How to Effectively Build the Image of an Emerging Destination

Fig. 1.

Indexes documenting the degree of tourism development in Lublin Province in 2018_

Province	Number of tourist accommodation facilities per 100 km2	Index
		Tourist function by Bartje-Defert (beds in accommodation facilities per 100 inhabitants)	Tourist traffic intensity		Tourist accommodation infrastructure (accommodation facilities users)	Density
			Schneider’s (accommodation facilities users per 100 inhabitants)	Charvat’s (tourists’ overnight stays per 100 inhabitants)		accommodation facilities (beds per 1 km2)	tourist traffic (tourist accommodation users per 1 km2)
Lublin	1.9	1.3	50.9	108.3	40.6	1.1	43
Position of Lublin Province among Poland’s 16 provinces	13	9	13	13	9	15	15

The structure of the respondents’ answers regarding the place of stay in Lublin Province_

Respondents		Places/regions
		Lublin	Zamość	Kazimierz Dolny	Puławy	Nałęczów	Chełm	Roztoczeregion	Zwierzyniec	Świdnik	Włodawa	Biłgoraj	Szczebrzeszyn	Krasnystaw	Kozłówka
visiting (N=191)	N	134	48	37	17	17	12	16	6	4	4	3	2	2	2
	%	70.16	25.13	19.37	8.90	8.90	6.28	8.38	3.14	2.09	2.09	1.57	1.05	1.05	1.05
visiting for tourist purposes (N=101)	N	68	25	26	12	10	7	12	5	4	4	2	2	1	2
	%	67.33	24.75	25.74	11.88	9.90	6.93	11.88	4.95	3.96	3.96	1.98	1.98	0.99	1.98
visiting for other purposes (N=90)	N	66	23	11	5	7	5	4	1	0	0	1	0	1	0
	%	73.33	25.56	12.22	5.56	7.78	5.56	4.44	1.11	0.00	0.00	1.11	0.00	1.11	0.00
Chi-square p		0.820 0.365	0.016 0.898	5.570 0.018	1.633Y 0.201	0.068Y 0.795	0.009Y 0.926	2.529Y 0.112	1.216Y 0.270	1.965Y 0.161	1.965Y 0.161	0.010Y 0.920	0.397Y 0.529	0.397Y 0.529	0.397Y 0.529

The purpose of travel given by the respondents who were staying in Lublin Province_

Purpose of travel	Respondents
	[number]	[%]
tourist	101	52.9
other, including:	90	47.1
business	35	38.9
visiting family	29	32.2
visiting friends	27	30.0
education	16	17.8
other	5	5.6

Comparison of the promotional campaigns for Lublin Province in 2008-2018_

Year	Name of campaign / Advertising slogan	Objective	Cost (in EUR*)
2008	‘Lubelskie great for the weekend’	Presenting the most popular tourist places in the region: Lublin, Zamość, Kazimierz Dolny, Chełm, Nałęczów; Demonstrating the province as an interesting destination for a weekend trip;	97,000
2009	‘Lubelskie—switch off tension, switch on power’	Showing the region as a place to relax and ‘charge the batteries’;	178,000
2010	‘Lubelskie—may the moment last’	Showing the region as a place to relax and rest in nature, as well as the pleasant emotions related to it;	333,000
2011	‘Lubelskie Brand’	Promoting the province as a place producing tasty and healthy foods by combining many years of tradition with innovative solutions in agriculture and the food industry;	No data
2011	‘Lubelskie. Savour life!’	Building an image of the Lublin region as an ecological food centre and an interesting destination, where it is possible to taste the culinary richness, but also to ‘try’ culture, benefit from the beauty of nature, and follow one’s passions;	222,000
2011–2012	‘The Tastes of Lubelszczyzna’		220,000
2014	‘Lubelskie—for a while or longer’	Showing the province as an area that inspires people to be active in various spheres;With regard to tourism, promoting the region as a recreational place where it is possible to enjoy life and feel free;With regard to business, showing the area as a region that is attractive for starting and developing business activity;	222,000
2014	‘Enjoy Lubelskie’		161,000
2014	‘The Lubelskie Brand connects us’	Promoting the economic potential of the region and local providers of products and services;	No data
2015	‘Lubelskie. The best because it’s ours!’	Building the image and recognisability of food products coming from the Lublin region;	No data
2016	‘The power is in us!’	Promoting the potential of the province, which lies in people, technology, science and the natural environment.	No data
2017–2018	No promotional campaigns

Components determining tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province according to the respondents_

Groups of components	Types of components	Respondents						Chi2, p
		total		visiting for tourist purposes		visiting for different purposes
		N	%	N	%	N	%
1. Attractions	historical-cultural	113	59.16	69	68.32	44	48.89	Chi2=7.435, p=0.006
	natural	51	26.70	35	34.65	16	17.78	Chi2=6.925, p=0.009
	recreational	42	21.99	25	24.75	17	18.89	Chi2=0.954 p=0.329
	created	6	3.14	4	3.96	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.074, p=0.786
	unique	5	2.62	1	0.99	4	4.44	Chi2Y=1.079, p=0.299
2. Support services and facilities		7	3.66	7	6.93	0	0.00	Chi2Y=4.661, p=0.031
3. People-related factors		7	3.66	5	4.95	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.379, p=0.538
4. Other		6	3.14	4	3.96	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.074, p=0.786

