This study aims to analyse the impact of sustainability and perceived authenticity on the perceived image of a rural tourism destination and its influence on the intention to visit and recommendation. The moderating roles of age, gender and motivations, in the relationships established between sustainability and authenticity with the perceived image, are also examined.
Data were collected from 320 Spanish rural tourists through an online survey. Structural equation modelling was applied to analyse and validate data through SmartPLS 4.0.
The economic and socio-cultural dimensions of perceived sustainability, and the perceived authenticity of a rural tourism destination, have a significant influence on the perceived image. Likewise, this image has a significant impact on the intention to visit and to recommend. In addition, moderating effects are observed in relation to respondents’ gender, age and motivation.
The sample was collected through a convenient sampling procedure of Spanish tourists, where the pandemic influenced sustainability awareness to a greater extent than in the other countries. It is recommended to analyse these relationships in different rural contexts to see whether the same results are obtained.
This study shows the need to develop policies and activities in rural areas that guarantee sustainability to improve image and increase the number of potential tourists. It is vital for rural tourism destinations to strengthen their authenticity through novel, real and unique experiences and to generate communication that emphasises the positive effects of tourism in the rural environment.
The results demonstrate the importance and impact that two of today’s main tourism trends, sustainability and authenticity, have on the formation of positive perceived images.
This study examines the importance of sustainability and authenticity to build destination image of rural destinations. For this purpose, an a priori and affective view of the destination image is adopted. Moreover, this study stresses the importance of considering tourists’ characteristics (gender, age and motivations) when analysing rural tourism behaviour.
Análisis de la sostenibilidad y la autenticidad como elementos clave para el turismo rural
Este estudio analiza el impacto de la sostenibilidad y la autenticidad percibida en la imagen percibida de un destino de turismo rural y su influencia en la intención de visita y recomendación. También se examinan los roles moderadores de la edad, el género y las motivaciones en las relaciones establecidas entre la sostenibilidad y la autenticidad con la imagen percibida.
Se recopilaron datos de 320 turistas rurales españoles mediante una encuesta en línea. Se aplicó el Modelado de Ecuaciones Estructurales (SEM) a través de SmartPLS 4.0 para analizar y validar los datos.
Las dimensiones económica y sociocultural de la sostenibilidad percibida, así como la autenticidad percibida de un destino de turismo rural, tienen una influencia significativa en la imagen percibida. Asimismo, esta imagen tiene un impacto significativo en la intención de visitar y recomendar. Además, se observan efectos moderadores en relación con el género, la edad y la motivación de los encuestados.
La muestra se recopiló mediante un muestreo por conveniencia de turistas españoles, donde la pandemia influyó en la conciencia sobre la sostenibilidad en mayor medida que en otros países. Se recomienda analizar estas relaciones en diferentes contextos rurales para comprobar si se obtienen los mismos resultados.
El estudio muestra la necesidad de desarrollar políticas y actividades en áreas rurales que garanticen la sostenibilidad para mejorar la imagen y aumentar el número de turistas potenciales. Es vital que los destinos de turismo rural fortalezcan su autenticidad a través de experiencias novedosas, reales y únicas, y generen comunicación que enfatice los efectos positivos del turismo en el entorno rural.
Los resultados demuestran la importancia y el impacto que tienen dos de las principales tendencias turísticas actuales, la sostenibilidad y la autenticidad, en la formación de imágenes percibidas positivas.
El estudio examina la importancia de la sostenibilidad y la autenticidad para construir la imagen de destino en los destinos rurales. Para ello, se adopta una visión a priori y afectiva de la imagen del destino. Además, el estudio enfatiza la importancia de considerar las características de los turistas (género, edad y motivaciones) al analizar el comportamiento en el turismo rural.
可持续性与真实性作为乡村旅游关键要素的分析
本研究旨在分析可持续性与感知真实性对乡村旅游目的地感知形象的影响, 以及这种影响对游客访问意愿和推荐意愿的作用。此外, 研究还探讨了年龄、性别和旅游动机在可持续性、真实性与感知形象之间关系中的调节作用。
本研究通过在线问卷调查收集了320名西班牙乡村游客的数据, 并采用结构方程模型（SEM）和 SmartPLS 4.0 进行数据分析和验证。
感知可持续性的经济和社会文化维度, 以及乡村旅游目的地的感知真实性, 对感知形象具有显著影响。此外, 感知形象对游客的访问意图和推荐意图具有重要影响。同时, 性别、年龄和动机在这些关系中起到了调节作用。
本研究样本通过便利抽样法收集自西班牙游客, 其中疫情对可持续性意识的影响可能比其他国家更显著。因此, 建议在不同的乡村背景下进行进一步研究, 以验证是否可以得到相同的结果。
本研究表明, 为了提升目的地形象并增加潜在游客数量, 乡村地区有必要制定确保可持续性的政策和活动。乡村旅游目的地必须通过创新、真实和独特的体验来增强其真实性, 并通过有效传播突出旅游对乡村环境的积极影响。
研究结果表明, 可持续性和真实性作为当前两大主要旅游趋势, 对形成积极的感知形象具有重要影响。
本研究探讨了可持续性和真实性在乡村旅游目的地形象构建中的重要性, 并采用了先验视角和情感视角分析目的地形象。此外, 本研究强调了在分析乡村旅游行为时, 需考虑游客的特征（性别、年龄和动机）。
1. Introduction
There has been an increase in academic interest in sustainable tourism in, particularly, rural areas (De Luca et al., 2017). This interest translates into the social sphere, as a trend has developed in the tourism sector for tourists to search for experiences linked to sustainability (Alonso-Almedia and Celemin-Pedroche, 2016). This trend increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted the adoption of more sustainability measures (Benjamin et al., 2020). Such development has generated greater interest in rural tourism, mainly due to the search for non-congested destinations suitable for undertaking outdoor activities (UNWTO, 2022).
