Комуникация, медии, бизнес

Communication, Media, Business

Lavinia Enache

University of Bucharest, Rumania

E-mail: enache.lavinia@fjsc.ro

Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic is one of the events of the 21st century that has disturbed our entire economic, social, cultural life, etc. Its impact on the tourism industry has been massive: 63% of experts from the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2021) believe that the sector will not fully recover by 2024. This global crisis in which travel, tourism, hospitality and events have been frozen in many parts of the world can change the tourism industry and the contexts in which it operates and creates new opportunities for promotion and development (Higgins-Desbioles 2020; Sharma, Thomas, & Paul 2021). According to research on pandemic tourism (Buckley 2021; Georgilas, Tsitsoni, Andreopoulou, Tsakaldiki & Kostopoulou 2021; Mazilu & Drăguleasa 2021; Enache 2021) at a micro level, a local trend has been highlighted, according to which the pandemic was a factor in the development of the Romanian ecotourism business because the restrictive measures affected more the mass tourism and less the ecotourism. This research aims to identify the factors that contributed to the development of the ecotourism business during the pandemic and to highlight the role of virtual communities in the brand-consumer relationship in ecotourism in Romania. In order to understand how the pandemic affect Romanian ecotourism businesses; what the role of virtual communities in the brand-consumer relationship was and how the promotion of online services contributed to the growth of ecotourism businesses during the pandemic, we used a quantitative re­search method, by applying a questionnaire to ecotourism entrepreneurs from different regions of Romania. The question guide addressed topics about the characteristics of businesses in the field of ecotourism; the main difficulties encountered in launching, maintaining and developing the project; the additional safety measures adopted during the pandemic; the promotion channels used; the existence or non-existence of a brand-consumer relationship; the interaction of ecotourism entrepreneurs with virtual communities.

Keywords: ecotourism, pandemic, virtual communities, social media, brand-consumer relationship, Romania.

DOI: 10.55206/QMWX6772

 

Introduction

As highlighted by numerous specialized works, as well as curricular developments in geography, anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, and other related fields, the field of tourism studies is a transdisciplinary field (Gibson 2008) [1]; (Tribe 2009) [2]; (Urry & Larsen 2011). [3] Tourism must be generally understood as a discourse between three sets of actors: 1) tourists; 2) locals; and 3) intermediaries, including government ministries, travel agencies and tourism promotion agencies (Nash 1996 apud. Metro-Roland, Knudsen, Greer 2016). [4] Tourism, like any other economic field, can bring revenue benefits to states but can also create serious problems, such as excessive energy consumption and can contribute to increasing the harmful effects on the environment, including climate change (Streimikiene, Svagzdiene, Jasinskas & Simanavicius 2021). [5] To reduce the harmful effects of tourism, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 2017). [6] announced 2017 as the year of sustainable tourism and invited the entire world population to travel, following the principles of sustainable tourism.

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, many academics and journalists called for a “reset of tourism”, seeing the post-COVID-19 recovery as an opportunity to start again, guided by the principles of sustainable tourism development (Central Economic Development Agency 2020) [7]; (Higgins-Desbiolles 2020) [8]; (UNWTO 2020) [9], (Lück, Seeler & Radic 2021). [10] motivate that tourism can survive the pandemic, but it must change radically. They consider the pandemic as an opportunity for the authorities and the tourism service providers to plan for a sustainable (re) growth of the tourism industry after COVID-19 for the benefit of industry, tourists, host communities and the environment (Lück, Seeler & Radic 2021). [11]

Communication in Tourism 2.0

The media changes the meaning of tourism in time and space by prolonging the travel experience (Månsson, Cassinger, Eskilsson, & Buchmann 2020) [12], (Urry 1990) [13] suggested that the tourist’s perception could be influenced by non-tourist activities, including film and television. Butler (1990) [14] even stated that films play a vital role in influencing travel preference. Since then, a relatively broad and fragmented tradition has emerged around the relationship between different types of media and tourism. This is appropriate because “the media deconstructs previous understandings of tourism through differentiation and dematerialization, renegotiates the reality of tourism (ontology), introduces a new way of seeing (epistemology) and offers new solutions (methodology) and tools (methods) for tourism research from today” (He, Z., Wu, L., Li, X. 2019 apud. Månsson, Cassinger, Eskilsson, & Buchmann 2020). [15]

Today, technology seeks to be a significant part of the way we function as a society, and the use of technology is constantly growing in people’s daily lives. Following the Digital Data Report 2022 study, Romania registers 16 million internet users, of which 13 million are social network users, i.e., 69.7% of the total population in January 2022.

