Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Attitude Survey regarding to Tourist Attractions of a County in Western Hungary

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

07 May 2024

Posted:

14 May 2024

You are already at the latest version

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Abstract
Preserving and passing on folk traditions and gastronomic culture to the next generations was an important task of the older age group in every historical era. The most important objective of this study is to reveal people's attitudes regarding to the values of gastronomy and culture in a West Hungarian county. The combined presence of the Szigetköz Nature Park and the World Heritage sites (Fertő-Hanság National Park, Pannonhalma Abbey) in the offer requires re-sponsible, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable tourism planning. In the framework of a quantitative research (questionnaire survey), the tourists’ knowledge of gas-tronomy values and also their knowledge regarding to the architectural, cultural and natural attractions will be analysed. Four hypotheses were formulated in the study. The data collec-tion took place between September 1. 2023 and October 30. 2023 (N=666). The sample is not representative, the respondents were selected arbitrarily and randomly. The most important novelty of the study is that in contrast to previous studies, in this study, tourists' visits to different destinations were measured, while previous studies focused on tourists' interests.
Keywords: 
attitude
;  
attractions
;  
hospitality
;  
gastronomy
;  
Hungaricum
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Economics

1. Introduction

The aim of this research was to examine how people know culinary, nature and architectural heritages of Győr-Moson-Sopron county, in Hungary. Another new feature is the measurement of travel distance based on the experiences of those who filled in the questionnaires. Demographic, gender and attractiveness categorisations were examined in the context of willingness to travel.
Local potentials as endogenous resources have a wide scale. An initial assumption is that they are ‘interpreting the system of all geographical, environmental, historical, cultural, social and economic factors found in the settlements and regions, and factors influencing these value sets' activation’ (Rechnitzer, 1990. p.49.) from these elements that can be protected and recovered must be selected.
According to Cernea (1992), based on endogenous theories social participation and local initiatives are criteria for the success of developments. NPAs (natural protected areas) are created worldwide primarily to preserve a physical process habitat natural landscape or cultural heritage, such as cultural traditions of a community. However these areas are also sources of tourism and territorial development (Buongiorno & Intini, 2021).
The designation of certain sites as World Heritage Sites (WHS) dates back to 1972, since then the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has bestowed this distinction on sites that have cultural or natural heritage worthy of preservation for future generations. Some research related to WHS status (e.g. Ribaudo and Figini 2016; Poria, Reichel & Biran 2006; Poria, Reichel & Cohen 2013; Su and Wall 2011) dealt with the socio-economic impact of heritage tourism, with special regard to tourist attitudes and site management. Part of what can be linked to World Heritage is the content of heritage tourism, which 'draws on the living and built elements of culture and refers to the use of tangible and intangible past as a tourist resource' (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009. p. 4). Its attractions include both cultural landscapes, built heritage, traditions. Several areas of the county included in our study cover such protected areas, the sustainable use of which includes both gastroculture and built heritage. In their study they built on existing motivational segmentation studies of visitors to heritage sites (Menor-Campos et al, 2020; Mgxekwa et al., 2019; Murdy et al., 2018; Ramires et al., 2018).
According to Káposzta et al., (2016), Hungary has unique natural and cultural values in Europe. Thereby tourism is of decisive importance in the national economy. Based on Kassai et al., (2016) the Hungaricum rating significantly contributed to increasing the reputation of the regions examined by them and to a limited extent the image of the country. According to their studies. these endogenous products should be further exploited in the future.
The county under our investigation is Győr-Moson-Sopron, a north-western county of Hungary., bordering Austria and Slovakia. The county's World Heritage Sites are the Benedictine Archabbey of Pannonhalma, and the Fertő/Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape. Other regional tourist centres with cultural attractions are Győr, Sopron and Mosonmagyaróvár. Lake Neusiedler, that is the lake of the county's national park, suitable for bathing and navigation, and two more nature parks also enrich the cultural landscape. The river branch system of the “Kisalföld” (Danube) falls within the territory of the Szigetköz Nature Park. The wine region of Pannontáj-Sokoró Nature Park with Pannonhalma is already part of the Transdanubian Central Mountains. In our research, we analysed the relationship of tourists to the collected county attractions (County Values, Natural Environment, Hungaricum, Hungarian National Values, see Table 3).
Cross-sectional analyses suggest that the target group of middle-aged people is the most receptive to natural and cultural attractions in the area under study. The gastronomic knowledge of each age group about the area was also investigated. An important aspect of the analysis was the analysis of gender in relation to religious attractiveness. The research has provided useful information for the sustainable development of tourist segmentation of tourist destinations.