The development of rural tourism has made it possible to eradicate poverty in many areas (Christensen and Jones, 2020). It has also been used strategically as a tool for regeneration and conservation in rural areas, which, on many occasions, have been affected by the decline of the agriculture sector, encouraging the search for new ways through which to generate income (Lane and Kastenholz, 2015). The performance of tourism in the rural world as a conservation tool indicates that rural tourism is closely related to sustainable development and has been described as the antithesis of mass tourism (Lane and Kastenholz, 2015). Rural tourism is an option through which the rural world can be developed in a sustainable manner, being considered as a key component of local development in rural areas (Sharpley, 2000).
On the contrary, rural tourist destinations are characterised by having globalised and idyllic images, and tourists, to an increasing extent, seek to live authentic experiences (Frisvoll, 2013). This rural idyll should be considered as the tourists’ image of authentic rurality, which is closely linked to the concept of sustainability (Panzer-Krause, 2020). Tourists are no longer satisfied with superficial tourist activities, they seek authentic experiences that allow them to escape from a simulated, borderline-false, boring world (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010). Authenticity is recognised as an original, universal value and as a crucial driving force that motivates tourists to travel to distant lands (Daugstad and Kirchengast, 2013). Rural tourism provides tourists with cultural and heritage-based attractions that offer authentic experiences accompanied by narratives about the past and the present (Le et al., 2022). The authenticity perceived by tourists is a key asset to the rural tourism sector because, although rural tourists behave as a heterogeneous group, the search for authenticity while visiting rural destinations is a universal feature (Frisvoll, 2013).
Previous research has shown that the perceptions of sustainability and authenticity influence perceived image in tourism, which are one of the key elements that tourists take into account when selecting destinations (Lu et al., 2015; Martínez et al., 2014). Therefore, this research aims to contribute to the study of sustainable rural tourism in two ways. First, the influence of perceived sustainability and perceived authenticity on the image of rural tourist destinations, and how this image influences tourists’ intention to visit and recommend the destinations, is analysed. As part of this process, perceived sustainability is conceptualised as a three-dimensional construct made up of socio-cultural, natural and economic factors of the destination. Second, the potential moderating effects of tourists’ characteristics (age, gender and motivations) on the previous relationships are examined. The results of a quantitative study, consisting of an online survey with 320 rural tourists, support most of the hypotheses. The findings contribute to a better understanding of rural tourism behaviour, and advise managers and policymakers to strengthen authenticity and the socio-cultural and economic dimensions of sustainability to improve the destination image and foster positive behavioural intentions.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1 The impact of sustainability on image
Sustainable development is linked to sustained economic growth and social equity and inclusion. It is also related to environmental conservation, which itself requires strong political commitment, involvement of local and regional stakeholders and the participation of citizens (Loures et al., 2020). In this sense, tourism can be interpreted as an activity that accommodates for a change towards sustainability involving a variety of actors (e.g. Flood Chavez et al., 2024; Niewiadomski and Mellon, 2024). Acknowledging its importance, authors such as Moscardo and Murphy (2016) noted that the literature is moving towards a different approach within destination marketing, putting the focus on sustainability. Perceived sustainability in the tourism field is based on tourism activities that involve natural, social and economic elements, various social actors and knowledge areas (Troullaki et al., 2021). Thus, sustainable tourism is not a type of tourism, but an approach that can be taken to ensure that all tourism activities can be beneficial from economic, environmental and social perspectives (Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012).
This research is based on Kim et al. (2017a) who conceptualised perceived sustainability as a three-dimensional construct. Previous literature highlights the need to analyse perceived sustainability by considering the three dimensions mentioned together, underscoring the individual importance of each of them (Chandran et al., 2021) because little is known about how tourists can practice sustainability, either deliberately or accidentally, in a socio-culturally and economically beneficial way (Iaquinto, 2015), nor how sustainability can improve the local economy through the adoption of socio-cultural and environmental sustainable actions (Nickerson et al., 2016). First, socio-cultural sustainability focuses on the interactions between nature and humans and, taking these into account, the protection of the socio-cultural resources of local communities and regions; the emphasis is on the cultural interactions and activities needed to develop cultural exchanges within the tourism sector (Pearce, 2005). Second, natural sustainability focuses on the natural capital and renewable and non-renewable resources of tourist destinations (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016). Finally, economic sustainability relates to the additional income received by local populations to compensate for the burden that tourists place on their communities (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016). Tourism has been shown to be important for economic sustainability; it generates employment, both directly and indirectly, benefits residents as well as tourists (Coccossis, 2008), creates synergies with other socioeconomic sectors, improves infrastructure and public services (Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012) and revitalises rural areas.
Perceived sustainability can have a positive influence on destination image. The concept of destination image has been widely analysed in the tourism literature (e.g. Beerli and Martin, 2004; Su et al., 2020; Bilynets et al., 2023). Specifically, destination image is as an essential factor of tourists’ emotional responses and loyalty behaviours (e.g. Rodrigues et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023). Baloglu and McCleary (1999) defined it as an attitudinal construct formed by an individual’s mental representation, based on his/her beliefs, feelings and overall impressions, of an object or a destination. Espelt and Benito (2005) argued that perceived destination image plays an important role in tourists’ behaviours in a three-stage process. “A priori” perceptions exist before the tourist has made a physical connection with the destination, “in situ” perceptions when (s)he contrasts his/her views of the destination with his/her expectations and “a posteriori” perceptions after the trip. In the present study, the “a priori” perception is analysed to examine the influence of perceived sustainability and perceived authenticity on perceived destination image before trips.
