sustainability

Article
Cultural Tourism as a Driver of Rural Development.
Case Study: Southern Moravia
Milada Št’astná * , Antonín Vaishar, Jiří Brychta, Kristýna Tuzová, Jan Zloch and
Veronika Stodolová
Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno 61300, Czech Republic;
antonin.vaishar@mendelu.cz (A.V.); xbrychta@node.mendelu.cz (J.B.); xtuzova@mendelu.cz (K.T.);
jan.zloch@mendelu.cz (J.Z.); xdoskoc6@mendelu.cz (V.S.)
* Correspondence: stastna@mendelu.cz; Tel.: +420-606-580-412




Received: 13 October 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 31 October 2020


Abstract: The main aim of the study was to find out whether cultural tourism could be a driver of rural
development in the selected area and in general. In case yes, to what extent and under what conditions.
Three districts in the South-Moravian Region, Znojmo, Břeclav, and Hodonín, situated in the rural
borderland with Austria and Slovakia represented the study area. Both geographical and sociological
methods were used to gather evidence for cultural tourism in that study. Firstly, attractiveness
analysis of the area defined for cultural tourism took place. Next, factors influencing the potential for
cultural tourism affecting rural development in South Moravia were evaluated. Finally, synergistic
relations were discussed. In the territory, many forms of tourism intersect. Based on the results, it can
be stated that cultural tourism can hardly be the main driver of rural development after the decline of
agriculture because the region’s economy has branched out in several directions. However, it can be
an important complementary activity that yields both economic and non-economic benefits.

Keywords: cultural tourism; cultural landscape; historical heritage; culture of wine; intangible
culture; rural development; Moravia

1. Introduction
The fertile lowlands of Southern Moravia have always been considered a rich country. Sufficient
harvests once ensured that farmers in the region experienced few existential or economic problems.
However, the situation is changing as agricultural production becomes less decisive for the economic
success of the region. Intensively cultivated, flat, lowland landscapes with monocultures are not
attractive for purposes of landscape consumption. Attention is instead shifting to mountain areas with
rugged reliefs, fierce water streams, and mosaics for various land uses. Considering these changes,
what activities might substitute agriculture to maintain economic vitality in lowland regions?
In general, tourism expresses post-productive development in rural areas. Due to the lower
attractiveness of lowland nature, cultural tourism could play a role in the economic prosperity of these
post-productive, rural areas. The attractiveness of a region for cultural tourism development does not
depend so much on natural beauties but instead lies in the history and intersections of cultures in a
region, which was intensive in the lowlands.
There are many aspects connected with cultural tourism that relate to space and time, including the
attractiveness of an area for cultural tourism, suitable infrastructure, the preparedness of a territory and
its people to use the presuppositions and role of public administration, information, marketing and
advertising, the economy of cultural tourism (public/private partnership), the relation of cultural
tourism to other branches, and limiting tourist exploitation of the territory.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064; doi:10.3390/su12219064 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 2 of 16

The importance of cultural tourism does not only lie in the economic benefits received by a region.
Cultural tourism can play an important role in learning about the people and customs in different
regions and countries, which is one of the preconditions for creating a common European identity.
Rural tourism is sometimes understood as a return to nature. Similarly, cultural tourism can be seen as
a return to historical roots—personal, ethnic, or entire civilizations [1]. This role of cultural tourism is
currently confronted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly reduced tourism possibilities.

2. Theory and Research Questions

According to the World Travel Organization, tourism consists of travelling to and staying in
places outside of one’s usual milieu for a period no longer than one year, for leisure, business, or other
activities that do not relate to the gainful activity of the tourist in the place visited. Tourism can be
divided as follows:

• Recreational tourism is aimed at the regeneration of physical and mental facilities.

• Cultural tourism stems from the desire to explore a location’s history, cultural history,
natural beauties, and educational resources.
• Sports tourism is focused primarily on physical activities.
• Spa and wellness tourism is connected to health care, prevention, or convalescence.
• Tourism may also involve travelling for business, including attending scientific and other technical
symposia or pursuing secondary housing.

While all these types of tourism blend and complement one another, our approach focuses solely
on cultural tourism. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, ‘Cultural tourism
is a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience
and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination’.
Richards [2] suggests that cultural tourism differs from other branches of tourism in its cognitive
function. There are many other terms used in this field such as heritage tourism, art tourism, and ethnic
tourism. Cultural tourism is especially complex because every destination has specific cultures
and traditions, and it is difficult for outsiders (whether academics or tourists) to fully understand
them [3]. Cultural tourism research has grown rapidly, particularly in fields like cultural consumption,
cultural motivations, heritage conservation, cultural tourism economics, anthropology, and the
relationship with the creative economy [4]. Additionally, recent years have seen the interaction between
culture and tourism deepen [5].
Due to its relatively wide definition, there are many forms of rural cultural tourism, that may be
considered, such as architectonical and historical heritage [6] including battlefield and other memorial
tourism [7], visits to museums of different types including open-air museums and archaeological
sites [8] gastronomy [9] and beverage [10] tourism; pilgrimage tourism [11] including visits to important
churches and church memorials; ethnography tourism [12] and intangible heritage [13] including
folklore and folk culture, participation in festivals or cultural events of different types [14] visiting
places, where important novels took place or movies were made [15]; and nostalgia tourism [16].
Rural areas have different conditions for the development of cultural tourism. They have fewer
cultural facilities such as theatres, museums, art galleries, and historical buildings, but often possess
more natural heritage. Besides, rural areas were subjected to globalisation trends later than cities and,
in many cases, they have retained an ethnographic cultural heritage that can be restored or imitated.
Natural tourism is sometimes contrasted with cultural tourism (cultural and nature tourism).
However, if tourism focused on natural values fulfils the condition of cognitive function (especially
in protected areas), it can be considered a form of cultural tourism. According to Esfahani and
Albrecht [17], natural tourism can have three roles: First, a source of attraction and addition to any
tourism offerings; second, a conservation tool, especially where the natural environment has strong
cultural meanings for the local community; and third, a driver for facilitating culturally and naturally
sensitive behaviour among visitors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 3 of 16

Defining rural development is extremely difficult [18]. Traditionally, development has been related
to quantitative growth; however, this definition does not suit rural areas in post-productive stages.
Additional preliminary, qualitative aspects should be added, including amenity-based development,
freedom, and social networks. Rural development should be attractive, innovative, and developed
while maintaining sustainability (the generally known three pillars) and continuity in terms of
maintaining rural character and identity [19]. Recently, there has even been a conversation regarding
smart rural development [20].
The main research question is as follows: Could cultural tourism be a driver of rural development
in the area under study, and in general? To what extent? Under what conditions? What are the main
barriers to its development?