2. Materials and Methods

In this research we used the authors used quantitative methods. The data for this research was gathered between 1st September – 30th October 2023, and the survey aims to examine how people know culinary, nature and architectural heritages of Győr-Moson-Sopron county, in Hungary. The most important goal of the study was to reveal people's tourist attitudes during their travels. In the framework of quantitative research, respondents' travel willingness to visit tourist attractions, their specific expenditure and their intention to participate in various events were conducted. The sample is not representative, although all counties were included in the sample. The respondents were selected using an arbitrary method. The formal questionnaire was divided into three parts. The spending of responders was measured in Ft (Hungarian currency) on a nine-point Likert scale, (from HUF 2.000 to over HUF 10.000), and the willingness their travel was measured on a four-point Likert scale. Architectural, natural and cultural heritages, as well as participation in gastronomic events, were measured on a 4-point Likert scale. A score of one meant strongly disagree, and a score of four meant strongly agree. Issues such as decision making, distances, information about events, were divided into the first block (seven questions), participation in gastronomic events in Győr-Moson-Sopron county (five questions), participation on cultural attraction (eleven questions), attend on natural heritage (five questions), to see architectural heritages (thirteen questions), and leisure acivities (nine questions), a total of nineteen questions were set. In addition to demographic data (age, gender, education level, residence, incomes), the questions of the questionnaire can be classified into three groups. In the first block, are examined respondents’ gastronomic knowledge of the landscapes of the Győr-Moson-Sopron county, decision making, obtaining information and distances of travelling. In the second block are analyzed tourist visits habits and participation in gastronomic programs in tourism. In the last third part was examined the prioritization of built. cultural. natural heritage and leisure activities.
First, we performed data reduction (principal component analysis). From the forty-one dependent variables, we obtained seven interpretable factors with the analysis, which we named as follows (see Table 1).
The data was processed via IBM SPSS 25.0 in which unary operations (descriptive statistical analysis, situation indicators, average, mode, dispersion measures, standard deviation, variability), factor and correlation analysis were done. The reliability of the questionnaire (exemption of random errors), consistency was tested with Cronbach’s alpha. The procedure measures all possible combinations of the questions the questionnaire contains, the coefficient of reliability can be a number between 0 and 1. The closer the coefficient is to 1. the more reliable the data of the survey are. If the coefficient is between 0.9 and 1, they are excellent, between 0.8 and 0.9 they are good, between 0.7 and 0.8 they are acceptable, between 0.6 and 0.7 they are acceptable, between 0.5 and 0.6 they are week. and a coefficient below 0.5 is considered unacceptable (Sajtos and Mitev. 2007). It shows Table 1.
Table 1. Reliability.
Table 1. Reliability.
Dependent variables Cronbach's Alpha
Fishing in Kisalföld 0.904
To visit spirits days in Győr 0.899
To visit chocolate days in Győr 0.898
To visit "Győrkőc" festival 0.898
To see Csobolyó Folk Dance Ensenble show 0.897
To visit wine days in Győr 0.897
To visit baroque wedding in Győr 0.896
To see lake Fertő 0.896
To visit 5 temples festival in Győr 0.896
Walking tour 0.895
To visit castle in Mosonmagyaróvár 0.895
To visit Castle of Győr 0.895
To visit Wine Region Sopron 0.895
To visit downtown Sopron and the Fire Tower 0.895
To visit 4 seasons festivals in Győr 0.895
To visit Pannontáj-Sokoró Nature Park 0.894
To visit Fertő-Hanság Nature Park 0.894
The research seeks to find the answers to the hypotheses discussed below.
  • H1: Middle-aged people has got the greatest willingness to travel to heritages (natural, architectural and folk art) in Győr-Moson-Sopron county.
  • H2: Gastronomic heritages are best known by middle-aged people.
  • H3: Men and women are equally interested in religious heritage in Pannonhalma.
  • H4: In terms of heritages, architectural heritages, and folklore also appears as a separate tourism factor.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Review

Gastronomy is a privileged means of approaching the cultural heritage of the place you are visiting (Huang, 2017). and we believe that culture has an impact on the practice of culinary delights locally. According to Chang et al., (2011). on the one hand food provides taste and sensory satisfaction and on the other hand it also becomes a channel for related experience to get to know the culture of a settlement the validation of cultural heritage in tourism is an important element of sustainability as this process results in the preservation of past and present values for future generations (Bujdosó et al., 2015).
Czepczynski, M. (2016) the societies generally attach great importance to the maintenance of historically important landscapes ("cultural landscapes") or culturally significant species. In our opinion, tourism can build on these local cultural values in the area studied. In the study of Csurgó and Smith (2021), interviewees believe that cultural heritage is an important and decisive starting point for local tourism development. Thus, in our research, we also examined the cultural values of the region from the point of view of tourists. The meaning of heritage encompasses the participation and understanding of aspects of history by contemporary societies (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994; Light, 2015; Smith, 2006). This starting point is heritage tourism, an experiential activity in which travellers can interact with and consume heritage resources (Moscardo, 2001; National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2012). Based on data from the World Tourism Organization, almost 40% of all international travel belongs to heritage and culture, and their demand is growing at a rate of 15% annually (Richards, 2018).
A clear understanding of tourist preferences understanding tourist attitudes will help destination marketing organizations (DMOs) refine existing attractions, design new ones, and recommend effective marketing strategies (Gao J. et al., 2024).
The tourists that visit a cultural destination, in addition to participating in the knowledge of its heritage, also want to have sensorial experiences. In this sense, gastronomy and its relationship with tourism has become a key aspect in the analysis of the tourist destinations, especially those related to culture and heritage (Gálvez et al.,2017).
According to research by Rachão. et al. (2023). co-creation of experiences, the interaction between tourists and locals between tourists and frontline tourism employees’ satisfaction affect the level of active participation in food and wine tourism experiences.
In our study we relied on previous analyses of tourist destinations (Kivela - Crotts. 2006; McKercher et al., 2008; López-Guzmán et al., 2017;). for the study of gastronomic festivals (Kim et al., 2015; López-Guzmán et al., 2017) and the analysis of gastronomic markets (Crespi-Vallbona et al., 2019; Pérez-Gálvez et al., 2020). Hjalager (2004) characterised the travellers in four different groups: recreational, existential, diversionary. and experimental gastronomy tourists. The five segmented groups defined by McKercher et al., (2008) are:
  • non-culinary tourist,
  • unlikely culinary tourist,
  • possible culinary tourist,
  • likely culinary tourist,
  • and definite culinary tourist.
Examining the attitude of tourists to wine Thompson and Prideaux (2009) determined three tourist groups: 1. Food and wine tourists: they self-identify experiencing a region’s food and wine when travelling as important to very important; 2. Undecided: they self-identify experiencing a region’s food and wine when travelling as neither important nor unimportant; 3. Not interested: they self-identify experiencing a region’s food and wine when travelling as unimportant to not at all important. In their research Pérez-Priegoet al., (2023). explored three different groups of tourists according to their attitudes to local gastronomy characterized by different inclinations and culinary knowledge. Martín. et al., (2020) concluded that on the part of tourists. their previous knowledge of local food is one of the main determinants that they are more likely to belong to the "gourmet" segment, while a lack of knowledge also increases the likelihood of belonging to the "non-food" segment.
Çiftçi and Çizel (2024)believe that the quality of experience in heritage tourism is of great importance to tourists in all aspects, thereby shaping their attitudes.. Understanding the experiences and behavioural intentions of tourists visiting heritage sites and destinations is essential to create a supply that meets market expectations(Richards, 2018; Wu & Li, 2017). Regarding consumer experience, Brodie et al.,( 2011) and Hollebeek, (2011) reported a positive relationship between increasing engagement and satisfaction of consumption experiences. Rasoolimanesh et al., (2021) based on their analysis of the interviews, also concluded with respect to heritage that visitor engagement, authenticity, and destination image positively influence the memorability of visitor experiences. In terms of payment, results from Geet al., (2023) suggest that tourists are more likely to pay for recreational ecosystem services than for the use of natural attractions. Aesthetics take precedence over naturalness.
Our research is supported by Prayag G. et al., (2021) stating that there is a lot of research on the motivations of visitors to heritage sites but less explored are the types of tourists visiting heritage sites. Koufodontisand Gaki (2022). the World Heritage Demand Inquiry found that macro-level features do not play a significant role, while micro-level factors significantly influence how well tourists and locals know or are interested in UNESCO designation. As for the relationship of tourists to cultural attractions. according to Alexandros and Jaffry(2005). tourists are willing to contribute a significant amount to improving the information quality of cultural heritage sites. They support the introduction of audiovisual material on site and the intelligent management of visitor congestion. Prayag et al., (2021)analysed the motivations of heritage tourists according to their results there are two motivation clusters: "General tourists" and "Heritage tourists". According to the research of Csurgó and Smith (2021) in Hungary (Őrség), tourists also support the development of the destination, e.g. through their demand for local and authentic experiences (e.g. festivals or popular gastronomic programs).