Destination image is a two-dimensional construct made up of cognitive and affective components (San Martín et al., 2019). The cognitive component of destination image is the individual’s beliefs and knowledge about the place, with special emphasis on tangible physical attributes, whereas the affective is the individual’s feelings about the place (Lin et al., 2007). Cognitive image is typically represented by the destination’s attractions and resources for which it has a competitive advantage, whereas affective image is based on the emotions and feelings that the destination can elicit on tourists (San Martín et al., 2019). Therefore, considering the motivation of the present study, this research focuses on the affective destination image because this dimension offers a better understanding about the extent to which perceived sustainability and authenticity influence the feelings that a destination evokes.
Previous research has examined the relationship between image and sustainability in the business field, finding that sustainability can bring deeper meaning to consumers’ perceptions of organisations’ images, which forges stronger emotional bonds between the parties and allows entities to differentiate themselves from the competition (Green, 2008). Recent research has analysed the role of sustainability within organisations in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and reached a broad consensus on CSR’s influence on consumers’ brand perceptions. Specifically, Kim and Lee (2019) found that sustainably measures introduced as part of companies’ CSR activities enhanced their brand images. Martínez et al. (2014) also found that CSR activities enhanced consumers’ perceptions of companies’ brand images.
Focusing on the tourism field, the specialised literature points out the existence of attributes that make up the destination image. Beerli and Martin (2004) categorised the attributes into nine dimensions: natural resources; tourism leisure and recreation; natural environment; general infrastructure; culture, history and art; social environment; tourism infrastructure; political and economic factors; and leisure and recreation. Chi and Qu (2008) established the existence of nine attributes that create the destination image: travel environment, natural attractions, entertainment and events, historical attractions, infrastructure, accessibility, relaxation, outdoor activities and price and value. In this sense, the aforementioned attributes can be divided into natural, socio-cultural and economic dimensions. Hence, given their relevance in forming the destination image in the tourist, the preservation of the three dimensions through sustainability should have a significant influence on the formation of a positive destination image.
Tanković and Mušanović (2022) pointed out that destination management organisations should make effective communication regarding their socio-cultural, economic and natural responsibilities to convey their values, enabling a positive increase in behaviour, purchase, satisfaction and reputation. In this sense, increasing the reputation of a tourism destination is essential to form a positive destination image (Su et al., 2020). Li et al. (2024) indicated that, in rural areas, the destination image is linked to the preservation and presentation of the destination’s natural and cultural assets. Becken et al. (2017) showed that air pollution affects negatively on the destination image. Taking these arguments into account, the following hypotheses are proposed:
The perceived (a) socio-cultural sustainability (b) natural sustainability and (c) economic sustainability of a rural tourist destination influences its perceived image.
2.2 The impact of destination authenticity on image
Gilmore and Pine (2007) defined authenticity as a consumer sensibility that involves the perception of the extent to which experiences, services and/or products are novel, real, original, exceptional and/or unique. The variable’s importance has generated broad interest in the marketing literature (e.g. Wang, 1999; Zhao et al., 2024). Cho (2012) described tourist authenticity as being conditioned by the impressions and interpretations that tourists develop in a particular time and space.
Following Wang (1999), the literature discusses three types of authenticity: objective, constructive and existential. Objective authenticity refers to the authenticity of tourism physical objects and to its genuineness, accuracy or truth, which can include life processes, activities or artefacts. Constructive authenticity is related to the projection of the authenticity of tourism objects by tourists or by the tourist offer through images, expectations, preferences, beliefs and powers. Finally, existential authenticity is described by Wang (1999) as an activity-related state, in which one is true to oneself.
For the purpose of our study, we approach authenticity from a constructive perspective mainly because it relates to how authenticity is formed in the tourist by the tourist offer. In this case, attractions are presented by tour operators based on how they interpret constructive authenticity, which makes it a social construct (Robinson and Clifford, 2012). We seek to analyse this perspective as it is before the visit of the tourist to the destination, unlike existential authenticity. Similarly, constructive authenticity is considered to be a form of subjective authenticity, whereas objective authenticity always contains the promise that a situation can be assessed with ethical or external criteria (Pearce, 2007), and that objects are examined, judged and/or measured by experts to determine their true nature. Hence, objective authenticity relates to the question of whether an object is real or not, an objective assessment.
Robinson and Clifford (2012) proposed that constructive authenticity is based on the combined interpretation and construction of the relevant stakeholders. In rural tourism, this perspective is generated by stakeholders such as service providers, and the tourists themselves, through their assessments. The assessment of constructive authenticity is based not only on the attributes of tourist attractions but also on tourists’ subjective experiences and individual characteristics (Belhassen et al., 2008).
Lu and Chi (2018) showed, in the gastronomy sector, that customers’ perceptions of a restaurant’s authenticity contribute to the image they develop of the establishment. Similarly, Lu et al. (2015) showed that perceived authenticity affected consumers’ perceptions of brands, with more authenticity being associated with the formation of favourable images. Likewise, Zhao et al. (2024) found out that the objective and existential perspectives of authenticity have a significant and positive effect on destination image in a Chinese rural context. Taking into account the tourist’s search for authentic experiences and the fact that authenticity is a key asset within rural tourism, which has an idealised image, the following hypothesis is proposed:
The authenticity of a rural tourist destination influences its perceived image.