3. Methodology and the Region under Study

Both geographical and sociological methods were used to gather evidence for cultural tourism in
the study region. Data were taken from official sources of the Czech Statistical Office, Czech Tourism
Agency, and other public sources. Secondary sources were also used for the completion of this research.
As part of the SPOT project of the European HORIZON 2020 program, a questionnaire survey was
conducted in the region, focusing on residents, visitors, and tourism providers. Each group was
represented by 40 respondents. In this way, we tried to confront objective data with subjective opinions.
The tourism industry is highly dependent on the subjective opinions of all involved. Sociological
research was carried out at the end of summer 2020, i.e., at the time when the first wave of COVID-19
quarantine ended and the second wave began (the ethics was approved by the Ethics Board at the
Mendel University in Brno). This may have influenced the opinions of the respondents.
The procedure begins with an attractiveness analysis of the area defined for cultural tourism.
Next, factors influencing the potential for cultural tourism to influence rural development in South
Moravia are evaluated. Finally, synergistic relations are discussed.
The study area consists of three administrative districts (NUTS 4) in the South Moravian Region
(NUTS 3): Znojmo, Břeclav, and Hodonín (Figure 1), which are approximately 3700 km2 in area and
contain about 384,000 inhabitants. The territory belongs mainly to the Vienna basin, particularly the
Czech portion called Lower Morava Vale. The limestone cliffs of the Pavlovské vrchy Hills dominate
the landscape, while the river valleys of Morava, Dyje, Svratka, and others are flanked by lowland
hills with erosion-accumulating surfaces. The most eastern part of the area is bounded by the White
Carpathian Mountains. From a biogeographical viewpoint, the area manifests a border between the
Pannonian and Hercynian provinces. Two large water reservoirs—Vranov and Nové Mlýny—complete
the water system of the region. The territory is relatively accessible from national capitals Vienna,
Bratislava, Prague, and Budapest.
The settlement system consists of three medium-sized district towns: Znojmo (33,700 inhabitants;
end of 2017), Hodonín (24,700 inhabitants), and Břeclav (24,800 inhabitants). The urban structure is
completed by a relatively dense structure of small towns, each containing 2000–12,000 inhabitants.
Small towns are missing only in the westernmost area, which is probably the main reason for its
peripherality. The countryside consists of 246 municipalities, each with fewer than 2000 inhabitants.
Of them, 43 municipalities have fewer than 200 inhabitants, most of which are in the westernmost area,
whereas the same number is formed by municipalities with more than 1000 residents. The regional
metropolis, Brno (population 381,300), is clearly the superior centre for the region. Relations with
Vienna were disrupted during the last century.
Most of the region enjoys high quality, fertile soils (chernozems), and conditions are suitable for
fruit and vine growing. Lignite mining has ended and the only remaining mining in the area is for
crude oil of the best quality and gas in Czechia. Due to excellent conditions for agriculture, the area
was industrialised relatively late, with some exclusions (e.g., power generation in Hodonín and the
chemical industry in Břeclav). The food industry also manifests an exclusion.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 4 of 16

The southern parts of districts Znojmo and Břeclav had been settled primarily by ethnic Germans
since the Middle Ages. After WWII, most Germans were evacuated, and the territory has been resettled
by Slavonic people. As a result, historical continuity was disrupted. Antošová [21] shows specific
tourist developments in the Czech borderland through the example of the Liberec region. On the other
side, the south-eastern part of the Hodonín district was a border territory between the Czech and
Hungarian kingdoms for about 1000 years and has unified only twice, for relatively short periods from
1918 to 19382020,
Sustainability and, xfrom 1944 to 1992. 4 of 17

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The region under study.
study. Source:
Source: Drawn by J. Brychta.

4. Results
The settlement system consists of three medium-sized district towns: Znojmo (33,700
inhabitants;
Tourismend of 2017),
in the Hodonín (24,700
South-Moravian Region inhabitants),
(NUTS 3) was and initially
Břeclav (24,800
mapped inhabitants).
by Št’astná Theet al.urban
[22].
structure is completed by a relatively dense structure of small towns, each containing
Our paper focuses on the southern part of the territory without the city of Brno, which is, of course, 2000–12,000
inhabitants.
the Small towns
main attraction are missing only
and infrastructural baseinofthe westernmost
tourism area,However,
in Moravia. which is probably the tourist
three of five main reason
areas
for its peripherality. The countryside consists of 246 municipalities, each
in the South-Moravian Region are situated in the study territory: The Znojmo and Dyje valley area, with fewer than 2000
inhabitants. Of them, 43 municipalities have fewer than 200 inhabitants, most
the Pavlovské vrchy hills and Lednice-Valtice area, and Moravian Slovakia. In 2019, 931,000 visitors of which are in the
westernmost
were accommodatedarea, whereas the same
in these three number
tourism is of
regions, formed
whichby 79%municipalities
were domestic. with more
These thanspent
visitors 1000
residents. The regional metropolis, Brno (population 381,300), is clearly the
2,019,000 nights here. For comparison, 992,000 visitors stayed in Brno and spent 1,778,000 nights,superior centre for the
region.
of whichRelations
49% were with Vienna (Czech
foreigners were disrupted
Statisticalduring
Office the last century.
Prague).
Most of the region enjoys high quality, fertile soils (chernozems), and conditions are suitable for
4.1.
fruitMain
and Attractions
vine growing. for Cultural
Lignite Tourism
mining hasin the Area and the only remaining mining in the area is for
ended
crudeArchitectonical
oil of the best quality and gasheritage
and historical in Czechia. Due
in the to excellent
region conditions
is represented by aforsetagriculture, thetheir
of castles (or area
was industrialised relatively late, with some exclusions (e.g., power generation in
ruins) and chateaus. There are more than 70 such tangible heritage seats in the three-district territory, Hodonín and the
chemical industry in Břeclav). The food industry also manifests an exclusion.
meaning that the average distance between them is more than 7 km. Bítov is the best-known and kept
The
castle, southern
whereas partsand
Vranov of districts Znojmo
Dyjí (Figure 2),and Břeclav
Mikulov, had been
Valtice, settledMilotice,
Lednice, primarily orby ethnic Germans
Strážnice number
since the Middle Ages. After WWII, most Germans were evacuated,
among the best-known and most visited chateaus. The named architectonical monuments belong and the territory has been to
resettled by Slavonic people. As a result, historical continuity was disrupted. Antošová
the state and are accessible, according to the rules for the state cultural heritage. Some of them host [21] shows
specific tourist developments in the Czech borderland through the example of the Liberec region. On
the other side, the south-eastern part of the Hodonín district was a border territory between the Czech
and Hungarian kingdoms for about 1000 years and has unified only twice, for relatively short periods
from 1918 to 1938 and from 1944 to 1992.

