Toward understanding tourist landscape. a comparative study of locals’ and visitors’ perception in selected destinations in Poland and Greece

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic profiles_

		Nationality		Total
Characteristics		Polish (n=121)	Greek (n=140)	n=261
Gender	Male	65	67	132
		54%	48%	51%
	Female	56	73	129
		46%	52%	49%
Groups		Polish	Greek	Total
Residents		50	50	100
		41%	36%	38.3%
Tourists		50	50	100
		41%	36%	38.3%
Business		21	40	61
		18%	28%	23.4%
Age		Polish	Greek	Total
Average		38.4	37.5	37.9
Min		19	19	19
Max		74	76	76
SD		13.3	13.7	13.5

Results of Principal Factor Analysis_

Latent Constructs	Factor Loading				Reliability coefficient (Alfa Cronbach)
(F-1) Services and Quality of Stay					0.775
Cleanliness &
good environmental conditions	0.762
Tourist information signage	0.739
Residents’ attitude & hospitality	0.647
Urban green spaces	0.601
Lodging & gastronomy	0.566
Tourist paths/ trails	0.507
Calm/quiet surroundings	0.504
(F-2) Nature					0.685
Landforms		0.824
Water elements		0.669
Forests		0.659
Climate		0.409
(F-3) Culture					0.573
Heritage & monuments				0.765
Events				0.419
Local culture				0.417
(F-4) Elements of Tourism Development					0.542
Interesting new architecture			0.703
Spatial town layout			0.681
Presence of tourists			0.448

Descriptive statistics of t-test for independents samples, by country (t – t-test, p – significance at the 0_05 level)_

Factors	Poland (N=121)		Greece (N=140)		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Services and quality of stay	29.63	3.70	27.92	4.68	3.288	0.001
Nature	17.47	1.91	14.50	2.62	10.556	0.000
Culture	12.04	2.22	11.44	2.69	1.970	0.050
Elements of tourism development	10.28	2.31	10.12	2.43	0.540	0.589

Respondents’ assessment of the contribution of selected elements of the landscape to its attractiveness as a tourist landscape (R – residents, T – tourists, B – business respondents)_

	Total	Polish (N=121)				Greek (N=140)
Variables	(N=261)	Total	R	T	B	Total	R	T	B
	Average score
Climate	4.0	4.1	4.1	4.2	4.2	4.0	4.1	3.7	4.1
Landforms	3.7	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.1	3.2	3.2	3.4	2.9
Water elements	4.1	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.3	3.9	3.7	4.1	3.9
Forests	4.0	4.6	4.6	4.5	4.4	3.5	3.4	3.6	3.4
Urban green spaces	3.9	4.2	4.3	4.3	4.0	3.6	3.3	3.7	4.0
Cleanliness & good environmental conditions	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.2	4.3	4.1	3.8	4.2	4.4
Calm/quiet surroundings	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.4	4.1	4.0	3.9	3.9	4.3
Heritage & monuments	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.0	4.2	4.2	4.1	4.2
Interesting contemporary architecture	3.2	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.2
Spatial town layout	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.5	3.5	3.2	3.7	3.5
Local culture	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.1	4.0	4.0	3.9	4.0	4.2
Events	3.6	3.8	3.6	3.8	4.2	3.4	3.5	3.3	3.5
Lodging & gastronomy	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.9	3.8	4.2
Tourist paths/trails	4.3	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.4	4.1	4.2	4.0	4.0
Tourist information signage	3.9	4.1	4.1	4.0	4.1	3.8	3.5	4.0	4.0
Presence of tourists	3.7	3.9	4.1	3.8	4.0	3.4	3.5	3.3	3.6
Residents’ attitude & hospitality	4.3	4.2	4.1	4.2	4.4	4.3	4.0	4.5	4.6

Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin and Bartlett tests_

KMO measure of sample compatibility		0.800
Bartlett’s sphericity test	Chi-square estimation	1 168.029
	df	136
	Significance	0.000

Responses to the question: Can the landscape of Zwierzyniec/Chios be called a tourist landscape?

	Polish				Greek				Total
Groups	Yes	%	No	%	Yes	%	No	%	Yes	%	No	%
Residents	48	96.0	2	4	47	94.0	3	6.0	95	95.0	5	5.0
Tourists	47	94.0	3	6	42	84.0	8	16.0	89	89.0	11	11.0
Businesses	21	100.0	0	0	39	97.5	1	2.5	60	98.0	1	2.0

Statistical analysis, using the Kruskal Wallis test, by respondent group and by country, for the total respondent sample (N=261)_

Factors	Total (N=261)			Poland (N=121)			Greece (N=140)
	chi2	df	p	chi2	df	p	chi2	df	p
Services and quality of stay	4.354	2	0.113	0.003	2	0.998	10.583	2	0.005
Nature	5.080	2	0.079	1.371	2	0.504	1.409	2	0.494
Culture	1.235	2	0.539	0.994	2	0.608	1.563	2	0.458
Elements of tourism development	0.768	2	0.681	0.263	2	0.877	1.023	2	0.599