3.2. Results

You can read the distribution of the studied sample in Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics

Regarding architectural heritages from the 13 architectural heritages 5 are religious. The buildings of Pannohalma Benedict Abbey have been part of the UNESCO World Heritage since 1996 tourist would visit it once 3.13. People maybe would visit the Roman Catholic church in Szany, its average is 2.20.
Natural heritages: Considering to natural heritage Fertő lake is the most popular among those who filled out the questionnaire, its average 3.11, the least popular is 700 years old oak tree in Hédervár 2.44.
Cultural heritages: Tourists would rather watch baroque wedding in Győr a show by the Csutora folk dance group in Szigetköz.
Leisure Fishing in the county is the less preferred but tour guided walking tours in cities the most popular.
Gastronomic Considering gastronomy foods are more favoured than beverages.
In the survey participate 666 respondents, and all have been validated. Three different age groups were defined based on the biological criteria. Young respondents belonged to the group between 16 and 39 years, the second group was that of middle-aged respondents between 40 and 59 and senior respondents belonged to the third group.

Personal Characteristics

Sex: there is no significant difference between the sexes in relation to the knowledge of the food of the regional units, nether spending. Religion is more important to women than men, they are more interested in abbeys and churches, there are significant difference. Regarding active tourism only in cycling there is no difference between the sexes (sig.:0.199). but in the case of the other dependent variables a significant difference can be detected (only the average for fishing is higher for men (2.50) than for women (2.15). To attend at rowing in Mosoni Danube sig.:0.004, to ride in Hédervár sig.: 0.003, and tour guided walking tour in city sig.: 0.000.
Age: There is a significant difference between the willingness to travel of the age groups. the middle-aged would travel more followed by the elderly and then the young. The same can be experienced with regard to spending. The gastronomic values of all three landscape units are known to the senior (oldest) age group followed by the middle-aged and the youngsters.
Educations level: Education doesn’t affect the acquisition of information about events.
Willingness to travel to participant events: Education. age show significant difference preceding x2=55.700 d=12 sig.:0.000. after x2=14.424. d=4. sig.0.006. Residence and genders do not show significant difference.
The research presented here segmented the tourists based on their willingness to participate in tourism and gastronomic activities and analysed the resulting profiles. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) > 0.6 and the p-value in Bartlett’s test is less than 0.01 (p < 0.01). it indicates that the scale is suitable for continuous factor analysis. Moreover when the coefficient is greater than 0.60 (0.817) this indicates that the questionnaire has good reliability and continuous analysis can be retained. Factor analysis can be one of the possible methods of multivariate statistical analysis, it defines a structure, produces from more data (data reduction) less so that the factors carry as much information as it possible. Only those variables will be included in the exam which eigenvalue is greater than 1. SPSS 25.0 program created five variables from the original set of forty-one variables. During the factor analysis the rotated matrix resulted in seven main components, it reach the elbow rule 60.0% (65.825%), which accepted in the social sciences. This main component explains 40.715% of the total variance. The second factor we find seven dependent variables. this main factor explains 7.880% of the total variance. In the third factor there are five dependent variables, and the main factor explains 5.159% of the total variance. In the fourth factor we find five variables, which explain 3.631% of the total variance. In the fifth factor there are also four variables which explain 3.248% of the total variance. In the sixth factor can be found also four variables which explain 2.771% of the total variance. In the last seventh factor there are two variables, which explain 2.421% of the total variance.
There are not different between Gender and Gastronomic events. Folklore museum x2=9.839 d=3 p=0.020. Local sightseeing x2=17.58 d=3 p=0.001.
  • H1: Middle-aged people’s has got the greatest willingness to travel to heritages (natural, architectural and folk art) in the Győr-Moson-Sopron county.
Since the Chi square is 0.006. (x2=14.424 d=4 sig:.006) it is significant, which means that H0 is rejected, there is a significant difference between the age groups' and their willingness to travel. Thus, hypothesis H1 can be accepted The mean of middle-aged people is the highest (5.31), which means that they are willing to travel up to 40 km to see a destination. The mean of the elderly and the youngsters is almost equal, the elderly is highest (4.86), the youngsters is 4.84, what does it mean, that they are willing to travel up to 30 km to see a destination. As a result of our primary research, we cover the research vessels Antón et al., (2017), aged between 30 and 44; Remoaldo et al., (2014), age between 26 and 45 years; Huh, Uysal and McCleary (2006), ages between 38 and 47.
