to translate into enhanced well-being for these tourists.

Empirical evidence is lacking on whether online value co-creation, produced when tourists interact with different destination agents, contributes to the achievement of greater overall well-being in rural and coastal tourism. Also lacking is data on the differences that might arise in the effectiveness of online value co-creation in enhancing tourist well-being, depending on the tourism type concerned. Addressing this lack of evidence, the following research hypotheses are thus proposed:

Figure 1 shows the research model and the relationships proposed in these hypotheses:

This study adopts a quantitative research design to empirically test the proposed conceptual model, which includes three main constructs: online value co-creation, overall well-being, and “slow destination” image, along with one observed variable: tourism type (rural vs coastal). To carry out this research design, identifying a study population and a sampling technique, identifying the measurement scales, and finally analyzing the results obtained using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) as the main analytical technique were necessary. CB-SEM is particularly suited for this study as it accounts for measurement error and produces more reliable and unbiased parameter estimates (Gefen et al., 2011).

The population under study comprised German tourists who had visited Spain at least once during the six months prior to their participation in the study. According TURESPAÑA (the Spanish Governmental Institute of Tourism), Spain is the most-visited tourist destination among German international travelers, who select Spain primarily for its sunshine, its beaches, and the nature that this country offers (Turespaña, 2025). These preferences are reflected in the fact that coastal and rural tourism are among the types of tourism most frequently undertaken by Germans in Spain (Turespaña, 2024). Another factor relevant to the present study is that 81% of Germans use the Internet as an information source prior to traveling (Turespaña, 2024).

To select the research participants, an Internet user panel (managed by Dynata Spain, part of Dynata) was employed. Data-collection was conducted between March 4 and 28, 2022, producing a final sample of 448 individuals (219 rural tourists vs 229 coastal tourists). This sample size can be considered adequate as, according to G*Power software, has a test power of 99% (Matosas-López et al., 2025). Prior to starting the survey, participants were informed of the study's aims and the right to refuse participation or withdraw from the study at any time. The authors confirm that this study adheres to the relevant ethical guidelines for human subjects, and that the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants were maintained throughout the study.

Items relating to the following constructs were covered by the research questionnaire: online value co-creation, “slow destination” image, and overall well-being. All of the items were measured on 7-point Likert scales ( Supplementary Material 4).

For online value co-creation, a scale based on Frías-Jamilena et al. (2017) was used; and, for overall well-being, a scale based on Saayman et al. (2018) was used. For the measurement of “slow destination” image, given the novel nature of the application, a scale was adapted following a review of the specialist literature dealing with slow tourism—in particular, the contributions of Chi and Han (2020a, b), as well as the main dimensions of “tourist destination image” identified in the literature in contexts comparable to slow tourism (e.g. Polo-Peña et al., 2012) (Table 1).

Distinguishing between the two groups of tourists (rural vs coastal tourists), a multigroup SEM analysis with factorial invariance was performed, using AMOS V.26 software. This tested the adequacy of the measurement scales, the model itself, and the relationships proposed in the hypotheses.

Starting with the psychometric properties of the model, as the multivariate normality test of the variables proved significant, estimation was performed using maximum likelihood combined with the bootstrapping method (Yuan and Hayashi, 2003). Regarding the model's goodness-of-fit, RMSEA (0.07) and Normed Chi-Square (3.27) values were considered optimal. Incremental fit was also found to be adequate, in line with the values recommended by the literature (Hair et al., 2018): CFI (0.91) and IFI (0.91).

Next, it was verified that the scales were, indeed, measuring each of the variables correctly (Table 2). The standardized loads between each latent variable and its indicators were determined, confirming that almost all the load values were above the reference value of 0.70 proposed in the literature (Hair et al., 2018). The individual reliability (R²) of all the items was then estimated, confirming that all values were greater than, or very close to, 0.50, in line with the recommendations of the literature (Hair et al., 2018).

Regarding the scales' internal consistency, the values for variance extracted and composite reliability proved adequate relative to the reference threshold, at 0.50 and 0.70, respectively (Hair et al., 2018). Finally, turning to the discriminant validity between the variables in the research model, the correlation between variables was not greater than 0.80 in any instance (Bagozzi, 1994), and the confidence interval of the correlations did not include the value “1” (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Discriminant validity was thus confirmed.