In recent decades, information and communication technologies have had a significant impact on the development of the tourism economy (Buhalis & Zoge 2007) [16]; (Zeng & Gerritsen 2014) [17]; Pachucki, Grohs & Scholl-Grissemann 2022). [18]. According to Jenkins (2006), “in the world of media convergence, every important story is told, every brand is sold and every consumer is courted on several platforms.” [19] He defines media convergence as the flow of content posted on multiple media platforms, cooperation between multiple media industries, and migrating media audience behavior that will go almost anywhere in search of the types of entertainment experiences they want (Jenkins 2006). [20] As more aspects of everyday life converge to digital, opportunities for tourism service providers to interact with tourists expand dramatically (Mulhern 2013) [21]; (Leung, Bai & Stahura 2015). [22]

By facilitating interactivity, Web 2.0 promotes user-generated content and the creation of virtual communities, so today we talk about the Tourism 2.0 trend, i.e. travel plans made through online platforms, interactive maps through which you can experience local neighborhoods, reviews about destinations, tourist guides, restaurant suggestions, travel blogs, Instagram accounts and Facebook groups through which connections are established between tourists (Miguéns, Baggio & Costa 2008) [23]; (Månsson, Cassinger, Eskilsson, & Buchmann 2020). [24]

Bruns (2008) introduces the concept of prosumer, a concept formed by the terms provider and consumer, which defines in the context of new media as the user who not only consumes information but also produces it at the same time. [25] Consequently, Tourism 2.0 has paved the way for the creation of a hyper-connected community of practice that uses new technologies and social networks to add a multidimensional and more democratic perspective to the tourism experience (Edo-Marzá 2016). [26]

Dimitris and Zoge (2007) illustrate that the advent of the Internet has changed the structure of the travel industry and that users have benefited from this change in their contact with travel service providers, as their bargaining power has increased due to their ability to instantly access accurate and relevant information and communicate directly with suppliers. [27] At the same time, the Internet has led to increased rivalry between travel providers as it has introduced transparency, speed, convenience and a wide range of options and flexibility to the market.

There are many communication options where consumers can search, interact and share information with other users. According to Godey, Manthiou, Pederzoli, Rokka, Aiello, Donvito and Singh (2016) [28] social media has to some extent replaced the traditional marketing methods (e.g., brochures, ma­gazines, newspapers, word of mouth) through which the consumer used to know only the aspects of products and services that suppliers wanted them to know, as today’s consumers are more focused on connecting virtually with other con­sumers with whom they share experiences.

The role of virtual communities in the brand-consumer relationship

The notion of community of practice was developed by Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991 apud. Cadwell, Federici & O’Brien 2022) [29] as the basis of a social theory of learning. Individuals in a community of practice share a common interest, concern or activity, interact with each other frequently as a result, and develop skills, competencies and knowledge through these in­teractions; learning occurs because of the joint activity but is not necessarily the reason for the activity. A community of practice plays an important role in shaping members’ participation and orientation to the world around them (Eckert 2006). [30]

The definition most often used to define a community is the definition of Rheingold (1995) [31], which states that virtual communities are formed by a group of people who may not meet in everyday life and who carry out an exchange of opinions and ideas through computer-mediated networks (Rheingold 1993). Kozinets (1999) [32] added to this definition the commercial dimension around which these communities are often built, i.e., affiliated groups for which online interactions are based on sharing enthusiasm and knowledge for a particular consumption activity or related to a group of activities. Guay (2009) [33], however, consider that these virtual communities refer to the bond of belonging that is formed between members of a certain set of users of a virtual platform, these participants share tastes, common values, interests or objectives, or even in the best cases, a genuine collective project.