Table 3. Crosstabulation.
Table 3. Crosstabulation.
Distance encodeed Total
Under 20 km Between 21-40 km Over 51 km
Generations Youngsters between 16-39 years Count 127 148 212 487
Expected Count 119,9 134,6 232,5 487,0
% within Generations 26,1% 30,4% 43,5% 100,0%
Middle aged (between 40-59 years) Count 30 30 93 153
Expected Count 37,7 42,3 73,0 153,0
% within Generations 19,6% 19,6% 60,8% 100,0%
Elderly (over 60 years) Count 6 5 11 22
Expected Count 5,4 6,1 10,5 22,0
% within Generations 27,3% 22,7% 50,0% 100,0%
Total Count 163 183 316 662
Expected Count 163,0 183,0 316,0 662,0
% within Generations 24,6% 27,6% 47,7% 100,0%
  • H2: Gastronomic heritages are best known by middle-aged people.
We examined whether there are regional differences in tourists' knowledge of gastronomic values. There is a significant difference in age in all three regions. The elderly know Szigetköz the most. In our opinion, age plays an important role in the knowledge of gastronomic traditions. Since the oldest age group knows the food of each landscape unit, Szigetköz (mean 3.68), Rábaköz (mean 3.23), Sopron (mean 3.05), this hypothesis is therefore rejected. Each region shows a significant difference it is shown Table 5.
Table 4. Descriptives.
Table 4. Descriptives.
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Between- Component Variance
Lower Bound Upper Bound
The gastronomic tradition of Szigetköz Youngsters between 16-39 years 491 2.95 1.200 .054 2.84 3.05 1 5
Middle aged (between 40-59 years) 153 3.16 1.193 .096 2.97 3.35 1 5
Elderly (over 60 years) 22 3.68 1.129 .241 3.18 4.18 1 5
Total 666 3.02 1.204 .047 2.93 3.11 1 5
Model Fixed Effects 1.196 .046 2.93 3.11
Random Effects .173 2.28 3.76 .046
The gastronomic tradition of Rábaköz Youngsters between 16-39 years 491 2.34 1.121 .051 2.24 2.44 1 5
Middle aged (between 40-59 years) 153 2.71 1.180 .095 2.52 2.89 1 5
Elderly (over 60 years) 22 3.23 1.270 .271 2.66 3.79 1 5
Total 666 2.45 1.158 .045 2.37 2.54 1 5
Model Fixed Effects 1.140 .044 2.37 2.54
Random Effects .248 1.39 3.52 .099
The gastronomic tradition of Sopron and its neighborhood Youngsters between 16-39 years 491 2.30 1.105 .050 2.20 2.40 1 5
Middle aged (between 40-59 years) 153 2.46 1.118 .090 2.29 2.64 1 5
Elderly (over 60 years) 22 3.05 1.362 .290 2.44 3.65 1 5
Total 666 2.36 1.125 .044 2.27 2.45 1 5
Model Fixed Effects 1.117 .043 2.28 2.45
Random Effects .165 1.65 3.07 .043
Table 5. ANOVA analysis.
Table 5. ANOVA analysis.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
The gastronomic tradition of Szigetköz Between Groups 15.260 2 7.630 5.333 .005
Within Groups 948.523 663 1.431
Total 963.784 665
The gastronomic tradition of Rábaköz Between Groups 29.229 2 14.615 11.243 .000
Within Groups 861.828 663 1.300
Total 891.057 665
The gastronomic tradition of Sopron and its neighborhood Between Groups 13.920 2 6.960 5.576 .004
Within Groups 827.593 663 1.248
Total 841.514 665
  • H3: Men and women are equally interested in religious heritage in Pannonhalma.
We were curious to see that gender and visits to religious heritage showed significance. This supported our research results Wong-Souza, with the difference that we specifically asked about religious interest within cultural heritage. Since the Chi square is .000 (x2=26.920, d=3 sig:.000), which means significance, H0 is therefore rejected, and the alternative hypothesis can be accepted. Mean men 2.37. and female 2.55.
Table 6. Crosstabulation.
Table 6. Crosstabulation.
To visit Benedictine Abbey at Pannonhalma Total
I would not visit it Maybe I visit it I would it visit once If I could I visit it every time
Your gender Female Count 20 34 205 180 439
Expected Count 24.4 44.8 217.5 152.3 439.0
% within Your gender 4.6% 7.7% 46.7% 41.0% 100.0%
Male Count 17 34 125 51 227
Expected Count 12.6 23.2 112.5 78.7 227.0
% within Your gender 7.5% 15.0% 55.1% 22.5% 100.0%
Total Count 37 68 330 231 666
Expected Count 37.0 68.0 330.0 231.0 666.0
% within Your gender 5.6% 10.2% 49.5% 34.7% 100.0%
Table 7. Chi-Square Tests.
Table 7. Chi-Square Tests.
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 26.920a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 27.508 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 22.886 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 666
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12,61.
  • H4: In terms of heritages, architectural heritages also appear as a separate tourism factor.
As it shown Table 8, the first factor includes those respondents for whom the region's folk art, architectural and religious, and natural heritage are important. Therby hypothesis 4 can be accepted. As a result, seven interpretable factors were created.