4. Results
4.1. Main Attractions for Cultural Tourism in the Area
Architectonical and historical heritage in the region is represented by a set of castles (or their
ruins) and chateaus. There are more than 70 such tangible heritage seats in the three-district territory,
meaning that the average distance between them is more than 7 km. Bítov is the best-known and kept
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 5 of 16
castle, whereas Vranov and Dyjí (Figure 2), Mikulov, Valtice, Lednice, Milotice, or Strážnice number
among the best-known and most visited chateaus. The named architectonical monuments belong to
the
statestate and are accessible,
institutions according
like the National to theofrules
Institute Folkfor the state
Culture cultural heritage.
in Strážnice. Parks inSome of them
English host
or French
state
stylesinstitutions
usually belong like the National Institute
to individual chateaus.ofThe
Folkruins
Culture in Strážnice.
of castles Parks
(Cornštejn in English
or Dívčí hrad or French
belong to
styles usually belong to individual chateaus. The ruins of castles (Cornštejn or Dívčí
the best known) are accessible without any limitations. Other buildings are private and serve differenthrad belong to
the best known)
purposes are accessible
(e.g., a hotel without castle
in former Templar any limitations.
Čejkovice).Other
Some buildings
objects areare private
under and serve
reconstruction.
different
There purposes
are four (e.g., a hotel
rural memorial zonesinprotecting
former Templar castle Čejkovice).
folk architecture Some
in the region. Wineobjects
cellars are typical
under
reconstruction.
constructions inThere the areaareand
fourare
rural
mostmemorial zonesinprotecting
concentrated folk architecture in the region. Wine
Petrov village.
cellars are typical constructions in the area and are most concentrated in Petrov village.

Vranov Chateau.The chateau dominates the Dyje valley.

Figure 2. Vranov
Figure valley. Source: V. Hubačíková.
Hubačíková.

Natural heritage
Natural heritage isis represented
represented by by the
the National
National Park,
Park, Podyjí,
Podyjí, protected
protected landscape areas Pálava
landscape areas Pálava
(Pavlovské
(Pavlovské vrchy hills), Bílé Karpaty (White Carpathians Mountains), the UNESCO biosphere
vrchy hills), Bílé Karpaty (White Carpathians Mountains), the UNESCO biosphere
reserve, Dolní
reserve, Dolní Morava
Morava(Lower(LowerMorava),
Morava),and andnumerous
numeroussmallsmall nature
nature reserves.
reserves. TheThe landscape
landscape of
of the
the Lednice-Valtice area is a UNESCO World Heritage site. There are various other
Lednice-Valtice area is a UNESCO World Heritage site. There are various other natural beauties andnatural beauties
and values
values in addition
in addition to those
to those listed.
listed. Although
Although the the region
region hashas below-average
below-average forested
forested areas
areas (22%),
(22%), it
it contains
contains valuable
valuable floodplain
floodplain forests
forests ininthethe confluenceofofthe
confluence theMorava
Moravaand
andDyje
Dyjerivers.
rivers.
The best-known archaeological seat is probably the mammoth hunters’ hunters' housing estate in Dolní
Věstonice.
Věstonice. AA local
localmuseum
museumpresentspresentsthethe
female ‘Venus
female of Věstonice’
‘Venus ceramic
of Věstonice’ sculpture,
ceramic dated dated
sculpture, to 29,000
to
to 25,000 BCE. Recently, Pavlov archaeopark was created to show the life of mammoth hunters in
the Pavlovské vrchy Hills. Another important archaeological site is found in Mikulčice archaeopark,
which contains a Slavonic settlement from the Great Moravian Empire (eighth to tenth centuries,
CE) period.
Southern Moravia contains the more religious parts of Czechia. Churches, calvaries, and small
church objects form an important part of the South Moravian landscape, though many of them
hold only local importance; however, others might number among attractions for cultural tourism.
Pilgrimage destinations include St. Anthony in Blatnice pod Svatým Antonínkem, Calvary in Mikulov,
and St. Ann in Žarošice. In total, 187 churches (mostly Christian-Catholic) are registered in the area.
archaeopark, which contains a Slavonic settlement from the Great Moravian Empire (eighth to tenth
centuries, CE) period.
Southern Moravia contains the more religious parts of Czechia. Churches, calvaries, and small
church objects form an important part of the South Moravian landscape, though many of them hold
only local importance; however, others might number among attractions for cultural tourism.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 6 of 16
Pilgrimage destinations include St. Anthony in Blatnice pod Svatým Antonínkem, Calvary in
Mikulov, and St. Ann in Žarošice. In total, 187 churches (mostly Christian-Catholic) are registered in
the area.
Jewish Jewishisheritage
heritage situatedismostly
situatedin mostly in small
small towns towns
where Jewswhere
settled Jews settled
after after theirfrom
their expulsion expulsion
royal
from royal
cities in citiescentury.
the 15th in the The
15thbest-known
century. The best-knownofconcentration
concentration Jewish memorials of Jewish memorials is in
is in Mikulov.
Mikulov.
The Slav Epic represents a special case of cultural heritage. It is a set of 20 large canvases painted
The Slav
by Alfons MuchaEpicinrepresents a specialstyle
the Art Nouveau caseatofthe
cultural heritage.
beginning of theIt 20th
is a set of 20 large
century. canvases
The work painted
displays the
by Alfons
history of Mucha
Czech and in the ArtSlavonic
other Nouveaunations
style atand
thewas
beginning of thesaved
at one time 20th century. The work
and exhibited displays
in Moravský
the historyChateau
Krumlov of Czech(Figure
and other Slavonic
3). At present,nations
there and was at one
is a dispute time saved
between Prague and exhibited
and Moravskýin Moravský
Krumlov
Krumlov
over where Chateau
the work (Figure
should3).be
Atlocated.
present, there is a dispute between Prague and Moravský Krumlov
over where the work should be located.

Figure 3. Moravský
Moravský Krumlov
Krumlov Chateau.
Chateau. The
The Slav
Slav Epic
Epic has
has been
been exhibited
exhibited in
in the Moravský Krumlov
Chateau. However,
However, the contemporary state of the building does not match the
the importance
importance of Mucha´s
Mucha´s
work. Source:
Source: A.
A. Vaishar.
Vaishar.

Gastronomy tourism is represented by the area’s vineyard culture [23] which accounts for most
vineyards and cover 16,700 ha, or 4.5% of the area (Figure 4).
Czech vineyards Moravian vinery
4). Moravian vinery is
is the
the only
branch of agriculture that offers a complete circle of services, from vine growing, wine production
agriculture that offers a complete circle of services, from vine growing, wine production and
marketing,
and to services
marketing, including
to services accommodations.
including accommodations. TheThe
infrastructure is increasingly
infrastructure being
is increasingly used
being for
used
conference tourism and team-building events.
for conference tourism and team-building events.
Vineyard culture is closely connected with folklore and includes songs, dances, paintings, costumes,
and habits (Figure 5). The male folk dance Verbuňk is a part of the intangible UNESCO World Heritage
practices. There are many folklore festivals in the region, including the best-known International
Folkloric Festival Strážnice—the oldest event of this type in Europe. In 2019, 150 ensembles from
Czechia and six additional countries with 1700 performers participated in the festival. The landscape
of South Moravia, with vineyards and dominant Pavlovské vrchy hills over the Nové Mlýny water
reservoir, is an attractive scene for movies and TV series, especially those with a wine theme. However,
it seems that the attractiveness lies primarily in the landscape itself and its value as movie scenery
is secondary.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 7 of 16
Sustainability 2020, , x 7 of 17

Wine cellars
Figure 4. Wine cellars in
in Bořetice.
Bořetice. The
Thecellars
cellarsmanifest
manifestaapart
partof
ofthe
theFree
FreeFederal
FederalRepublic
Republicof
ofCow
CowHill.
Hill.
V. Hubačíková.
Source: V. Hubačíková.
Sustainability 2020, , x 8 of 17
Vineyard culture is closely connected with folklore and includes songs, dances, paintings,
costumes, and habits (Figure 5). The male folk dance Verbuňk is a part of the intangible UNESCO
World Heritage practices. There are many folklore festivals in the region, including the best-known
International Folkloric Festival Strážnice—the oldest event of this type in Europe. In 2019, 150
ensembles from Czechia and six additional countries with 1700 performers participated in the
festival. The landscape of South Moravia, with vineyards and dominant Pavlovské vrchy hills over
the Nové Mlýny water reservoir, is an attractive scene for movies and TV series, especially those with
a wine theme. However, it seems that the attractiveness lies primarily in the landscape itself and its
value as movie scenery is secondary.