The possibility offered by web 2.0 to all users (to make comments, share opinions, etc.), has generated a huge volume of user-generated content (UGC – User Generated Content), which is of particular importance for organizations (Tous, Gomez, Poveda, Cruz Wust, Makni & Ayguadé 2018) [34] UGC is the result of the traditional method called World of Mouth (WOM), which has been a key piece in the dissemination and marketing of tourism products and services (Benítez, López & Gutiérrez 2018). [35] In the digital environment, this method is called electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) (Chu & Kim 2011). [36] This method is important for tourism service providers to support customer relation­ships in the best way and increase visitor satisfaction due to product and service improvement (Živković, Gajić & Brdar 2014). [37]

Consumer engagement refers to the interaction between users and service providers in the context of social media (Bowden 2009). [38] For example, when brands upload posts to Facebook brand pages, customers click a “like” or “share” button or comment on the posts to express their physical, emotional, or psycho­logical attitudes (Van Door, J. et al., 2010). [39]

Bruhn, Schoenmueller and Schäfer (2012) [40] study the positive impact of consumer engagement via social media, which rewards companies through customer brand commitment, trust, equity, service provider connections, and profitability. At the same time, the existence of content generated by tourism service providers and by users is a challenge for service providers. Tourists are increasingly sharing negative travel experiences and dissatisfaction with destinations via social media, which can lead to so-called “social media storms” (Rydén, Kottika, Hossain, Skare & Morrison 2020) [41] which represents an additional challenge for tourism service providers. Scholl-Grissemann, Peters & Teichmann (2020) find that users’ opinion of a destination can become negative if the content provided by a tourism service provider differs substantially from the content provided by users, as edited posts cause unrealistic travel expecta­tions. [42]

Following a study conducted in order to discover the needs of tourists and their opinions regarding the use of social networks, Pawlowska (2016) observes that the attitudes of 2.0 tourists towards their online presence and during their travels are shaped by the need to access real-time information, share experiences and keep in touch with family and friends. Also, the popularity of social networks encourages participation in online communities and motivates tourists to create their own content and use available technologies. [43] Liu & Shrum (2002) explain the principle of synchronization brought by the Internet, for example in traditional media (TV, press, radio, etc.), the response time to a request is quite long, but the Internet allows immediate response, reinforcing the interest in using forums when the Internet user is looking for information. [44]

 

Changes caused by COVID-19 in Tourism 2.0 communication

Crises can be interpreted as unexpected events that threaten to disrupt established norms (Coombs 2007). [45] The consequences of the pandemic on tourism have already been extensively examined (Chinazzi et al. 2020) [46]; (Goffman 2020) [47]; (Li, Nguyen & Coca-Stefaniak 2020). [48] One area of interest among crisis communication researchers concerns how organizations can use a dialogic communication approach in interacting with key stakeholders on social media (Etter, Ravasi & Colleoni 2019) [49]; (Welbers & Opgenhaffen 2019) [50]; (Zhai, Zhong & Luo 2019). [51] Dialogic communication further enables organizations to move beyond immediate goals during a crisis, which is usually geared towards reputation repair and crisis mitigation, to a communi­cation process that is more beneficial to the parties involved in the long term (Du Plessis 2018). [52]

Aliperti & Cruz (2019) noted that given cultural and behavioral differences among tourists, adaptive risk communication strategies are needed to ensure appropriate reception of messages. [53] While travel restrictions and social distancing make people less likely to plan vacations, social media users tend to accept promotional offers that appear in their social media news feeds (Abbas, Aman, Nurunnabi & Bano 2019). [54]

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a fundamental change in tourism communication so that tourism service providers have turned even more in­tensively to communication through social networks (Moorman & McCarthy 2021). [55] Following the rules of social distancing, closed borders and periods of isolation, tourism service providers have started to rely heavily on social networks (Frith 2021). [56]; which at the same time represented a solution to replace other ways of communication (e.g. exhibitions, travel agencies) restricted by the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated sales of destination products and services, prompting tourism providers to increase their focus on brand communication as a way to stay in touch with customers (Platon 2020). [57]

Methodology

According to research on pandemic tourism (Buckley 2021) [58]; (Geor­gilas, Tsitsoni, Andreopoulou, Tsakaldiki & Kostopoulou 2021) [59]; (Mazilu & Drăguleasa 2021) [60], a local trend was highlighted: the pandemic represented a positive factor for the development of ecotourism businesses because the restrictive measures affected mass tourism more and ecotourism less. Soare (2020) [61] carries out a study on the evolution of accommodation facilities in Suceava and their possible reconfiguration due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to this study, compared to 2001, in 2019 there is a decrease in the tourist rate in hotels and an increase of over 30% in the tourist rate in the categories of tourist guesthouses and agrotourism.