4. Discussion

Based on interest in cultural heritage, different authors identified different age groups from among the sociodemographic variables, which we studied due to the orientation of our research. Zhang et al. (2023) identify people between the ages of 21 and 35 as most interested in heritage tourism; Antón et al., (2017), aged between 30 and 44; Remoaldo et al., (2014), age between 26 and 45 years; Huh, Uysal and McCleary (2006), ages between 38 and 47; while Correia et al., (2013) and Ramires et al., (2018) establish an age above 45. Our research findings are supported by the sociodemographic studies of Antón et al., (2017), ages between 30 and 44; Remoaldo et al., (2014), ages between 26 and 45 years; Huh, Uysal and McCleary (2006), ages between 38 and 47. However, the above researchers did not look at travelers' travel distances for specific attractions. In examining the H1 hypothesis, our analysis also covered travel distance. The mean of middle-aged people is the highest (5.31), which means that they are willing to travel up to 40 km to see a destination.
When examining gastronomic heritage (H2), there is a discrepancy in the demand approach of previous research. In our research, familiarity was analysed, in contrast to Ramires et al., (2018) whose focus was on the interests of tourists. In our opinion, knowledge of gastronomic values and heritage is a primary aspect, because it basically determines the content of the communication strategy.
Several authors have examined the relationship between gender and cultural attractiveness among socio-demography variables. Similarly, there is a difference with other research in identifying areas of interest related to gender (H3). The results vary, with some authors suggesting that women have a greater preference for cultural destinations (Vong - Ung 2012; Nguyen - Cheung 2014; Remoaldo et al., 2014; Ramires, et al., 2018). Other studies have shown this about men (Correia - Kozak - Ferradeira 2013; Antón - Camarero - Laguna-García 2017; Chen - Huang 2018; Adie - Hall 2017). In our research, we analysed the desire to visit religious heritage in relation to gender, as opposed to the above researchers, who studied cultural heritage.
Some authors, such as Zhang et al., (2023) have defined facts, e.g. historical era, rarity, the size of the cultural heritage site, scenic level. In our research, unlike the above, factors were classified according to the interest associated with the topics (H4).

5. Conclusions

In our research we investigated the demand of tourists in relation to the tourist attractions of a county in Western Hungary (Győr-Moson-Sopron). The destination was chosen for its rich natural and field of architectural heritage. The combined presence of the Szigetköz Nature Park and the World Heritage sites (Fertő-Hanság National Park, Pannonhalma Abbey) in the offer requires responsible, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable tourism planning. An essential aspect of sustainability is to know the characteristics of tourists and to take maximum account of them in the marketing of the offer in order to spread the traffic and avoid mass tourism.
We examined whether there is a significant relationship between age groups in terms of their willingness to learn about natural and cultural attractions. The results of the research show that the target group of middle-aged people is the most receptive to learning about these attractions. This represents a broad group for segmentation purposes, where attention should also be paid to meeting family needs. Our research findings are supported by the sociodemographic studies of Antón et al., (2017), ages between 30 and 44; Remoaldo et al., (2014), ages between 26 and 45 years; Huh - Uysal - McCleary (2006), ages between 38 and 47. The target group is willing to travel up to 40 km to discover the attractions. regionally, so tourists from outside the county boundaries in the eastern direction should also be taken into account. A further direction of research should be to survey the Slovak and Austrian target groups, which were not covered by the present study.
The next result and novelty of the research refers to the age-related knowledge of gastronomic heritage. In connection with this, significance was detected in the elderly age groups in the regions of the county. Unlike Ramires et al. (2018), we were interested in knowing basic information. In the case of younger and primarily middle-aged target groups, we learned that more emphasis should be placed on introducing awareness of traditional products. For the elderly, it is only necessary to revive traditions, because they have the basic knowledge about regional food and drink specialties. Another result of the research is that two target groups can be addressed specifically in terms of religious heritage in terms of sexuality. Contrary to the results of the above researchers, both male and female target groups showed interest in Pannonhalma Abbey.
Based on the interest of tourists, 7 factors of attraction were identified in the destination under study, namely heritages, castle and parks, gastronomy, Győr, country side, activity, experience. In the product segmentation, it is proposed to offer the target groups the programmes belonging to the above factors, according to Table 8, with the built attractions being the most important. Cultural heritage (folk dance) has the most highly factor-scores so it is the most important factor in the survey, followed by built heritage (castles) and their parks, and gastronomy is in third place.
Future direction of the research: Performing K-means cluster analysis using the results of the factor analysis. planning is complementing the quantitative research with qualitative research, in which will be compared managers’ view (structured interviews results) of the service sector with of our quantitative research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ferenc Darabos and Viktória Kundi; methodology, Csaba Kőmíves; software, Csaba Kőmíves; validation, Csaba Kőmíves, Ferenc Darabos and Viktória Kundi; formal analysis, Csaba Kőmíves; investigation, Viktória Kundi; resources, Ferenc Darabos; data curation, Viktória Kundi; writing—original draft preparation, Csaba Kőmíves; writing—review and editing, Viktória Kundi; visualization, Ferenc Darabos; supervision, Viktória Kundi; project administration, Viktória Kundi; funding acquisition, Ferenc Darabos. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
1
County Values
2
Natural Environment
3
Hungarikum
4
Hungarian National Values