Figure 5. Living
Living folklore.
folklore. The
The band
band Šardičanka
Šardičanka in Pavlov village. In this
this case, it is an
an attempt
attempt to export
folklore from traditional Moravian Slovakia
Slovakia to
to villages
villages settled
settled by
by German
German populations
populations before
before WWII.
WWII.
A. Vaishar.
Source: A.

Militaria in the area relates to twentieth-century history. There are light fortification objects on
the border, which were built before WWII against Nazi Germany. Newer history is represented by
the Iron Curtain memorial in Čížov. Technical monuments include windmills in Lesná and Kuželov
and the Baťa Canal, which is directly used for cultural tourism (Figure 6). The canal was built by the
Baťa company in the 1930s to transport coal from Hodonín to Baťa's factories in Zlín and Otrokovice.
 Figure 5. Living folklore. The band Šardičanka in Pavlov village. In this case, it is an attempt to export8 of 16
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064
folklore from traditional Moravian Slovakia to villages settled by German populations before WWII.
Source: A. Vaishar.
Militaria in the area relates to twentieth-century history. There are light fortification objects on the
Militaria
border, which inwerethebuilt
areabefore
relatesWWII
to twentieth-century history.Newer
against Nazi Germany. Therehistory
are light fortification by
is represented objects on
the Iron
the border, which were built before WWII against Nazi Germany. Newer history
Curtain memorial in Čížov. Technical monuments include windmills in Lesná and Kuželov and the is represented by
the Iron
Bat’a Curtain
Canal, which memorial in Čížov.
is directly Technical
used for culturalmonuments include
tourism (Figure 6). windmills
The canal in Lesná
was builtand Kuželov
by the Bat’a
and the Baťa
company Canal,
in the 1930swhich is directly
to transport used
coal forHodonín
from culturalto
tourism
Bat’a’s(Figure 6).inThe
factories Zlíncanal
and was built by the
Otrokovice.
Baťa company in the 1930s to transport coal from Hodonín to Baťa's factories in Zlín and Otrokovice.

Figure 6. Baťa
Bat’a channel.
channel. The
TheBaťa
Bat’achannel,
channel,originally
originallybuilt
builtin
inthe
the1930s
1930s for
for the
the transport
transport of
of coal
coal from
the Hodonín Basin
Basin to
toBat’a´s
Baťa´s factories
factoriesin
inOtrokovice
OtrokoviceandandZlín,
Zlín,manifests
manifestsa complementary
a complementary attraction
attraction to
to cultural
cultural tourism
tourism in in
thethe Moravian
Moravian South.
South. Source:
Source: V. V. Hubačíková.
Hubačíková.

4.2. Infrastructure for Cultural Tourism

Proper infrastructure forms the basis for tourism development and the utilisation of existing
destination resources [24]. It is one of the main factors of competition ability - especially in countries
where the service sector is underdeveloped.
The infrastructure for tourism consists of transportation, accommodation and gastronomy
facilities, information centres, and other equipment. The main centres of Southern Moravia are easily
accessible by the terrestrial transport. Europe’s main railway corridors from the northwest (Hamburg),
southeast (Bucharest), north (Warsaw), and south (Vienna–Rome) cross in Břeclav, which is one of
the main railway junctions in central Europe. The D2 highway (Brno–Bratislava) and high-speed
communication R52 (Brno–Vienna) ensure accessibility via road transportation (Brno is distanced
40 min from Mikulov, the border with Austria). The closest major airports are in Vienna and Bratislava
(about 75 and 60 min from Brno, respectively). The whole territory is covered by the Integrated
Transport System of the South-Moravian Region, ensuring regular and frequent public transport
into each inhabited place in the area. Due to its flat terrain, cycling transport has also developed.
However, the conditions of some roads and railways are poor due to the past underestimation of
their maintenance.
There are 510 collective accommodation establishments with 8160 rooms and 21,987 beds (2018)
registered in the area, which are situated in the district’s towns, in the vicinity of water reservoirs
and in vine-growing areas. Most of these facilities fall into a lower category, but tourist demand for
quality is increasing and the respective level of services necessary for maintaining hygienic and social
standards is important for soft tourists. Among rural communities, the biggest concentrations of beds
are found in Lednice (Lednice-Valtice area, 1225 beds), Pasohlávky (Aqualand Moravia, 993), Štítary
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 9 of 16

(867), Vranov nad Dyjí (832), and Bítov (630). The last three are situated in the vicinity of the Vranov
water reservoir.
There are three types of tourist information centres in the area. Information centres in towns
generally focus on the complex tourist offerings in a town and its surrounding villages. Information
centres in villages most often focus on wine tourism. There are also specialised tourist information
centres focusing on the National Park, Podyjí, the protected landscape area of the White Carpathian
Mountains, or the Bat’a channel. In the digital era, internet information and reservation systems are
decisive. There are neither problems with coverage nor access to the internet. However, the creation,
updating, and connectivity of web pages should be substantially improved. In any case, smart tourism
represents a challenge for cultural tourism [25].
General services for the local population that are used by tourists are also important
(e.g., retail shops, health care facilities, and personal services). These facilities not only ensure
tourists´ necessities but also mediate relations between tourists and local people, which are necessary
for an illustration of the culture in the region. In the central and eastern parts of the region with large
villages and good accessibility in small towns, general services are sufficiently ensured as a rule. In the
small villages of the western part, the situation is less favourable.

4.3. Human and Institutional Factors for the Development of Cultural Tourism
The human factor, organisational and information support, marketing, and institutional support
are essential prerequisites for the successful realisation of tourism. The people who serve in the tourism
industry are usually the first and thus one of the most important factors for the success of a branch [26].
The human factor in rural areas is usually poorly trained for offering proper services for tourists [27].
This concern extends beyond education levels, which are oriented more for productive branches of
the economy. The motivations of providers were impacted also by the underestimation of services
during the communist regime, which did not train people for services; this deficiency has gradually
been improved. Another issue is that salaries in accommodation and gastronomy are the lowest of
all economical branches on the national level, which, in the third quarter of 2019, were only 60% of
the national average (in the comparison, incomes in agriculture, forestry and fishery were 83% of the
national average) (Czech Statistical Office Prague).
Aside from service providers, the relation of the local population to tourist development is
important. The problem could consist of an ageing rural population—especially in the smallest villages
where seniors do not depend on the local economy and tourism might cause a disturbance when it
surpasses acceptable levels. Within the sociological survey, locals reported that the annual number of
tourists visiting the surveyed site is very high (40%), high (27.5%), average (20%), and low (12.5%).
According to them, the impact of cultural tourism on individual areas (infrastructure, employment,
quality of life) can be considered positive (80%), average (17.5%), and negative (2.5%). The impact of
tourism on local customs and traditions is similarly assessed, with 62.5% of respondents considering
the impact to be positive, 27.5% to be neutral, and 10% negative. As many as 75% of respondents would
recommend a visit to the site to their acquaintances, 17.5% would respond neutrally, and 7.5% would
not recommend a visit to the site. More than half (65%) of the respondents answered that they often give
tourists tips on cultural monuments/events, 17.5% sometimes, 12.5% very little, and 5% never. One-fifth
of respondents (20%) often received some discounts/better prices for local cultural attractions/events as
a local citizen, less than a fifth said that sometimes (17.5%) and few (17.5%), and almost half did not
receive better prices or discounts (45%). Within the evaluation of the accessibility of the examined
locality, half of the respondents rated the overall accessibility of the locality from the outside as
excellent, as very good (27.5%), and as average (17.5%), and the rest of the respondents did not evaluate.
One-third of respondents (35%) consider the possibility of travelling within the locality as excellent,
another third (32.5%) as very good, one-fifth (20%) as average, 10% as below average, and 2.5% of
respondents did not express themselves.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 10 of 16

Organisational support is provided by the Tourist Authority of Southern Moravia. Its strategy is
based on relieving the burden on the most attractive places and more evenly distributing tourism in the
region (Centrála cestovního ruchu jižní Moravy https://www.ccrjm.cz/o-centrale/obecne-informace/).
Its activity consists of collaborating with providers, developing human resources, creating a unified
offer and presenting Southern Moravia as a tourist region. On the micro-regional level, local action
groups from the LEADER programme and voluntary associations from communities play an important
role. Most consider the support of tourism for one of their strategic goals. There are 10 LAGs and
18 voluntary associations within communities in the study territory.
On the local level, destination management is the key tool of tourism development. A destination
must be seen as a complex and interconnected product of tourism consisting of goods, services,
natural resources, artificially created attractions, and information [28]. According to Holešinská and
Bobková [29], the concept of destination governance is based on cooperation between actors from
both the public and private sectors. If a strategy is aimed at motivating tourists to spend more time in
an area—at least overnight, and optimally a whole holiday—it is necessary to offer a destination as
a complex package that includes not only different sorts of cultural tourism but also attractions like
physical activities, wellness, entertainment, and recreation.
The Free Federal Republic of Cow Hill, in the territory of the voluntary association of communes
called the Blue Mountains Region, provides an example of a successful marketing destination strategy.
It originated in Bořetice Village (1300 inhabitants) and offers not only complex wine tourism, but also
a sporting area in Němčičky with the lowest alpine skiing area in continental Europe, ethnographic
museums in Kobylí and Vrbice, a skatepark, tracks for hippo-tourism and bike-tourism, a salt cave,
and lookout towers in Bořetice and Velké Pavlovice. The destination offers 280 vine cellars and
28 public accommodation facilities with 834 beds.

4.4. Consumers of Cultural Tourism

Tourism lies on top of Maslow´s Pyramid. However, basic lines in the pyramid are successfully
satisfied for a big part of the contemporary European population, which evokes a strong demand for
tourism. Crompton [30] identified nine tourist motives, seven of which are socio-psychological (going
away from or pushing) and two that are cultural (going towards or pulling).
Cultural tourists are defined as persons who are motivated to travel by or are interested in cultural
resources and destinations. However, culture is not always their main motivation [31]. According to
Richards [32], consumers of cultural tourism originate from the so-called ‘new middle class’. Later,
Richards [33] states that cultural tourists are well-educated, work in management-level professions,
and are relatively young. Some authors disagree. Özel and Kozak [34] do not consider education as
the main characteristic of cultural tourists and Alén et al. [35] highlight seniors as cultural tourists.
Recently, the so-called staycation, which refers to visiting areas in one´s own region,
has developed [36]. Getting to know one’s surroundings in a narrower or wider sense is often
focused on the sphere of cultural tourism. Czechs have largely satisfied their hunger for exploring
foreign countries, which were considerably reduced under the communist regime, and are beginning
to turn their attention to their own country and region.
Additionally, as Navrátil et al. [37] have discovered, interests in individual types of cultural
attractions differ according to demographic factors. Jindrová a Dömeová [38] divide Czech rural
tourists into three categories: Traditional, active, and passive. Of these, the traditional is most
interested in cultural tourism. In Czechia, it was not supposed that cultural tourism would attract
rich people—except perhaps for the Lednice-Valtice area, which is a UNESCO World Heritage area.
The prices, level of services and possible benefits must reflect these circumstances.
In the survey, a third of respondents (35%) said that their previous experience of visiting the site
was better. Less than a third (30%) do not see any difference, a third (32.5%) state that they cannot
assess it, and 2.5% of respondents state that the current experience with visiting the site is better.
This is probably associated with limitations at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty perceent
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 11 of 16

of reviewers also visited nearby locations during the holidays, and 20% also neighbouring countries.
The estimated costs per person per day of stay in the destination of interest (including accommodation
costs) amounted to 1000–2000 CZK (approximately €40–80 EUR). A quarter of respondents rated the
overall accessibility of the site from the outside as excellent, as very good (40%), good (37.5%), and as
average (15%), problematic (5%), and very problematic (2.5%). One-third of respondents (37.5%)
consider the possibilities of travel within the locality to be excellent, a quarter of respondents (25%) to
be very good, a fifth (20%) to be average, 10% to be problematic, 2.5% to be very problematic, and 5% of
respondents did not comment. More than a third of respondents (37.5%) would highly recommend a
site visit, another third (37.5%) would recommend a site visit to their friends, 17.5% answered neutrally,
5% would rather not recommend a site visit, and 2.5% would not recommend a visit.