We will also identify the role of the virtual community in the brand-consumer relationship and whether through online promotion, ecotourism businesses have increased their profits during the pandemic.

The research questions are as follows:

RQ 1: How did the pandemic affect Romanian ecotourism businesses?

RQ 2: What is the role of virtual communities in the brand-consumer relationship?

RQ 3: How did the promotion of online services contribute to the growth of ecotourism businesses during the pandemic?

We used a quantitative research method, by applying a questionnaire that will include 20 questions. The questionnaire was posted in Facebook groups dedicated to Romanian tourism (for example: Travel in Romania/Călător în România; Turism și cazare la munte și la mare – România; Turism în satul prahovean; Oferte vacanțe în România; Cazare la Munte; Turism Cazare; Cazare Oriunde în România; Am fost în vacanță grup) between April 15 and May 5, 2022.

The questionnaire combined quantitative aspects (closed questions with multiple choice and demographic information) with qualitative aspects (open-ended questions that give respondents free-text opportunities to explain quantitative answers). We also used open-ended questions to elicit more sponta­neous views and avoid the potential bias of restricting responses to the re­searcher’s fixed categories (Creswell & Poth 2016). [62] The question guide addressed topics about the characteristics of businesses in the field of ecotourism; the main difficulties encountered in launching, maintaining and developing the project; the additional safety measures adopted during the pandemic; the promotion channels used; the existence or non-existence of the brand-consumer relationship; the interaction of ecotourism entrepreneurs with virtual commu­nities.

To address only ecotourism entrepreneurs, we accessed specific platforms that promote ecotourism (accommodation units and authentic experiences) in Romania such as Localm and Travlocals. We created a user account and accessed their database to be able to send messages directly via WhatsApp and Messenger, where we asked the entrepreneurs to complete the questionnaire.

A pilot study was conducted with three respondents to test the question­naire’s questions as well as the questionnaire style and approach (Kim 2011). [63] Following this pilot study, the respondents also confirmed to us that the time allotted for completing the questionnaire is of approximately 10 minutes. In this study, we used the self-administered questionnaire (Fink 2003) [64] which means we sent the completed questionnaire via Google Form, and the respondents completed it online.

Analysis and results

Following the questionnaire, we received 33 responses from ecotourism entrepreneurs from different regions of Romania, of different ages and with different experiences in the field of tourism services. Among the 33 responses, 18 respondents are female and 15 respondents are male, aged between 18 and 54, with 51% of respondents falling into the 35-44 age group. Regarding the experience of the entrepreneurs, 4 respondents started the activity one year ago, 2 respondents opened their ecotourism business 10 years ago, another respondent 12 years ago, and the other respondents have an experience of 3, 6 and 7 years in the entrepreneurship field.

Most of the respondents own accommodation units in rural areas of Romania (rustic guesthouses and traditional cottages); some guesthouses have gardens with space for a terrace where they serve traditional food; other guesthouses have a pontoon where special events can be organized; tourist complexes which also offer walks on routes organized by mountaineers (climbing, single routes, ziplining, horse riding, fishing); glamping, a modern form of camping that is increasingly popular and accessible (Craig & Karabas 2021) [65]; but among the respondents, there were also entrepreneurs who set up a lavender garden where outdoor concerts are organized and who make organic products after harvesting the lavender; an embroidery workshop that makes personalized decorative objects; a craft workshop with traditional souvenirs and a platform to promote ecotourism in Romania.

The respondents are the owners of ecotourism activities; those who have only one accommodation unit and have started the activity for less than 3 years manage the business within the family and thus share their duties for the wellbeing of their business: “I work with my wife and children who are 10 and 13 years old and they are local tourist guides”; “We have no employees, we take care of everything: customer relations, sales, invoicing, drawing up offers, generating content for social media, website and blog, cleaning the accommo­dation”; instead, those who have more developed businesses, with a generous accommodation space like a tourist complex and traditional restaurants, chose to hire people so they can get in charge of the marketing and management only: “For project management, I work alongside my husband, but for the development of the platform, we have a whole team behind us. We work with a lawyer, an accounting agency, a marketing agency, we are a small handful of people who help the project move forward”; other respondents chose to collaborate with locals and entered into limited-term contracts when owners need seasonal and unlimited help with a well-defined role (from one employee to 4 employees in the embroidery workshop and 30 employees at the tourist complex).

Addressing the topic of ecotourism, 6 of the respondents do not know if their project falls within the field of ecotourism, and 27 of the respondents claim that they participate in the local development of the region where they offer tourist services. We observed 7 activities through which entrepreneurs participate in the development of the region:

1) promotion of the region – “The project attracts a significant number of customers who spend weekends or longer stays here, visiting the surrounding sights”; “We also contributed to the launch of a platform called Pro Fundata, where hostel owners, restaurant owners, craftsmen, local producers, people who have food for sale in their household have signed up, and tourists can rent hostels from the platform, tourist guides or different activities here in the area”; “Through our platform Localm, we promote the entire rural area in Romania and then we help villages, and people to prosper and get some visibility”;

2) increasing the economy through the sale of local products – “We take the food products we serve for breakfast from the producers who live here in the village (cheese, eggs, meat, vegetables and traditional drinks)”; “Guests purchase various traditional objects from the region”; “The guesthouse also attracts foreign tourists who spend money in our country”;

3) modernization of the local infrastructure – “The increase in interest for this village also causes the executive of the administrative-territorial unit to plan the improvement of the infrastructure, the setting up of some tourist attractions, the expansion and modernization of the water supply system of the village etc.”; “We built a stone road to facilitate the movement of tourists who cross our threshold”;

4) restoration of uninhabited traditional houses and preservation of village architecture – “We contribute to regional development by protecting heritage and supporting local initiatives”; “I keep the traditional, authentic architecture that is increasingly sought after by tourists, especially those from abroad”;

5) building accommodation units with ecological materials – “We used ecological materials for the construction of the cabins, the furniture is built and painted by craftsmen from the village”; “The linens are embroidered in my workshop, so are the curtains and drapes, the tablecloths, everything is organic cotton”;

6) job creation – “We appealed to local human resources both in the activities of construction/renovation/furnishing of the building occasion­nally offered for rent, as well as in its administration in order to receive guests”; “In the future, we intend to involve the locals as much as possible in our activity”;

7) the organization of activities in nature – “We have added a numerous range of mountain bike trails, horse riding, hiking plus greening campaigns in the area where we operate”; “We organize sleigh rides, ATV rides, cart rides or walks through the village with the community here.”

Regarding the difficulties they encountered in launching, maintaining and developing the projects, the respondents mentioned mainly the infrastructure and the local authorities – “We had to construct the road from the village to our cabin, and we had no water or electricity”; “In order to maintain and develop activities, I need the “Transalpina de Apuseni” project to be completed. At the moment, the project stage is at 30%, and things are going quite hard. The cabin is located 40 km from Aiud, being paved only half of this distance thus it is more difficult for tourists to reach.”; “Zero investments in tourism by the authorities, although it is a delta area of 100km and closer to the well-known Danube Delta (Tulcea)”.

Another difficulty encountered is represented by human resources; the lack of human resources led to a longer project execution time but also to unforeseen investments: “The precariousness of the professional training of the locals of this disadvantaged area determined the increase in the estimated time for the preparation of the project, higher execution costs (execution errors, premature damages, which required repairs), etc.” “The significant difficulty we have is recruiting and training staff. The job offer is very limited and very poorly qualified”.

Only 3 respondents mentioned the instability caused by the COVID-19 pandemic: “We opened in March 2020, so the pandemic kind of messed up our projects”; “The beginning was quite difficult and unclear regarding the tourists we were going to have, due to the pandemic. Normally, many foreign tourists used to come to the guesthouse, but last year they were absent. Because of this, we didn’t know exactly what kind of year we would have, but, surprisingly, our Romanian tourists came, in quite a large number”.

Among the difficulties encountered, the entrepreneurs also highlighted business promotion and communication with customers; thus, it was difficult for entrepreneurs to find the target audience they are addressing, to become visible and remain constant in communicating with customers: “Finding out the demand of potential customers and maintaining the findings on social media platforms”; “The difficulty consisted in making a name for ourselves, having visibility and credibility in front of customers”; “Sometimes it’s hard to adapt to the needs of the market and to be present in the digital environment”.

The entrepreneurs mention the fact that the beginning of the pandemic was difficult because there was a period of isolation in which the accommodation units were closed: “It was the state of the emergency period when we had the cabins closed. We had a family that got stuck here, and they lived here for 2 months, it was good for them and for us.” Just after that, Romanian tourists started requesting offers to spend a short stay in nature or a longer stay in which they worked remotely: “Our guests were generally members of the same family, who wished to relocate temporarily to a mountain-rural area with low population density”; “Once the restriction period went away, the house was rented out weekend after weekend and was occupied to its full capacity.”