References

  1. Adie, B.A., Hall, C. M. (2017). “Who visits World Heritage? A comparative analysis of three cultural sites”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 67-80. Who visits World Heritage? A comparative analysis of three cultural sites: Journal of Heritage Tourism: Vol 12, No 1 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  2. Alexandros, A. Jaffry. S. (2005). Stated preferences for two Cretan heritage attractions. Annals of Tourism Research.32(4). 985-1005. ISSN 0160-7383. [CrossRef]
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016073830500085X.
  4. Antón, C., Camarero, C., Laguna-García, M. et al. (2017). “Towards a new approach of destination royalty drivers: Satisfaction, visit intensity and tourist motivation”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 238-260. Towards a new approach of destination loyalty drivers: satisfaction, visit intensity and tourist motivations: Current Issues in Tourism: Vol 20, No 3 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  5. Ashworth, G., Larkham, P. (Eds). (2013). Building a new heritage (RLE Tourism). Routledge. Building A New Heritage (RLE Tourism) - Google Könyvek.
  6. Bujdosó, Z., Dávid, L., Tőzsér, A., Kovács, G., Major-Kathi, V., Uakhitova, G., Vasvári, M, et al. (2015). Basis of heritagization and cultural tourism development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 188. 307-315.ISSN 1877-0428. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815021928. [CrossRef]
  7. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., Ilić, A, et al. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of service research, 14(3), 252-271. Strategic drivers, anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of customer engagement (tandfonline.com).
  8. Buongiorno, A., Intini, M. (2021). Sustainable tourism and mobility development in natural protected areas: Evidence from Apulia. Land Use Policy. 101. 105220.ISSN 0264-8377.
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720325588. [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, G.,Huang, S. (2018), “Understanding Chinese cultural tourists: typology and profile”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 162-177. 1350253 Understanding Chinese cultural tourists: typology and profile: Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing: Vol 35, No 2 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  11. Cernea, M. M. (1992). The building blocks of participation: testing bottom-up planning (Vol. 166). World Bank Publications.
  12. Chang. R. C., Kivela. J., Mak. A. H. et al. (2011). Attributes that influence the evaluation of travel dining experience: When East meets West. Tourism Management. 32(2). 307-316.ISSN 0278-4319. [CrossRef]
  13. ISSN 1878-450X. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517710000439.
  14. Chen G., Huang S. (2018), "Understanding Chinese cultural tourists: typology and profile", Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,Vol.35,No.2,pp.162-177. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350253?needAccess=true. [CrossRef]
  15. Çiftçi, Ş. F., Çizel, B. (2024). Exploring relations among authentic tourism experience, experience quality, and tourist behaviours in phygital heritage with experimental design. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 31, 100848. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212571X23000872?via%3Dihub. [CrossRef]
  16. Crespi-Vallbona. M., Domínguez Pérez, M., Miró. O. M, et al. (2019). Urban food markets and their sustainability: the compatibility of traditional and tourist uses. Current Issues in Tourism. 22(14). 1723-1743. Urban food markets and their sustainability: the compatibility of traditional and tourist uses: Current Issues in Tourism: Vol 22. No 14 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  17. Correia, A., Kozak, M., Ferradeira, J., et al. (2013. “From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction”, International Journal of Culture. Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 411-424. From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction Emerald Insight. [CrossRef]
  18. Csurgó, B., Smith, M. K. (2021). The value of cultural ecosystem services in a rural landscape context. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 76-86. ISSN 0743-0167, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016721001674. [CrossRef]
  19. Czepczynski, M. (2016). Cultural landscapes of post-socialist cities: representation of powers and needs. Routledge. Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities Representation of Power (taylorfrancis.com). [CrossRef]
  20. Gálvez, J. C. P., Granda. M. J., López-Guzmán. T., Coronel. J. R., et al. (2017). Local gastronomy. culture and tourism sustainable cities: The behavior of the American tourist. Sustainable Cities and Society. 32. 604-612.ISSN 2210-6707.
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670716307570. [CrossRef]
  22. Gao, J., Peng, P., Lu, F., Claramunt, C., Qiu, P., Xu. Y., et al. (2024). Mining tourist preferences and decision support via tourism-oriented knowledge graph. Information Processing & Management. 61(1). 103523.ISSN 0306-4573. [CrossRef]
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457323002601.
  24. Ge, Y., Xu, G., Zhang, Q., Wang, X., Li, T., et al. (2023). Natural attributes or aesthetic attributes: Which is more valuable in recreational ecosystem services of nature-based parks considering tourists’ environmental knowledge and attitude impacts? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 44.
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213078023000968). [CrossRef]
  26. Hjalager, A. M., Richards, G. (Eds.). (2003). Tourism and gastronomy. Routledge. Tourism and Gastronomy - Google Könyvek.
  27. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573. Scopus preview - Scopus - Document details - Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes.
  28. Huang, J. (2017). The dining experience of Beijing Roast Duck: A comparative study of the Chinese and English online consumer reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 66. 117-129. ISSN 0278-4319. [CrossRef]
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431917301251.
  30. Huh, J., Uysal, M., McCleary, K., et al. (2006), "Cultural/heritage destinations tourist satisfaction and market segmentation",Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 81-99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J150v14n03_07. [CrossRef]
  31. Kassai, Z., Káposzta, J., Ritter, K., Dávid, L., Nagy, H., Farkas, T., et al. (2016). THE TERRITORIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FOOD HUNGARICUMS: THE CASE OF PÁLINKA. Romanian Journal of Regional Science. 10(2).
  32. https://rjrs.ase.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/V102/V1025.Lorant.pdf.
  33. Káposzta, J., Nagy, A. Nagy, H., et al. (2016). The impact of tourism development policy on the regions of Hungary. Региoнальная экoнoмика. Юг Рoссии. (1). 10-17.https://www.rgvi.gtk.szie.hu/sites/default/files/upload/page/21.pdf.
  34. Kim, Y. H., Duncan. J., Chung. B. W., et al. (2015). Involvement. satisfaction. perceived value. and revisit intention: A case study of a food festival. Journal of culinary science & technology. 13(2). 133-158. Citations: Involvement. Satisfaction. Perceived Value. and Revisit Intention: A Case Study of a Food Festival (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  35. Kivela, J., Crotts, J. C. (2006). Tourism and gastronomy: Gastronomy's influence on how tourists experience a destination. Journal of hospitality & tourism research. 30(3). 354-377. Tourism and Gastronomy: Gastronomy's Influence on How Tourists Experience a Destination - Jakša Kivela. John C. Crotts. 2006 (sagepub.com). [CrossRef]
  36. Koufodontis, N. I., Gaki, E. (2022). UNESCO urban world heritage sites: Tourists' awareness in the era of social media. Cities,127, 103744.ISSN0264-2751, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275122001834. [CrossRef]
  37. Light, D. (2014). Heritage Tourism. 11:4,472-473, Heritage Tourism: Tourism Planning & Development: Vol 11, No 4 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  38. López-Guzmán, T., Uribe Lotero, C. P., Pérez Gálvez, J. C., Ríos Rivera, I., et al. (2017). Gastronomic festivals: Attitude. motivation and satisfaction of the tourist. British Food Journal.119(2). 267-283. ISSN:0007-070X Gastronomic festivals: attitude. motivation and satisfaction of the tourist. Emerald Insight.