2.3 The relationship between destination image, visit intentions and recommendation intentions
In the tourism field, visit intentions are defined as the tourist’s willingness to visit a destination. Influencing visit intentions is a strategic objective for tourism organisations, as it is a primary antecedent to real behaviour (Davari and Jang, 2021). Thus, several authors highlight the importance and interest of image in the tourism industry due to its effects on the tourist’s behavioural decisions (e.g. Ryu et al., 2012; Martínez García de Leaniz et al., 2018). Focusing on rural tourism, rural destination image is closely tied to their natural landscapes, agricultural activities, community life and cultural heritage (Chi and Han, 2021), which offer tourists unique experiences that benefit the local economy (Dai et al., 2023).
Previous studies have shown that perceived destination image and intention to visit a destination are connected (e.g. Yin et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2023). Phau et al. (2010) showed that the perceived image of a tourist destination is one of the key drivers of tourists’ intention to visit the place. Stylos et al. (2017) argued that the psychological aspects of a destination’s image can explain variations in tourists’ evaluations of the place and, consequently, predict their behavioural intentions. In addition, destinations with good images reinforce tourists’ preferences for the places (Lin et al., 2007). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
The perceived image of a rural tourist destination influences visit intentions.
Word-of-mouth (WOM) is an informal person-to-person communication by potential or current consumers regarding goods, services and/or companies (Huang et al., 2011), in which the main characteristic is the perceived independence of the message source (Litvin et al., 2008). In the tourism industry, WOM is the recommendations made for destinations, experiences and places of tourist interest (Alves et al., 2016). In this context, previous research has examined the role of perceived destination image in tourists’ behavioural intentions, such as recommendation and revisit intentions (Herrero-Crespo et al., 2024). Furthermore, Papadimitriou et al. (2018) established in an urban tourism context that all destination images components influence on the WOM intentions of potential tourists. Herrero-Crespo et al. (2024) showed that the intentions to recommend and revisit a destination are influenced by the affective dimension of image. Based on these points, the following hypothesis is proposed:
The perceived image of a rural tourist destination influences recommendation intentions.
Casaló et al. (2010) demonstrated the existence of a direct, positive relationship between intention to participate in an online travel community and intention to recommend the community. In this sense, those who intend to participate in such communities are willing to recommend them to others. Contextualising this finding in relation to the present study, it is proposed that a direct relationship exists between intention to visit a rural tourist destination and intention to recommend the destination:
Intention to visit a rural tourism destination influences intention to recommend the destination.
2.4 Moderating effects of age, gender and motivations
Previous studies have shown that individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics influence the images they form. Beerli and Martin (2004) examined the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and perceived destination image, showing that gender, age and education level partially influence the perceived image of a destination. More recently, Kim et al. (2017b) analysed the moderating role of age and gender between destination personality and destination image, highlighting these variables as key elements in the formation of destination image. Similarly, previous research has found that travel motivations, which have been defined as significant mental states that effectively drive individuals or groups to travel (Dann, 1996), influence image formation (Chetthamrongchai, 2017). Taking into account the relationships between the motivations for trips and destination image, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Age moderates the relationships between (a) socio-cultural sustainability, (b) natural sustainability, (c) economic sustainability, (d) perceived authenticity and tourist destination image.
Gender moderates the relationships between (a) socio-cultural sustainability, (b) natural sustainability, (c) economic sustainability, (d) perceived authenticity and tourist destination image.
The individual’s degree of motivation moderates the relationships between (a) socio-cultural sustainability, (b) natural sustainability, (c) economic sustainability, (d) perceived authenticity and tourist destination image.
Figure 1 graphically represents the proposed conceptual model.
The conceptual model diagram presents directional paths among constructs. On the left, a dashed box labelled Perceived Sustainability contains three ovals labelled Socio cultural sustainability, Natural sustainability, and Economic sustainability. Arrows labelled H 1 a, H 1 b, and H 1 c extend from these three constructs to a central oval labelled Perceived Destination Image. Below, an oval labelled Destination Authenticity has an arrow labelled H 2 a pointing to Perceived Destination Image. A rectangular box labelled Age, Gender, Motivations is connected to the model with moderating paths labelled H 6 a b c d, H 7 a b c d, and H 8 a b c d. From Perceived Destination Image, an arrow labelled H 3 a points to an oval labelled Intention to Visit, and another arrow labelled H 4 a points to an oval labelled Intention to Recommend. An additional arrow labelled H 5 a connects Intention to Visit to Intention to Recommend.Conceptual model
The conceptual model diagram presents directional paths among constructs. On the left, a dashed box labelled Perceived Sustainability contains three ovals labelled Socio cultural sustainability, Natural sustainability, and Economic sustainability. Arrows labelled H 1 a, H 1 b, and H 1 c extend from these three constructs to a central oval labelled Perceived Destination Image. Below, an oval labelled Destination Authenticity has an arrow labelled H 2 a pointing to Perceived Destination Image. A rectangular box labelled Age, Gender, Motivations is connected to the model with moderating paths labelled H 6 a b c d, H 7 a b c d, and H 8 a b c d. From Perceived Destination Image, an arrow labelled H 3 a points to an oval labelled Intention to Visit, and another arrow labelled H 4 a points to an oval labelled Intention to Recommend. An additional arrow labelled H 5 a connects Intention to Visit to Intention to Recommend.Conceptual model
3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection and sampling
The data were collected from rural tourists in Spain. Rural tourism has a long tradition in Spain (Baños-Pino et al., 2024). In recent years, the importance of rural tourism is growing, representing 11.9% of the Spanish tourist market (Heymann, 2023). An online survey was distributed from August to September 2022 through a non-probabilistic sampling procedure. The research team contacted regional tourism agencies and asked for collaboration by placing a QR code in tourist offices where tourists could access it, allowing 320 valid responses from people living in Spain. The sample’s sociodemographic characteristics are shown in Table 1, with gender being representative as it is similar to the profile of the Spanish rural tourist (OTR, 2022).
Sociodemographic characteristics
| Variable | % of the sample |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Men | 29.1 |
| Women | 70 |
| Other | 0.9 |
| Age | |
| 25 years and below | 20.6 |
| From 26 to 35 years | 9.7 |
| 36–45 | 15.3 |
| 46–55 | 30.9 |
| 56–65 | 21.3 |
| Above 65 | 2.2 |
| Place of residence | |
| City | 88.1 |
| Country | 11.9 |
The survey was structured as follows: first, the subject of the research study was explained to the respondents and a filter question about rural tourism was included. Respondents who practiced rural tourism were asked about travel behaviour, including reasons for travel and how COVID-19 affected their travel to rural destinations. The second block of questions focused on perceived sustainability, authenticity, destination image, intention to visit and intention to recommend rural tourism, as well as motivations for practicing it. All questions used a seven-point Likert scale. The final block included demographic questions about gender and age of respondents.
3.2 Measurement of the variables
The model’s variables were measured using seven-point Likert-type scales (from 1 = “totally disagree” to 7 = “totally agree”). Based on the relevant literature, previously validated, reliable items, adapted to the study context, were used to measure each of the variables (see Table 2). Sociodemographic questions and questions about motivations were posed; the answers, again provided on scales from 1 to 7, allowed an analysis of the moderating variables proposed in the model to be undertaken.
Measurement scales
| Socio-cultural sustainability (Guan, 1996; Utomo et al., 2019) | |
| CUS1 | Rural tourist destinations encourage cultural exchanges |
| CUS2 | Rural tourist destinations reflect collective memory and protect local character and history |
| CUS3 | Rural tourist destinations effectively preserve their historical heritage |
| Natural sustainability (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016; Tsaur et al., 2006) | |
| NAS1 | Rural tourism supports the conservation of natural resources |
| NAS2 | Rural tourist destinations have low levels of contamination |
| NAS3 | The level of tourist influx into rural tourist destinations is acceptable even in the high season |
| Economic sustainability (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016; Tsaur et al., 2006) | |
| ECS1 | The economic benefits of rural tourism outweigh the costs |
| ECS2 | Rural tourism contributes to the economic welfare of rural tourist destinations |
| ECS3 | Rural tourism creates employment opportunities |
| Destination authenticity (Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2011) | |
| AUT1 | Rural tourist destinations reflect local forms of life |
| AUT2 | Rural tourist destinations are representative of local communities |
| AUT3 | In general, I perceive rural tourist destinations as authentic |
| Perceived image (Nazir et al., 2021) | |
| IMG1 | Rural tourist destinations are pleasant to visit |
| IMG2 | Rural tourist destinations have good quality of life |
| IMG3 | Rural tourist destinations are safe and stable |
| Visit intention (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Chen et al., 2014) | |
| VIS1 | There is a high probability I will visit a rural tourism destination |
| VIS2 | If I have time, I will visit a rural tourism destination |
| VIS3 | I intend to visit a rural tourism destination |
| Intention to recommend (Belanche et al., 2021) | |
| REC1 | I would recommend a visit to a rural tourist destination |
| REC2 | I would say positive things about rural tourist destinations to other people |
| REC3 | I would encourage my friends and families to visit rural tourist destinations |
| Motivations (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2007) | |
| MOT1 | Physical and sensory (health, emotions and pleasure) |
| MOT2 | Cultural (to discover new cultures and environments and their forms of life and work) |
| MOT3 | Interpersonal (to meet new people, to share time with family and/or friends) |
| MOT4 | Status and prestige (personal development/self-realisation, learning, recognition, self-transformation) |
| MOT5 | To support local products and territorial sustainability |
To ensure that common method bias was not an issue, Harman’s single-factor test was applied (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results showed that the main factor explained 52,4% of the variance, which is slightly higher than the 50% stablished threshold. As a further test of common method variance, the variance inflation factors (VIF), of the inner model were executed (Kock, 2015). All the VIFs were lower than the established value of 3.3 (Table 3) indicating that the model is free of common method bias.
4. Results
4.1 Results of the measurement model
To verify the convergent validity of the measurement model, SmartPLS 4.0 and SPSS 25 were used to check the main indicators. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables under study, as well as the results of the convergent validity tests.
Convergent validity
| Factor | Mean | SD | Factorial loadings | Cronbach’s α | Composite reliability (CR) | rho_a | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-cultural sustainability | |||||||
| SCS1 | 5,33 | 1,484 | 0.851 | 0.856 | 0.912 | 0.861 | 0.776 |
| SCS2 | 5,69 | 1,318 | 0.907 | ||||
| SCS3 | 5,45 | 1,310 | 0.885 | ||||
| Natural sustainability | |||||||
| NAS1 | 5,43 | 1,486 | 0.873 | 0.815 | 0.889 | 0.829 | 0.728 |
| NAS2 | 5,41 | 1,446 | 0.870 | ||||
| NAS3 | 4,85 | 1,667 | 0.817 | ||||
| Economic sustainability | |||||||
| ECS1 | 5,06 | 1,361 | 0.720 | 0.793 | 0.880 | 0.817 | 0.712 |
| ECS2 | 5,94 | 1,214 | 0.915 | ||||
| ECS3 | 5,94 | 1,275 | 0.883 | ||||
| Authenticity | |||||||
| AUT1 | 5,16 | 1,415 | 0.916 | 0.911 | 0.944 | 0.915 | 0.848 |
| AUT2 | 5,21 | 1,378 | 0.938 | ||||
| AUT3 | 5,44 | 1,395 | 0.909 | ||||
| Image | |||||||
| IMG1 | 6,19 | 1,102 | 0.911 | 0.888 | 0.931 | 0.894 | 0.817 |
| IMG2 | 5,77 | 1,218 | 0.901 | ||||
| IMG3 | 5,85 | 1,207 | 0.900 | ||||
| Visit intention | |||||||
| VIS1 | 6,13 | 1,290 | 0.953 | 0.94 | 0.962 | 0.944 | 0.893 |
| VIS2 | 6,12 | 1,235 | 0.952 | ||||
| VIS3 | 5,99 | 1,477 | 0.930 | ||||
| Recommendation intention | |||||||
| REC1 | 6,27 | 1,183 | 0.967 | 0.973 | 0.982 | 0.973 | 0.948 |
| REC2 | 6,31 | 1,142 | 0.975 | ||||
| REC3 | 6,30 | 1,162 | 0.979 | ||||
First, all the factorial loads of the scale items exceeded the established criterion of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2011). Second, the Cronbach’s alpha of each variable was calculated; they all exceeded the minimum recommended level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The internal consistency of the model was confirmed as the composite reliability of all variables was higher than 0.85, above the recommended minimum of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 2014). To assess convergent validity, the extracted average variance extracted (AVE) was analysed; all values were higher than 0.7, above the established minimum of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Dijkstra–Hendeler’s rho (rho_a) was also tested (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015), resulting in values higher than the 0.6 cut-off (Hair et al., 2014).
Next, an analysis was carried out to verify the discriminant validity of the model’s constructs. The square roots of the AVEs were seen to be greater than the inter-construct correlations for all constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see Table 5). In addition, the HTMT ratio of the correlations between the variables was lower than the established value of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015) (see Table 6).
Fornell and Larcker discriminant validity
| Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Socio-cultural sustainability | 0.881 | ||||||
| 2. Natural sustainability | 0.658 | 0.853 | |||||
| 3. Economic sustainability | 0.667 | 0.644 | 0.844 | ||||
| 4. Authenticity | 0.690 | 0.688 | 0.633 | 0.921 | |||
| 5. Image | 0.639 | 0.607 | 0.699 | 0.624 | 0.904 | ||
| 6. Visit intention | 0.511 | 0.479 | 0.595 | 0.462 | 0.641 | 0.945 | |
| 7. Recommendation intention | 0.522 | 0.545 | 0.615 | 0.546 | 0.678 | 0.749 | 0.974 |
HTMT test
| Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Socio-cultural sustainability | |||||||
| 2. Natural sustainability | 0.790 | ||||||
| 3. Economic sustainability | 0.800 | 0.783 | |||||
| 4. Authenticity | 0.779 | 0.798 | 0.741 | ||||
| 5. Image | 0.729 | 0.705 | 0.828 | 0.691 | |||
| 6. Visit intention | 0.567 | 0.539 | 0.674 | 0.496 | 0.696 | ||
| 7. Recommendation intention | 0.573 | 0.600 | 0.692 | 0.577 | 0.725 | 0.782 |
Thereafter, PLS-SEM was used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the proposed structural model. The normalised fit index (NFI) and the standardised residual mean square root (SRMR) were calculated. The NFI value was 0.865, slightly below the recommended threshold of 0.9; whereas the SRMR value was 0.074, below the maximum recommended value of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998). Thus, it can be concluded that the research model has adequate fit.
4.2 Results of the structural model
To test the hypotheses, SmartPLS 4.0 software, based on the PLS algorithm, was used, followed by a bootstrapping technique using 5,000 subsamples (Hair et al., 2011). The results of the hypotheses testing are at Table 7. Specifically, the results of the structural model confirmed the positive effect of the socio-cultural and economic dimensions of sustainability on destination image, supporting H1a and H1c. However, the impact of perceived natural sustainability did not reach significance, thus rejecting H1b. This lack of significance may indicate that tourists take for granted that rural tourist destinations are sustainable in terms of natural resources, which causes this dimension not to be a determining factor when it comes to influencing their image.
Results of the hypotheses testing
| Hypothesis | β | p-values | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | Socio-cultural sustainability →Image | 0.182 | 0.007 | Supported |
| H1b | Natural sustainability → Image | 0.116 | 0.104 | Rejected |
| H1c | Economic sustainability → Image | 0.398 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H2 | Authenticity → Image | 0.166 | 0.016 | Supported |
| H3 | Image → Visit intention | 0.641 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H4 | Image → Recommendation intention | 0.336 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H5 | Visit intention → Recommendation intention | 0.534 | 0.000 | Supported |
Moreover, the analysis showed that the perceived authenticity of the rural destination had a positive effect on destination image, which influenced the respondents’ intentions to visit and recommend the rural destination (support to H2, H3 and H4). Finally, in support of H5, visit intentions had significant effect on recommendation intention.
Table 8 shows the explained variance (R2) and Stone–Geisser (Q2) values of the dependent variables, indicators that allow us to analyse the predictive capacity of the model. Following Chin (1998), the explained variance values of the variables are moderate, even approaching substantial for intention to recommend. The Stone–Geisser indicator (Q2) values are above zero, which indicates that the proposed model has predictive relevance (Henseler et al., 2009).
4.3 Results of the moderation analysis
A series of multi-group analyses (MGA) were carried out to test the proposed moderating relationships. MGAs are among the most efficient ways of assessing moderating effects in multiple relationships (Hair et al., 2021). Following Hair et al. (2014), before the MGA, the invariance of the measurement of composite models (MICOM) test was conducted, which allows researchers to verify whether the items that make up a measuring instrument work in an equivalent way for different groups (Byrne, 2016). Henseler et al. (2016) described the three-stage process of the MICOM test as: configuration invariance, composition invariance and assessment of equal means and variances. Fulfilling the three stages indicates the complete invariance of the measurement of the models, while complying with the first two indicates partial invariance, being sufficient to perform the MGA (Henseler et al., 2016).