4.5. Relations to Other Tourism Branches, Economic Branches and Regions

Cultural tourists are either targeted for a specific cultural aim or they consume cultural attractions
during a widely oriented, long-term holiday stay, where cultural tourism could be a primary or
secondary activity. For tourists who intend to spend a longer time in a territory, the offer of additional
tourist attractions is extremely important. For the summer season, water recreation is important.
The area under study contains water reservoirs Vranov and Nové Mlýny and the Bat’a channel. For all
these water attractions, recreational boat transportation is operating. There are almost no conditions
for winter recreation in the region, except in the White Carpathian Mountains and the alpine skiing
area in Němčičky. Spas and wellness centres in Hodonín, Lednice, and Pasohlávky are included among
important attractions for tourism. Consequently, despite lacking favourable conditions for other types
of recreation, the region has recently expanded its capacity for complementary tourism.
The study region records a relatively high unemployment rate (November 2019, Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs). Only in easily accessible central areas does the unemployment rate fall
under 3%. The peripheral eastern and western parts have unemployment rates of 3% to 4%, and in the
extreme case of Vranov nad Dyjí, unemployment reaches 5.5%. Due to the qualification structure of
the people and difficult accessibility in peripheral micro-regions, any localisation of bigger activities
from other branches is not probable. In these territories, tourism has yet to become a necessary part of
the economy.
Currently, local tourism is confronted with the consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic.
Restrictions on international tourism have caused economic losses for destinations that were mainly
dependent on foreign tourists. In contrast, most rural regions are targeted by domestic tourism,
which has experienced a major boom in 2020. The number of overnight stays by domestic tourists in
hotels in the summer of 2020 increased by 18% from 2019. The share of domestic tourists increased
from 36% in 2019 to 71% in 2020 (Czech Tourism Agency, Marketing Information System). The question
is how many domestic tourists will remain loyal to domestic destinations after the epidemic subsides,
and whether rural regions will be able to attract foreign tourists who can appreciate the relative security
of South Moravian destinations.
Eighty-five percent of surveyed tourism entrepreneurs report a negative impact of anti-COVID-19
measures. The problems manifested themselves in a reduction in the number of reservations (72.5%),
renunciation of shares (72.5%), or even in the (temporary) closure of the company (65%). Measures taken
include, in particular, targeting regular customers (80%), improving digital services (65%), or exploring
new markets (54%). In the area of personnel policy, entrepreneurs resorted to non-recruitment of
seasonal temporary workers (70%), dismissal (42.5%), or transfer of workers to another activity (37.5%).
The state helped with financial assistance (72.5%), loans (22.5%), and counselling (20%). In terms of
business perspectives, providers are divided into roughly three groups of the same size. One estimates
the viability of its business at six months, a third for a shorter period, and 27.5% intends to last more
than a year.
Due to its borderland position, the question of trans-border collaboration in cultural tourism arises.
It could include tourist visits from neighbouring countries or collaboration in forming double-sided
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 12 of 16

tourism as a joint offer. Some barriers to trans-border tourism are shown by Stoffelen et al. [39]. In this
area, trans-border collaborations are present in protected nature areas. The national park, Podyjí,
as well as the protected landscape area in the White Carpathian Mountains, have counterparts on the
opposite side of the border. Although there are attractive places in regions bordering Austria and
Slovakia, trans-border transport is underdeveloped. Only the Austrian towns Laa an der Thaya and
Retz, and the Slovak towns Senica and Holíč, are connected to the Integrated Transport System of the
South-Moravian Region.

5. Discussion: Pros and Cons of Cultural Tourism for Rural Development

From a regional viewpoint, the attractiveness of cultural tourism is distributed relatively equally
in the study region. In other words, in any place in the region, attractive elements can be found.
Among the most important barriers to cultural tourism development in rural areas, lack of financial
resources, and collaboration among providers, local authorities, and other stakeholders stand out [40].
Additionally, the maintenance of tangible cultural heritage in the Czech countryside has long been
underestimated [41].
The Programme of Tourism Development for 2014–2020 [42] marks the main strengths of tourism
in the South-Moravian region as high satisfaction and return of tourists, good environmental and
order levels, good hospitality from local people, and good information levels. Among weaknesses,
the following can be named: Problems in transportation infrastructure, including parking; higher price
levels; and the dominance of facultative trips without any accommodation in the area. Surprisingly,
the seasonal character of tourism was not named in the programme.
In the study region, 5.16% of economically active people are employed in agriculture, forestry,
and fishery (which is more than double the national average). Next, 36.61% of people work in industry
and construction, and the remaining 58.23% are engaged in the service industry. Those working in the
hospitality sector like food and beverage service activities (which relate to tourism) account for 3.47%
of active workers. Neither agriculture nor tourism is important for the job market. The region also has
one of the highest unemployment rates in Czechia, reaching 5.2% in the Znojmo district, and 4.7% in
the Hodonín district (end of 2019) (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). Reducing unemployment
in the region to the national average (2.9%) would require about 1700 jobs in the tourism industry.
However, doing so is evidently not important from the viewpoint of rural development because the
main sectors ensuring jobs are industry, construction, social services, and retail.
If one considers the impact of cultural tourism on rural development, one must inquire into
the economy of culture and tourism, especially in a situation where a large part of a sector must be
subsidised. Tourism boosts primary, secondary, and tertiary industries [43]. Theoretically, it directly
increases sales revenue for tourism-related businesses, stimulates local production, creates new jobs
and investment opportunities, and increases government revenues through taxation. However,
these benefits are usually connected with growth in the number of tourists who create pressure on the
economic, social, and environmental milieu. Thus, questions of sustainability or over-tourism arise.
Frey [44] concludes his analysis of the economics of culture and art, including cultural tourism,
by stating that culture makes people happy. It follows that non-economic contributions to cultural
tourism and rural development should also be considered. Unlike other sectors of tourism,
cultural tourism has one peculiarity—it can be operated online. Although this form does not
bring financial resources to the region, it can at least partially fulfil a non-economic function.
McKarcher [45] divides cultural tourists into five groups: (1) Purposeful cultural tourists for
whom cultural tourism and deep cultural experience are the primary motives for visiting a destination;
(2) sightseeing cultural tourists for whom cultural tourism is a primary or major reason for visiting
a destination, but for whom the experience is more shallow; (3) serendipitous cultural tourists are
tourists who do not travel for cultural tourism reasons, but who, after participating, end up having
deep cultural tourism experiences; (4) casual cultural tourists for whom cultural tourism is a weak
motivator for visiting a destination and the resultant experience is shallow; and (5) incidental cultural
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 13 of 16

tourists who do not travel for cultural tourism, but who nevertheless participate in cultural activities
and have shallow experiences. Each of these groups likely requires a different approach from providers
who must identify which groups to focus on and how to attract them.
Only certain attractions can attract visitors. Thus, it is necessary to offer individual destinations as
a whole. This approach asks for close collaboration between tourism providers, local administrations,
and other subjects. Theoretically, LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) create a suitable organisational
basis for collaboration—at least from the viewpoints of their organisational structure, territorial
compatibility, and bottom-up approach [46]. Most LAGs have set tourism as one of their main activity
targets. However, if LAGs are primarily perceived as a tool for obtaining subsidies, their main objective,
which is the cooperation of entities in the territory, will not be met.
Rural tourism is based on small- and medium-sized enterprises. This means, among other
things, that operational management (solving day-to-day situations) usually prevails over strategic
management [47]. Therefore, the destination managements of areas (DMO) that are established in the
above-mentioned five areas of tourism in the South Moravian Region are important. Their task is to
coordinate the cooperation of individual tourism entities and the joint promotion of their regions, and to
design tools for tourism support in cooperation with the South Moravia Tourist Board, which covers
tourism support for the entire region.
Entrepreneurs in tourism are focused primarily on adult visitors and families. At the same
time, 60% of them prefer the summer season. For 90% of providers, the majority of income comes
from domestic tourism. Entrepreneurs generally evaluate the cultural tourism segment as beneficial
(about two-thirds of entrepreneurs in individual aspects of cultural tourism). Visitors’ interest in
cultural tourism is between 60 and 75%. Entrepreneurs themselves offer gastronomic specialities,
cultural heritage, music, and other aspects of folklore. Most entrepreneurs would welcome greater
state support in the development of tourism, and only 17.5% of entrepreneurs would welcome its
regulation. Entrepreneurs see the improvement of conditions for the development of cultural tourism
in the improvement of the condition of local roads (40%), in the provision of information (27.5%),
and the improvement of marketing (25%).