  39. Martín, J. C., Román, C., Guzmán, T. L. G., Moral-Cuadra, S., et al. (2020). A fuzzy segmentation study of gastronomical experience. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science. 22. 100248. [CrossRef]
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878450X20301256.
  41. McKercher, B., Okumus, F., Okumus, B., et al. (2008). Food tourism as a viable market segment: It's all how you cook the numbers!. Journal of travel & tourism marketing. 25(2). 137-148. Food Tourism as a Viable Market Segment: It's All How You Cook the Numbers!: Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing: Vol 25. No 2 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  42. Menor-Campos, A., Fuentes Jiménez, P. A., Romero-Montoya, M. E., López-Guzmán, T., et al. (2020). Segmentation and sociodemographic profile of heritage tourist. Tourism and hospitality management. 26(1). 115-132. Segmentation and sociodemographic profile of heritage tourist (srce.hr).
  43. Mgxekwa, B. B., Scholtz, M., Saayman, M., et al. (2019). A typology of memorable experience at Nelson Mandela heritage sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism. 14(4). 325-339. A typology of memorable experience at Nelson Mandela heritage sites: Journal of Heritage Tourism: Vol 14. No 4 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  44. Moscardo, G. (2001). Cultural and heritage tourism: The great debates. Tourism in the twenty-first century: Reflections on experience, 3-17. Cultural and heritage tourism: the great debates. (cabdirect.org).
  45. Murdy, S., Alexander, M., Bryce, D., et al. (2018). What pulls ancestral tourists ‘home’? An analysis of ancestral tourist motivations. Tourism Management. 64. 13-19. ISSN 0261-5177. What pulls ancestral tourists ‘home’? An analysis of ancestral tourist motivations - ScienceDirect. [CrossRef]
  46. Nguyen, T. H. H., Cheung, C. (2014), “The classification of heritage visitors: a case of Hue City. Vietnam”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 35-50. The classification of heritage tourists: a case of Hue City, Vietnam: Journal of Heritage Tourism: Vol 9, No 1 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  47. Pérez-Priego, M. A. de los Baños García-Moreno, M., Jara-Alba, C., Caro-Barrera, J. R., et al. (2023). Local gastronomy as a destination tourist attraction: The case of the ‘Chiringuitos’ on the Costa del Sol (Spain). International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science. 34. ISSN 1878-450X. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878450X23001646. [CrossRef]
  48. Poria, Y., Reichel, A. Biran, A., et al. (2006). Heritage site management: Motivations and expectations. Annals of tourism research. 33(1). 162-178. ISSN 0160-7383. Heritage site management: Motivations and Expectations - ScienceDirect. [CrossRef]
  49. Poria, Y., Reichel A., Cohen R. et al. (2013). "Tourists perceptions of World Heritage Site and its designation". Tourism Management. Vol. 35. pp. 272-274. ISSN 02615177. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151771200043X. [CrossRef]
  50. Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z., Alrawadieh, Z., et al. (2021). Motivation. emotion and world heritage status in discerning the heritage tourists: A segmentation perspective. Tourism Management Perspectives. 40. 100906.ISSN 2211-9736. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211973621001197. [CrossRef]
  51. Rachão, S. A, S. de Jesus Breda. Z., de Oliveira Fernandes. C., Joukes, V. N. P. M. et al. (2021). Drivers of experience co-creation in food-and-wine tourism: An exploratory quantitative analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives. 37. 100783.
  52. . [CrossRef]
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211973620301501.
  54. Ramires, A., Brandao, F., Sousa, A. C. et al. (2018). Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: The case of Porto. Portugal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 8. 49-60. ISSN:2212571X. Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: The case of Porto. Portugal - ScienceDirect. [CrossRef]
  55. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., Hatamifar, P., et al. (2021). Understanding memorable tourism experiences and behavioural intentions of heritage tourists. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 21, 100621.ISSN 2212-571X. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212571X2100069X. [CrossRef]
  56. Rechnitzer. J. (1990). Aspects of the research of the spatial spread of innovations. MTA RKK. Pécs. pp. 48-62.
  57. Remoaldo, P. C., Vareiro, L., Ribeiro, J. C., Santos, J. F., et al. (2014). “Does gender affect visiting a World Heritage Site?”, Visitor Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 89-106. Does Gender Affect Visiting a World Heritage Site?: Visitor Studies: Vol 17, No 1 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  58. Ribaudo G., Figini, P. (2016). "The puzzle of tourist demand at destinations hosting UNESCO World Heritage Sites: An analysis of tourism flows for Italy". Journal of Travel Research. Vol. 56. No. 4. pp. 521542. [CrossRef]
  59. Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 12-21. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends - ScienceDirect. [CrossRef]
  60. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. ISBN 9780203602263 Uses of Heritage - Laurajane Smith - Google Könyvek.
  61. Su, M.M. and Wall, G. (2011). "Chinese research on World Heritage Tourism". Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. Vol. 16. No. 1. pp. 75-88. Chinese Research on World Heritage Tourism: Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research: Vol 16. No 1 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  62. Thompson, M., Prideaux, B. (2009). Developing a food and wine segmentation and classifying destinations on the basis of their food and wine sectors. In Advances in hospitality and leisure (pp. 163-183). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ISSN: 17453542. Scopus preview - Scopus - Document details - Developing a food and wine segmentation and classifying destinations on the basis of their food and wine sectors. [CrossRef]
  63. Timothy, D. J., Nyaupane, G. P. (Eds.). (2009). Cultural heritage and tourism in the developing world: A regional perspective. Routledge. Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World: A Regional Perspective - Google Könyvek. ISBN 9780203877753.
  64. Tourism, C. H., Sites, H. (2016). Heritage Tourism. Retrieve from http://cultural heritagetourism. org/what–is–heritage–tourism.
  65. Vong, L. T. N. and Ung, A. (2012), “Exploring critical factors of Macau´s Heritage tourism: what heritage tourists are looking for when visiting the city´s iconic heritage site”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 231-245. Exploring Critical Factors of Macau's Heritage Tourism: What Heritage Tourists are Looking for when Visiting the City's Iconic Heritage Sites: Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research: Vol 17, No 3 (tandfonline.com). [CrossRef]
  66. Wu, H. C., Li, T. (2017). A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(8), 904-944. A Study of Experiential Quality, Perceived Value, Heritage Image, Experiential Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions for Heritage Tourists - Hung-Che Wu, Tao Li, 2017 (sagepub.com). [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, S., Lin, J., Feng, Z., Wu, Y., Zhao, Q., Liu, S. & Li, H. (2023). Construction of cultural heritage evaluation system and personalized cultural tourism path decision model: An international historical and cultural city. Journal of Urban Management, 12(2), 96-111. [CrossRef]
Table 2. Distribution of the test sample.
Table 2. Distribution of the test sample.
Variable Person Distribution (%)
Gender
Male 227 34.1
Female 439 65.9
Age
Youngsters (between 16-39 years) 491 73.7
Middle aged (between 40-59 years) 153 23.0
Elderly (over 60 years) 22 3.3
Education level
Higher education 143 21.6
Secondary 410 60.7
Primary 113 17.0
Residence
Capital 24 3.6
Urban 420 63.0
Sub-urban 222 33.3
Table 8. Factor analyses.
Table 8. Factor analyses.
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Factors name
To see Csutora Folk Dance Show in Szigetköz CV1 .836