To perform the analysis, it was necessary to group the information obtained about the moderating variables described in the model. First, age was divided into three: up to (and including) 35, 36–55 and 56 and older. We chose this division taking into consideration the average Spanish family model. Specifically, the average age at which women living in Spain have their first child is around 33 years of age (Instituto Bernabeu, 2024). Thus, taking into account the response categories in our questionnaire for the age question, the first group was composed by respondents up to 35 years of age. The division of the remaining two groups was based on generational cohorts because people born from 1980 onwards are considered as “generation X” (Concejo Barcelona, 2018). This led us to configure the remaining groups as those who are “35–55 years old” and those “over 55 years old”. Second, participants were classified according to their response to the gender question, “male” or “female”.
Third, motivations were divided into two groups, based on degree, higher or lower. To distinguish between the degree of motivation, the ratings given by each respondent were added up and divided by the total number of motivations used in the survey. In other words, an average of the rating given by each individual was calculated, which allowed each of them to have a motivation value between 1 and 7 (from 1 = “not at all motivated” to 7 = “totally motivated”). We followed Barta et al. (2023) and considered the midpoint of the scale (i.e. value 4), as the reference point. Therefore, those respondents with a mean lower than 4 were categorised as “lower motivation”, whereas those with a mean higher than 4 were categorised as “higher motivation”.
Table 9 shows the MICOM test results for each moderating variable. The analysis shows that the comparison between the age group “up to 35” and “36–55” does not comply with the first MICOM stage, which suggests that carrying out a between-groups’ analysis does not make sense (Hair et al., 2021); thus, we performed MGAs that addressed differences between the “up to 35” group and the “over 55” group, and differences between the “36–55” group and the “over 55” group.
Invariance established in the model (MICOM)
| Moderating variable | Age (≤35 vs 36 a 55) | Age (≤35 vs >55) | Age (36 a 55 vs >55) | Gender | Motivation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. First stage | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Second stage | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3a. Third stage (means) | No | No | No | No | No |
| 3b. Third stage (variances) | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Invariance | – | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial |
The results of the MGAs (Table 10) showed the existence of moderation effects. Regarding age, older people were more influenced by the socio-cultural and natural dimensions of sustainability than the rest of groups when it came to influencing destination image (H6a and H6b are supported); however, there were no differences for economic sustainability and authenticity (H6c and H6d are rejected). In terms of the respondents’ gender, the analysis evidenced a greater influence of socio-cultural sustainability on destination image for males than for females, whereas females were more influenced by authenticity than males (support to H7a and H7d). Nonetheless, no significant moderating effects of gender were found for natural and economic sustainability on destination image (H7b and H7c must be rejected). Finally, regarding motivation, respondents with a higher degree of motivation were more influenced by natural sustainability and authenticity in influencing destination image than those with lower degrees of motivation (H8b and H8d are supported); yet, no significant differences were obtained in socio-cultural and economic sustainability (H8a and H8c are rejected).
Multi-group analysis
| t-value | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relation | ≤35 years | >55 years | ≤35 years | >55 years |
| SCS → IMG | 0.275 | 2.233 | 0.783 | 0.026* |
| NAS → IMG | 0.966 | 2.134 | 0.334 | 0.033* |
| ECS → IMG | 3.458 | 4.426 | 0.001** | 0.000** |
| AUT → IMG | 1.513 | 1.143 | 0.130 | 0.253 |
| 36–55 | > 55 years | 36–55 | > 55 years | |
| SCS → IMG | 1.885 | 2.233 | 0.059 | 0.026* |
| NAS → IMG | 0.858 | 2.134 | 0.391 | 0.033* |
| ECS → IMG | 3.463 | 4.426 | 0.001** | 0.000** |
| AUT → IMG | 1.023 | 1.143 | 0.306 | 0.253 |
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |
| SCS → IMG | 2.350 | 1.829 | 0.019* | 0.067 |
| NAS → IMG | 0.533 | 1.707 | 0.594 | 0.088 |
| ECS → IMG | 4.206 | 4.991 | 0.000** | 0.000** |
| AUT → IMG | 0.775 | 2.621 | 0.438 | 0.009** |
| Lower motivation | Higher motivation | Lower motivation | Higher motivation | |
| SCS → IMG | 0.984 | 1.153 | 0.325 | 0.249 |
| NAS → IMG | 0.002 | 2.103 | 0.998 | 0.035* |
| ECS → IMG | 3.661 | 3.920 | 0.000** | 0.000** |
| AUT → IMG | 0.868 | 2.986 | 0.385 | 0.003** |
Note(s): SCS (socio-cultural sustainability), NAS (natural sustainability), ECS (economic sustainability), AUT (authenticity), IMG (image). *p < 0,05; **p < 0,01
5. Discussion
Sustainability and authenticity are highly important tourism-related variables in both the academic and social fields. As for authenticity, the literature has tended to focus on its relationship with variables such as tourist trust, intention to revisit, responsible behaviours, positive WOM and satisfaction (Kim et al., 2017a; Utomo et al., 2019). Yet, there is a research gap in the context of rural tourism, regarding the relationship between sustainability and authenticity and perceived image. This research addressed this gap.