6. Conclusions
One of the key issues in this paper is the role of cultural tourism in the development of the South
Moravian countryside. Cultural tourism is certainly not the main tourist branch of the Czech or
South Moravian countryside. The largest accommodation capacity and frequency of attendance are
concentrated in second homes. According to the 2011 census, there are 11,000 unoccupied flats in
the South Moravian region used for recreation. Kubeš [48] lists more than 12,500 holiday cottages in
only the three most important recreational areas of the region. However, it is clear that this type of
tourism contributes to rural development only secondarily through the maintenance of buildings or
the consumption of local services.
All five destination areas of tourism management list the attractions of cultural tourism (defined
by the cognitive function) among the main motives for the development of tourism. The attractions
of other types rather complement cultural tourism and expand its possibilities. It could follow that
if tourism is a driver of rural development, it is usually cultural tourism that plays a significant role
in this. Many of these attractions are, of course, located in cities. Unlike cities, the South Moravian
countryside is more open to domestic tourists. This fact, previously perceived as a disadvantage, was of
unexpected significance during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Czech Tourism Agency,
the number of overnights stays in hotels by domestic tourists increased by 20% in the first half of 2020,
whereas the total number of overnight stays fell by 37% due to the fall of foreign tourist. Besides,
cultural tourism is the only one that can apply online—although in this case, the contribution to rural
development would be small, rather consisting in the promotion of the area. Similarly, Gössling, Scott,
and Hall [49] speak about the role of domestic tourism in the recovery after the pandemic and about
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 14 of 16

the long-term transition to the more resilient destinations. The South Moravian countryside seems to
fulfil this condition.
The presuppositions for the development of cultural tourism in the South Moravian rural landscape
are as follows:

• The South Moravian countryside is attractive from the viewpoint of cultural tourism.
• The maintenance and state of some immovable monuments do not respond to their importance.
• The human factor, including cooperation from stakeholders, is the key factor for cultural
tourism development.
• However, debates about substituting lost agricultural jobs with tourism jobs make little sense
because decisive jobs are in different branches.
• The benefit of cultural tourism could be seen in both economic and non-economic contributions.

An important aspect of the impact of cultural tourism on rural development is the concept of rural
development. Assuming that it should be a qualitative development, an important issue is the impact of
cultural tourism on improving the quality of life of local people [50]. Improving the quality of life of the
local population means improving the material intangible conditions of life while minimizing negative
externalities. This condition could theoretically meet this condition perhaps more than other types of
tourism, among other things because it presupposes an increase in the culture of the environment and
visitors. Cultural tourism can become a suitable tool for converting productive countryside, focused on
intensive agricultural production, into the post-productive countryside, focused on sustainable area
consumption. According to MacDonald and Jolliffe [51], the community-based partnership should
develop based on cultural rural tourism. Kneafsey [52] adds that the rural is commodified not only as
a physical place, but as a place with a special spirit. In many cases, the countryside is portrayed as a
container of traditional cultures, national identities, and authentic lifestyles.
Consequently, it is possible to state that cultural tourism can hardly be an important driver of rural
development in the study region because the economic structure of the area is based on different labour
branches. However, cultural tourism, developed within Integrated Rural Tourism [53], could be an
important complementary industry (a value-added activity, according to Tulla [54] with economic and
especially non-economic importance within the cultural sphere. This cultural benefit could support
the economic life of the region, secondarily.
Future research should consider the development of tourist preferences and the ability of providers
to react to these demands, among others.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.Š., A.V.; methodology, M.Š., A.V.; software, J.B.; validation, M.Š.;
formal analysis, K.T., J.Z., J.B.; investigation, A.V. and M.Š.; resources, M.Š.; data curation, A.V., M.Š., J.B., K.T., J.Z.
and V.S.; writing–original draft, A.V. and M.Š.; writing—review and editing, M.Š.; visualization, J.B.; supervision,
M.Š.; project administration, M.Š.; funding acquisition, M.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This paper comprises the results of the HORIZON 2020 Project Social and Innovative Platform on
Cultural Tourism and its potential towards deepening Europeanisation (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870644):
ID 870644, funding scheme Research and Innovation action, call H2020-SC6-TRANSFORMATIONS-2019.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Matei, F.D. Cultural tourism potential as a part of rural tourism development in the North-East of Romania.
Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 453–460. [CrossRef]
2. Richards, G. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2001.
3. Smith, M.K. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2016.
4. Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 36, 12–21.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 15 of 16