Figure 2 sets out the results of the analysis of the proposed relationships.

H1 posited that a “slow destination” image has a positive and significant effect on the tourist's overall well-being. A statistically-significant relationship was found between these variables (p-value< 0.01) for both rural and coastal tourists, with a direct effect of 0.51 and a confidence interval of 0.30–0.67 in the case of rural tourists and a direct effect of 0.59 and a confidence interval of 0.47–0.70 in the case of coastal tourists. H1 therefore receives empirical support. This result is in line with the findings of Chi and Han (2020a), who demonstrated the influence of the attributes of a “slow city” on the mental well-being of consumers; the findings of Lee et al. (2025), who demonstrated the effect of the “slow tourism” experience on subjective well-being; and the findings of Moreno-González et al. (2020), who verified the effect of destination image on tourist well-being, albeit in contexts other than that of slow tourism.

H2 proposed that the tourism type (rural vs coastal) moderates the effect of online value co-creation on the “slow destination” image, such that online value co-creation would produce a significantly greater effect on “slow destination” image among visitors who favor rural tourism than among tourists who prefer the coast. A statistically-significant relationship was found between these variables (p-value< 0.01) for both groups. However, in the case of rural tourists, the effect was 0.72 (with a confidence interval of 0.61–0.81), which was indeed significantly greater than the effect among coastal tourists, which was 0.37 (with a confidence interval of 0.25–0.49). Therefore, H2 also receives empirical support. This finding aligns with previous studies demonstrating the contribution of online media to a “slow destination” image (Losada and Mota, 2019; Le Busque et al., 2021; Manthiou et al., 2022), and is consistent with the work of Kastenholz et al. (2018). These authors argue that rural tourists are likely to be more interested in tailor-made, authentic, and sustainable tourism experiences. It is also consonant with the findings of Frías-Jamilena et al. (2018), a study that tested the moderating role of tourism type in the relationship between cultural intelligence and brand equity; the findings of Zhou and Chen (2023), who demonstrated the effect of value co-creation on the brand equity of rural tourism destinations; and the findings of Liu et al. (2024), in the context of rural tourism, which demonstrated the effect of tourists' use of the destination's social media on its image.

H3 posited that tourism type (rural vs coastal) moderates the effect of online value co-creation on overall tourist well-being, such that co-creation would exert a positive and significant effect among rural tourists. We found that, among rural tourists (H3a), online value co-creation did exert a significant and positive effect of 0.29 (confidence interval, 0.10–0.47; p-value< 0.05). And, among coastal tourists (H3b), online value co-creation had no significant effect on the overall well-being of the tourist (standardized coefficient: 0.13; confidence interval: 0.00–0.26; p-value> 0.05). Therefore, both H3a and H3b receive empirical support. These results align with the literature demonstrating the relationship between rural tourism and well-being (e.g. Zhang et al., 2023). This relationship is due to the fact that rural tourists seek to co-create experiences that emphasize contact with the natural world, local culture and traditions, healthy pursuits, destination authenticity, and the uniqueness of a tourism experience that happens on a small scale (Kastenholz et al., 2018). Such experiences contribute to their well-being (Chi and Han, 2020b). The present findings are also compatible with previous studies proposing that those tourists who prefer coastal destinations value other aspects more highly, such as the weather, the infrastructure, or the quality of the beaches. These elements offer less scope for co-creation and personalization (Dodds and Holmes, 2019; Friedrich et al., 2020). Further, the findings of this study are in line with previous works that analyze the impact of overcrowding at many coastal destinations and the knock-on effect that this has in terms of causing damage and deterioration to the beaches that constitute the primary source of appeal. This effect is detrimental to the well-being of tourists (Dodds and Holmes, 2019).

Finally, it can be observed that, for both rural and coastal tourists, online value co-creation has an indirect effect on overall well-being via the “slow destination” image. For rural tourists, the effect presented a value of 0.36, with a confidence interval of 0.24–0.50 (p-value< 0.01). In the case of coastal tourists, this value was 0.22, with a confidence interval of 0.14–0.32 (p-value< 0.01).

The results indicate that slow tourism may represent a suitable alternative for any type of destination, which would enable consumers to enhance their well-being. Specifically, promoting a “slow destination” image contributes to the well-being of both rural and coastal tourists. Furthermore, this research shows that online value co-creation is a way to promote the “slow destination” image, although it is more effective for rural tourism. Finally, online value co-creation contributes to the well-being of rural tourists, but not of coastal tourists, whose well-being is indirectly generated through the “slow destination” image.