The findings demonstrated that the perceived socio-cultural and economic sustainability of a rural tourist destination are key factors in the formation of positive image. Tourists positively and significantly value the economic effects and socio-cultural preservation associated with tourist activities in rural destinations. However, contrary to our expectations, natural sustainability did not exert a significant influence on the perceived image of rural tourist destinations, although a positive relationship exists between the two. This effect could be due to the fact that the population takes for granted the existence of sustainability in reference to natural resources in a rural tourist destination and, therefore, the relationship established is not significant. Likewise, authenticity has been shown to have a significant influence on the formation of positive image, which is consistent with Lu et al. (2015).
The perceived image of a rural destination was seen to directly influence intention to visit and intention to recommend, and intention to visit was seen to influence intention to recommend, findings that are in line with those of previous studies (Yin et al., 2020). Developing and maintaining a good image, which influences these two variables, is vital for the rural environment, as this type of tourism helps, among other factors, to combat two of the main problems faced by many Spanish rural communities: depopulation and the ageing of the population (Carnicero, 2022).
6. Implications, limitations and future research
6.1 Theoretical and managerial implications
The findings of the present study raise a series of theoretical and practical implications (Table 11). As to the academic implications, first, the findings address the aforementioned gap in the literature regarding the relationship between authenticity and sustainability and perceived image in a rural tourism context. Second, the work extends the existing literature on the three-dimensional construct sustainability by contextualising it in the rural tourism field and demonstrating the importance of the impact of socio-cultural sustainability and economic sustainability on tourists’ images of rural tourist destinations. Third, the work expands the academic knowledge of perceived authenticity, having analysed it from a constructive perspective and shown it to be a motivating factor that supports rural tourism, and knowledge of perceived image, which was approached from an “a priori” perspective. Finally, the research showed that, in the rural tourism context, age, motivations and gender, previously shown to be important in image formation in the mind of the tourist, act as moderators based on the sustainability and authenticity of the destination.
Conclusions and theoretical and managerial implications
| Conclusions | Theoretical and managerial implications |
|---|---|
| The perceived authenticity and socio-cultural and economic dimensions of perceived sustainability of a rural tourism destination significantly impact its perceived image, which in turn influences the intention to visit and recommend such destinations | Analysis of the relationship between the three-dimensional approach of sustainability, constructive authenticity and “a priori” image in the rural tourism field Perceived authenticity and sustainability are motivators of rural tourism Personal characteristics moderate the relationship between sustainability and authenticity of the destination To enhance the perceived image and attract more tourists, it is crucial to create sustainable and authentic policies and activities in rural areas Rural tourism destinations should effectively communicate the positive effects of tourism in the rural area and their commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals to attract tourists They should also create unique, novel experiences that strengthen their perceived authenticity, attracting tourists who are concerned about sustainability |
As to the managerial implications, the findings suggest that rural tourism destinations should focus on promoting socio-cultural and economic sustainability through policies and activities. High levels of socio-cultural and economic sustainability and authenticity can lead to better perceptions of the destinations by tourists. Thus, destinations must work to preserve representative rural cultures and traditions, as tourists value authentic destinations. In this sense, policymakers must elaborate appropriate policy and planning mechanisms allow local, regional and national destinations to enjoy the positive impacts of tourism while they work to comply with the UN’s SDGs (Birendra et al., 2021). In addition, it is imperative that destinations communicate widely the policies they follow, and activities they undertake, in terms of sustainability and authenticity, taking into account the importance attached to these factors within the various age, gender and motivational groups. In this way, society can be more aware of the measures that destinations are taking in support of rural preservation, improving the image of rural destinations and, consequently, increasing visitor numbers.
Rural destinations must advertise themselves and try to attract tourists through communicating messages about their sustainability, to position themselves as sustainable destinations. These communications should emphasise that rural tourism has positive socio-cultural, natural and economic effects such as improving the quality of life of their inhabitants, job creation, preserving of cultural heritage, enhancing regional public image, increasing the value of the natural environment, improving public transport and facilities and encouragement of cultural interactions (Almeida-García et al., 2016). As part of the process, destinations must take into account the motivations that lead tourists to practice rural tourism, such as being in contact with nature, relaxing, returning to their origins and/or enjoying non-congested environments, taking into account the need to generate specific sustainability strategies for each segment due to the different attitudes of tourists towards sustainability (Panzer-Krause, 2020). Similarly, rural tourist destinations should demonstrate their commitment to the UN’s SDGs, which will attract tourists concerned about sustainability.
Finally, rural tourist destinations should strengthen their authentic images by providing services based on novel, real and unique experiences linked to the locality. This reinforcement will ensure tourists enjoy memorable stays that will enhance key tourist-industry aspects, such as intention to visit, intention to recommend and destination loyalty.
6.2 Limitations and future research lines
The present study has limitations that open avenues to future research. First, the sample is limited to residents of Spain, an area in Southern Europe, suggesting that future research should replicate the study in different countries with varying concerns about sustainability, economics and socio-cultural issues to test the generalisability of the results. Similarly, the sample was collected through a non-probabilistic, which can lead to selection bias. Moreover, the use of cross-sectional data only allows to determinate the result at a given point in time. Future research could replicate the study with longitudinal data to analyse whether the obtained relationships endure over time.
Second, future research might add important variables identified in the tourism literature to expand the model proposed in this study. From the start-point of the present study, future works might include variables such as satisfaction, engagement, intention to revisit and/or attachment to rural destinations based on perceived sustainability and perceived authenticity in the context of rural tourism.
Finally, the sample consisted mostly of urban residents, limiting the analysis due to the small number of rural participants. Future studies could replicate the research with rural residents to examine the impact of place of residence on image formation. In addition, future research might gather data on variables, such as income and education levels, to analyse whether they exert moderating effects between perceived sustainability and perceived authenticity and destination image.