Heritages (architectural, folklore, untouched nature)
To see Bokréta Folk Dance show in Szany CV .807
To see Csobolyó Folk Dance show CV .782
To see Rába Folk Dance Ensemble show CV .781
To visit curch in Szany CV .771
To visit chapel "Szent Kereszt" in Mosonmagyaróvár .727
To see articifers in Bősárkány (mat processing) CV .677
To visit 700 years old oak tree in Hédervár CV .661
To visit Karmelita curch in Győr .653
To visit Premontrei Abbey in Csorna CV .638
To visit five temples festival in Győr .617
To visit cathedral in Győr CV .614
To see Győr ballet performance CV .537
To visit Mosoni Danube floodplain .413
To visit Eszterházy castle in Fertőd .790


Castle and parks
To visit downtown Sopron and the Fire Tower CV .748
To visit Széchenyi castle in Nagycenk .616
Hiking and tour guided walking tour in city castle .614
To visit Fertő-Hanság Nature Park NE2 .585
To visit castle in Mosonmagyaróvár CV .568
To walking tour in the city(es) .521
To visit wine days in Győr. Fröccs - H3 .848

Gastronomy
To visit spirits days in Győr .782
To taste wine in Pannonhalma Wine Region HNV4 .750
To visit Wine Region Sopron CV .650
To visit chocolate days in Győr .505
To visit "Győrkőc" festival CV .689

Győr
To visit baroque wedding in Győr CV .672
To visit Castle of Győr CV .574
To visit 4 seasons festivals in Győr .570
To visit Vienna Gate Square in Győr .457
To visit Szigetköz Nature Park .711
Counrty side
To visit Pannontáj-Sokoró Nature Park .705
To visit basements in Táp .592
To visit country house in Tényő .591
Fishing in Kisalföld .632

Activity
To ride in Hédervár .621
Rowing in Mosoni Danube .563
To bicycle in Szigetköz .551
To attend a match of Audi ETO KC CV .477 Experience
To visit in Győr Water Adventure Park and Spa .457
Eigenvalues 40.715 7.880 5.159 3.631 3.248 2.771 2.421
% variance explained 20.535 14.008 7.921 7.335 6.794 6.200 3.032
% variance cumulative 20.535 34.543 42.464 49.799 56.593 62.793 65.825
Cronbach-alpha .950 .883 .857 .801 .878 .756 .556
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .956
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Bartlett's test of sphericity: Chi-squared = 21549.99. d=946 sig. (.000). Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Cronbach's Alpha–Internal consistency.
Table 9. The naming of factors.
Table 9. The naming of factors.
Factors Designation
1. Heritages (folkor, architectural, and unspoilt nature)
2. Castle and parks
3. Gastronomy
4. Győr
5. Countryside
6. Activity
7. Experience
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Downloads

105

Views

37

Comments

0

Subscription

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

Email

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated