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 |