5. Zhang, C.Z.; Zhu, M.M. The integration of culture and tourism. Multi-understandings, various challenges
and approaches. Tour. Trib. 2020, 35, 62–71.
6. Almeida, A.; Machado, L.P.; Silva, T.P. Heritage as a Source of Competitive Advantage. In Economic,
Educational, and Touristic Development in Asia; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 177–197.
7. Rodríguez, M.C. Battlefield Tourism, from One(Post) War to the Other, France–Spain. Touring from the
Great War to the Spanish Civil War. In Inter and Post-War Tourism in Western Europe, 1916–1960; Palgrave
Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 7–34.
8. Ramírez, P.E.M. What Can We Weave? Authority, Reconstructing, and Negotiating Heritages Through
Archaeological Open-Air Museums. Archaeologies 2020, 16, 72–98. [CrossRef]
9. Guzel, B.; Apaydin, M. Gastronomy tourism: Motivations and destinations. In Global Issues and Trends in
Tourism; Avcıkurt, C., Dinu, M.S., Hacıoĝlu, N., Efe, R., Soykan, A., Tetik, N., Eds.; St. Kliment Ohridski
University Press: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2016; pp. 394–404.
10. Stoffelen, A.; Ioannides, D.; Vanneste, D. Obstacles to achieving cross-border tourism governance:
A multi-scalar approach focusing on the German-Czech borderlands. Ann. Tour. Res. 2017, 64, 126–138.
[CrossRef]
11. Collins-Kreiner, N. Pilgrimage tourism-past, present and future rejuvenation: A perspective article. Tour. Rev.
2019, 75, 145–148. [CrossRef]
12. Sambuu, A. Development of Ethnographic Tourism in the Republic of Tuva. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2020,
11, 341–345. [CrossRef]
13. Kim, S.; Whitford, M.; Arcodia, C. Development of intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable tourism resource:
The intangible cultural heritage practitioners’ perspectives. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 422–435. [CrossRef]
14. Laing, J. Festival and event tourism research: Current and future perspectives. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018,
25, 165–168. [CrossRef]
15. Reijnders, S. Places of the Imagination; Ashgate Publishing: Farnham, UK, 2016.
16. Christou, P. Tourism experiences as the remedy to nostalgia: Conceptualizing the nostalgia and tourism
nexus. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 23, 612–625. [CrossRef]
17. Esfehani, M.H.; Albrecht, J.N. Roles of intangible cultural heritage in tourism in natural protected areas.
J. Heritage Tour. 2016, 13, 15–29. [CrossRef]
18. Green, G. Handbook of Rural Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013.
19. Akgün, A.A.; Baycan, T.; Nijkamp, P. Rethinking on Sustainable Rural Development. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014,
23, 678–692. [CrossRef]
20. Naldi, L.; Nilsson, P.; Westlund, H.; Wixe, S. What is smart rural development? J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 40,
90–101. [CrossRef]
21. Antošová, G. Cultural Rural Development in the Czech Republic (Case Study of the Liberec Region).
Eur. Countrys. 2016, 8, 263–277. [CrossRef]
22. Št’astná, M.; Vaishar, A.; Vavrouchová, H.; Ševelová, M.; Doskočilová, V.; Lincová, H.; Stonawská, K.;
Thonová, P.; Vasylchenko, A. Cestovní Ruch Jako Alternativní Odvětví Pro Rozvoj Jihomoravského Venkova;
Mendel University: Brno, Czech Republic, 2015.
23. Št’astná, M.; Vaishar, A.; Ryglová, K.; Rašovská, I.; Zámečník, S. Cultural Tourism as a Possible Driver of Rural
Development in Czechia. Wine Tourism in Moravia as a Case Study. Eur. Countrys. 2020, 12, 292–311. [CrossRef]
24. Jovanović, S.; Ilić, I. Infrastructure as important determinant of tourism development in the countries of
southeast Europe. EcoForum 2016, 5, 1–34.
25. Gretzel, U.; Reino, S.; Kopera, S.; Koo, C. Smart tourism challenges. J. Tour. 2015, 16, 41–47.
26. Grobelna, A.; Marciszewska, B. Work motivation of tourism and hospitality students: Implications for human
resource management. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Venice, Italy,
12–13 May 2016; Bagnoli, C., Mio, C., Garbetti, A., Massaro, M., Eds.; Academic Conferences and Publishing
International Limited: Sonning Common, UK, 2016; pp. 95–103.
27. Fons, M.V.S.; Fierro, J.A.M.; Patiño, M.G.Y. Rural tourism: A sustainable alternative. Appl. Energy 2011, 88,
551–557. [CrossRef]
28. Ryglová, K.; Vajčnerová, I. Possible complex approaches towards evaluating the quality of a destination in
the context of tourism management. Agric. Econ. Czech 2014, 60, 199–207. [CrossRef]
29. Holešinská, A.; Bobková, M. Destination Networks as a Tool for Minimizing the Risk and Improving the
Performance of a Destination. Czech J. Tour. 2015, 4, 91–102. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9064 16 of 16

30. Crompton, J.L. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 408–424. [CrossRef]
31. Allen, D.; Rhoden, S.; Sakharchuk, E.; Ilkevich, S.; Sharafanova, E.E.; Pecheritsa, E. Cultural Tourism.
In Tourism in Russia: A Management Handbook; Dimanche, F., Andrades, L., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing:
Bingley, UK, 2015; pp. 133–180.
32. Richards, G. Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 261–283.
[CrossRef]
33. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2007.
34. Özel, Ç.H.; Kozak, N. Motive Based Segmentation of the Cultural Tourism Market: A Study of Turkish
Domestic Tourists. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2012, 13, 165–186. [CrossRef]
35. Alén, E.; Dominguez, T.; Losada, N. New Opportunities for the Tourism Market: Senior Tourism and
Accessible Tourism. In Visions for Global Tourism Industry—Creating and Sustaining Competitive Strategies;
IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 139–166.
36. Pawlowska-Legwand, A.; Łukasz, M. Staycation as a way of spending free time by city dwellers: Examples
of tourism products created by Local Action Groups in Lesser Poland Voivodeship in response to a new
trend in tourism. World Sci. News 2016, 51, 4–12.
37. Navrátil, J.; Pícha, K.; Hřebcová, J. The importance of historical monuments for domestic tourists: The case
of south-western Bohemia (Czech Republic). Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2010, 18, 45–61.
38. Jindrová, A.; Dömeová, L. Segmentation of rural tourists in the Czech Republic. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic.
Mendel. Brun. 2011, 59, 117–122. [CrossRef]
39. Stoffelen, A.; Vanneste, D. Institutional (Dis)integration and Regional Development Implications of Whisky
Tourism in Speyside, Scotland. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2015, 16, 42–60. [CrossRef]
40. Šimková, E. Strategic approaches to rural tourism and sustainable development of rural areas. Agric. Econ.
Czech 2008, 53, 263–270. [CrossRef]
41. Hudečková, H.; Ševčíková, A. The renewal of the rural cultural heritage of the Czech Republic with the
support of regional policy. Agric. Econ. Czech 2007, 53, 505–512. [CrossRef]
42. Holeček, J.; Galvasová, I.; Binek, J.; Synková, K.; Svobodová, H.; Chmelař, R. Program rozvoje cestovního ruchu
Jihomoravského kraje na období 2014–2020/Tourism Development Program of the South Moravian Region for the
period 2014–2020; Jihomoravský Kraj: Brno, Czech Republic, 2013.
43. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Dwyer, W. Tourism Economies and Policy; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2020.
44. Frey, B.S. What Is the Economics of Art and Culture? In Springer Briefs in Economics; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–11.
45. McKercher, B. Cultural tourism market: A perspective paper. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 126–129. [CrossRef]
46. Ballesteros, J.G.T.; Hernández, M. Promoting tourism through the EU LEADER programme: Understanding
Local Action Group governance. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 27, 396–414. [CrossRef]
47. Hall, D.R.; Kirkpatrick, I.; Mitchell, M. Rural Tourism and Sustainable Business; Channel View Publications:
Bristol, UK, 2005.
48. Kubeš, J. Chatové oblasti České republiky. Geogr. Časopis 2011, 63, 53–68.
49. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 29, 1–20. [CrossRef]
50. Bachleitner, R.; Zins, A.H. Cultural Tourism in Rural Communities. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 44, 199–209. [CrossRef]
51. Macdonald, R.; Jolliffe, L. Cultural rural tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 307–322. [CrossRef]
52. Kneafsey, M. Rural cultural economy. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 28, 762–783. [CrossRef]
53. Saxena, G.; Clark, G.; Oliver, T.; Ilbery, B. Conceptualizing Integrated Rural Tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2007, 9,
347–370. [CrossRef]
54. Tulla, A.F. Sustainable Rural Development Requires Value-Added Activities Linked with Comparative
Advantage: The Case of the Catalan Pyrenees. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 229–256. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).