As we have seen, the results of our study show, first of all, that promoting a “slow destination” image can contribute to enhanced tourist well-being, regardless of the type of tourism concerned (rural vs coastal). Regarding the contributions to the literature of this finding, it responds to the need, highlighted by authors such as Chi and Han (2020a) for future research themes relating to the effect of brand image in slow tourism, and by Balaban and Keller (2024), vis-à-vis the role of slow tourism in achieving tourist well-being. As such, this is the first work to demonstrate that a “slow destination” image is an effective means of producing this well-being.

Second, the present results provide a novel insight, namely, that although online value co-creation is a strategy that improves the “slow destination” image for both rural and coastal tourists, this strategy is more effective for rural tourists in particular. This is the first paper to empirically demonstrate the role that the type of tourism plays in the relationship between online value co-creation and “slow destination” image. Thus, the present results respond to the calls from the literature to achieve a deeper understanding of the influence of co-creation on brand image (Borges-Tiago et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019), on tourist perception of slow tourism (Klarin et al., 2024; Le Busque et al., 2021), and on the drivers of slow tourism (Fusté-Foné, 2023; Manthiou et al., 2022).

Third, the present work demonstrates that online value co-creation influences overall well-being among rural tourists but not among coastal tourists, and is the first study to demonstrate the moderating role of tourism type in this relationship. In producing these findings, the present study responds to the future lines of research proposed by Dekhili and Hallem (2020) and Shulga and Busser (2020) regarding the relationship between value co-creation and well-being in the tourism field.

The foregoing contributions also respond to future lines of research proposed by Li et al. (2024b), on expanding “slow tourism” research into other types of destinations, and by Chi and Han (2020a), on taking into account the typology of tourism carried out as a moderator, to better understand the associations between the attributes of slow tourism and tourists' perceptions and behaviors.

The present findings also contribute to the theoretical development of SDL by empirically demonstrating the multi-actor nature of value co-creation in the online context (Lusch and Vargo, 2006). In this regard, in contexts other than slow tourism, the literature has analyzed the role played by online media in co-creating destination image, but almost always from the point of view of interactions between the tourists themselves (e.g. Borges-Tiago et al., 2021) and not from the perspective of the interactions between tourists and other destination agents, which is the perspective covered by the present study. Meanwhile, although the relationship between value co-creation and well-being has been widely demonstrated (e.g. Awan et al., 2022; Shulga and Busser, 2021), previous studies do not address the co-creation of value with agents of the destination overall but, rather, separately. Hence, this work contributes to the future stream of research proposed by Zadeh et al. (2023) to achieve a richer understanding of value co-creation with different agents, as viewed through the theoretical lens of SDL.

Finally, but no less important, it is worth highlighting that the work empirically demonstrates the components that form part of the cognitive image of the slow destination, which addresses the call for future lines of research to investigate which features of the slow tourism offer, as perceived by tourists, help them to form a “slow destination” image (Losada and Mota, 2019).

The results of this study hold several practical implications for both public tourism entities and commercial operations linked to tourist destinations. The findings of this study show that, if a destination can achieve a “slow” image, this will help those responsible for destination management to produce an offer that generates well-being among its target audience, regardless of what type of tourism they are undertaking—whether rural or coastal. To translate this into actionable strategies, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Creating a hospitable environment for tourists, both from the point of view of residents and from the point of view of local businesses. To this end, destinations can launch awareness campaigns to help residents appreciate the positive impact of tourism on the local economy and community, as well as cultural exchange events to facilitate tourist-resident interactions. In addition, destinations could organize regular training workshops for local businesses on hospitality best practices;

2. Developing a safe, comfortable, and relaxing environment for tourists. To this end, destinations should, if necessary, redirect their tourism activity to avoid mass tourism by putting in place measures to control the influx of tourists. For example, digital tools (QR codes, mobile applications) could be used to establish maximum visitor limits during peak periods, cameras could be installed to monitor visitors, and incentives could be provided to encourage travel during off-peak periods by establishing discounts and programming events adapted to the motivations of rural or coastal tourists;

3. Encouraging visits to natural areas. To this end, destinations should clearly communicate and signpost the existence of such areas in the destination. This could be done by creating tourist-friendly maps, mobile applications, using QR codes, and signposting the trails;

4. Promoting the development of cultural activities, both by destinations and local businesses, and enhancing the historical, cultural, and architectural resources of the destination. To this end, public resources should be invested in supporting small-scale festivals, art exhibitions and historical re-enactments;

5. Facilitating the development of nature-based activities, promoting them and helping local businesses to design them. This could be done by collaborating with local guides or ecotourism companies to develop themed nature trails and provide these companies with shared marketing platforms;

6. Promoting the supply of unique accommodation managed by residents. To this end, destinations can support local entrepreneurs seeking to develop such infrastructure, for example, by offering grants or low-interest loans to local entrepreneurs and facilitating the promotion of this type of accommodation through the destination's official channels;

7. Promoting local gastronomy as a hallmark of the destination. To this end, destinations can carry out promotional activities, such as competitions between local restaurants or gastronomic fairs. From the point of view of local businesses, mainly restaurants, it would be advisable to use local produce and focus on traditional local cuisine. In addition, the destination could collaborate with local restaurants to create fixed-price tasting menus based on local ingredients and traditions, as well as recognize excellence with public awards;

8. Promoting the development of efficient and environmentally friendly local transport. To this end, destinations should make it as easy as possible to travel on foot or by public transport in the destination and offer alternatives such as bicycles or electric scooters for hire (e.g. by offering tourists combined transport passes that include the rental of these vehicles). Local transport companies should focus on vehicles with the least possible negative impact on the environment, such as electric or hybrid vehicles. This can be achieved by incentivizing these companies through subsidies or tax benefits;

9. And, finally, promoting local crafts and local products. To this end, destinations can develop events or fairs to promote these products and support and promote local craft enterprises. Destinations could also provide free business premises for emerging artisanal businesses or create a “Made Here” label for the entire destination to certify authenticity.

The results of this study will also help destinations to realize the invaluable role that online media can play in facilitating direct interaction with tourists. Therefore, it is recommended that destinations and destination stakeholders interact with tourists through their various online media (websites, mobile apps, social media, and so on) to support tourists in personalizing their own environmentally sustainable trips and designing an authentic indigenous experience that is both enjoyable and respectful of the local community and the environment and worth sharing with other tourists through online media. In this line, online media empower destinations to provide guidance on how and where to conduct slow travel and tourism, and to answer any queries that tourists and potential visitors may have about different facets of the destination. This can be done by using a variety of tools, such as 24/7 chatbots that offer personalized assistance to tourists, interactive trip planning tools that allow tourists to design their itineraries by selecting from a set of green, local, and authentic experiences, participatory social media campaigns that allow visitors to vote on upcoming cultural events, or continuous collection of tourist feedback with quick mobile surveys or QR codes. These efforts will pay dividends not only in terms of helping the tourist to perceive a stronger “slow destination” image but also by enhancing tourist well-being.

Finally, despite the moderating effect exerted by the tourism type in question, the above recommendations are useful for both rural and coastal tourists alike. This is because, while co-creation influences a “slow destination” image less effectively among coastal tourists than rural tourists and has no direct effect on tourist well-being, it is still a valid strategy for promoting the well-being of the coastal tourist, since it will ultimately influence them indirectly via the “slow” image. Therefore, we can affirm that co-creation is a suitable strategy both for directly achieving well-being among rural tourists and for indirectly achieving well-being among coastal tourists.

There are certain limitations to the present study that may point to potential areas for further research. In this sense, just one tourist destination—Spain—was analyzed, but future studies could replicate our approach in different destinations. It would be interesting to explore other geographical contexts to identify whether they yield similar results that can be more widely generalized.

Another important limitation is that only the cognitive image, and not the affective, was considered in adapting the “slow destination” image scale. Future research should consider the affective image and explore the role of cognitive and affective images.

Furthermore, the literature on tourism and slow destinations has suggested that the effect of slow tourism on destination performance and sustainability would also be a valuable perspective to inquire into, particularly with regard to how a “slow destination” image may influence pro-environmental conduct among visitors.

Finally, it would be useful to investigate in greater depth other such strategies that could prove beneficial for embedding a “slow destination” image and fostering tourist well-being.