Characteristics of the respondents_

Demographic factors	Sample details
gender [% (N)]	males		females				no data
	41.36 (109)		57.07 (79)				1.57 (3)
age [% (N)]	under 20	21-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	61-70	over 70	no data
	8.38 (16)	26.17 (50)	19.90 (38)	18.85 (36)	10.99 (21)	12.04 (23)	1.05 (2)	2.62 (5)
education [% (N)]	elementary	middle school	vocational	secondary	college	higher vocational	university (MA)	no data
	0.52 (1)	2.62 (5)	3.14 (6)	27.23 (52)	8.38 (16)	12.56 (24)	42.93 (82)	2.62 (5)
place of residence [% (N)]	country	town with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants	town with 20-50,000 inhabitants	city with 51-100,000 inhabitants	city with 101-200,000 inhabitants	city with 201-500,000 inhabitants	city with over 500,000 inhabitants	no data
	11.00 (21)	13.61 (26)	5.76 (11)	13.61 (26)	4.71 (9)	4.71 (9)	43.98 (84)	2.62 (5)
province [% (N)]	Łódź				Mazovia
	54.45 (104)				45.55 (87)

Attributes determining the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province, quoted by the respondents_

Groups	Types	Attributes	Respondents						Chi2, p
			total		visiting for tourist purposes		visiting for different purposes
determining tourist attractiveness			N	%	N	%	N	%
1. Attractions	historical-cultural	historical monuments	85	44.50	52	51.49	33	36.67	Chi2=4.231, p=0.040
		historical past	14	7.33	12	11.88	2	2.22	Chi2Y=5.192, p=0.023
		cultural events and institutions	16	8.38	10	9.90	6	6.67	Chi2Y=0.296, p=0.587
		historical spatial layout	15	7.85	8	7.92	7	7.78	Chi2Y=0.055, p=0.816
		culinary heritage	10	5.24	4	3.96	6	6.67	Chi2Y=0.263, p=0.608
	natural	attractive natural areas	43	22.51	31	30.69	12	13.33	Chi2=8.222, p=0.004
		forests	2	1.05	0	0.00	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.630, p=0.427
		parks	2	1.05	2	1.98	0	0.00	Chi2Y=0.397, p=0.529
		national parks	4	2.09	2	1.98	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.152, p=0.697
		gullies	1	0.52	0	0.00	1	1.11	Chi2Y=0.003, p=0.954
		river falls	1	0.52	0	0.00	1	1.11	Chi2Y=0.003, p=0.954
	recreational	beautiful landscapes/beautiful locations	26	13.61	18	17.82	8	8.89	Chi2=2.514, p=0.112
		geographical landscapes	5	2.62	3	2.97	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.017, p=0.896
		greenery (lush greenery)	5	2.62	2	1.98	3	3.33	Chi2Y=0.017, p=0.896
		good condition of natural environment	6	3.14	2	1.98	4	4.44	Chi2Y=0.313, p=0.576
		climate	2	1.05	1	0.99	1	1.11	Chi2Y=0.397, p=0.529
	created	places of entertainment/ attractions	6	3.14	4	3.96	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.074, p=0.786
	unique	numerous attractions	2	1.05	0	0.00	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.630, p=0.427
		genius loci	2	1.05	0	0.00	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.630, p=0.427
		shopping malls	1	0.52	1	0.99	0	0.00	Chi2Y=0.003, p=0.954
2. Support services and facilities		tourist infrastructure	5	2.62	5	4.95	0	0.00	Chi2Y=2.839, p=0.091
		bike paths	5	2.62	5	4.95	0	0.00	Chi2Y=2.839, p=0.092
		other (marketing)	1	0.52	1	0.99	0	0.00	Chi2Y=0.003, p=0.954
3. People-related factors		local inhabitants’ friendliness and good atmosphere for recreation	7	3.66	5	4.95	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.379, p=0.538
4. Other		location	4	2.09	4	3.96	0	0.00	Chi2Y=1.965, p=0.161
		simplicity	2	1.05	0	0.00	2	2.22	Chi2Y=0.630, p=0.427

The structure of the respondents’ answers regarding the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province_

Respondents		Answers
		Yes	No	I do not know
visiting (N=191)	N	144	9	38
	%	75.39	4.71	19.90
visiting for tourist purposes (N=101)	N	88	2	11
	%	87.13	1.98	10.89
visiting for other purposes (N=90)	N	56	7	27
	%	62.22	7.78	30.00
Chi2		Chi2 = 16.045
p		p < 0.001