For the safety of tourists, the entrepreneurs have adopted a series of measures such as compliance with the COVID-19 rules, i.e. disinfection of common areas, wearing of masks by the guesthouse staff and vaccination of the entire team, implementation of a self-check-in service where tourists received instructions on how to access the guesthouses without coming into contact with the owners, but also the adaptation of the spaces in the accommodation units: “I opened a restaurant where they could eat with tables spaced apart, and in terms of hygiene, I sterilized everything”; “I arranged working spaces inside the guesthouse”. In addition to these safety measures, the entrepreneurs also adapted the offers to the market demand: “We reduced the accommodation rates and proposed recreational offers adapted to the pandemic period”; and they invested more in online communication: “We created special packages that we promoted through social networks and tourist sites”; “We invested 10 times more in advertising to draw attention to the peace and clean air of the Apuseni Mountains”.

However, 6 out of 33 entrepreneurs believe that the pandemic did not help them in developing their businesses. One entrepreneur says that he did not feel any change during the pandemic, and the other entrepreneurs confirmed that the pandemic represented an opportunity for them because Romanian tourists were constrained by restrictions and gave up travelling abroad, so they reoriented towards local tourism. Another advantage was the fact that ecotourism businesses are located in quite isolated places, and the accommodation units have a small number of rooms, so they were rented by a small group of friends or family members: “I think that the pandemic helped us to develop the business because we own a small house that we only rent entirely, and the tourists who wanted to escape the crowd and the risks it brings, in addition to those who worked from home or took online courses, they headed to such locations”.

Regarding the promotion of ecotourism businesses, entrepreneurs chose traditional methods of promotion such as print media, radio or television, but they especially preferred social networks to communicate with tourists: “We had a few appearances in the local print media, in the online media, on the radio, but also on TV two or three times. We mostly rely on promotion on social media and we are going to launch Google ads campaigns as well. In addition, we are registered on several booking platforms.”; “We use social media and have benefited from promotion through various publications (for example Ziarul Financiar, Lovedeco)”; “TV (TVR show – Exclusiv în România), social media, Google ads, Booking, some tourist websites and own website”. 24 entrepreneurs only use social media for promotion. Among the social networks preferred by the entrepreneurs, we find in first place Facebook, then Instagram, websites dedicated to the promotion of ecotourism in Romania, personal websites, YouTube, TikTok and LinkedIn. We can also note the fact that less than half of the entrepreneurs created a professional website to promote their businesses.

4 out of 33 entrepreneurs do not particularly interact with their virtual community: “We do not consider that our business needs to be promoted in this commercial area, let’s say. For now, we are showing that we can offer a beautiful and original place and it seems to be ok so far.” The other entrepreneurs use online communication methods to interact with their virtual community such as interactive stories where they ask their followers for their opinion on some aspects of business administration, email marketing campaigns with various news, and periodic contests in which they present offers or discounts codes, a period of free accommodation or offers for products made by local producers, posts with descriptions that invite followers to respond with a comment or even Facebook groups created by the owners of the guesthouses: “I also created a Facebook group called Vacanță la sat (Holiday at the village) which has 6.7K members where we chat with those who follow us, and on Instagram, we also do giveaway contests where we offer followers an available period in which they can stay with us without paying for accommodation.” Entrepreneurs also ask customers for feedback on social media and communicate with them directly through chat platforms such as Messenger and WhatsApp.

Nine entrepreneurs also collaborate with influencers to make themselves visible on social media. Keller and Fay (2016) [66] define influencers as “everyday users who are far more likely than the average to seek information and share ideas, information and recommendations with others and do this both by volunteering their opinions about products and services they feel passionate about, but also in return, they are called upon for their knowledge, advice and insights.” Two of these entrepreneurs believe that the experience of working with an influencer did not have an important contribution to promoting the business, but the other 7 entrepreneurs consider this experience useful: “It was a pleasant experience because people trust influencers to promote quality products”; “We did some giveaways with Mândruțe călătoare and that helped us increase our visibility on Instagram”; “We invited the people from Lipa Lipa to spend a few days with us. They liked it a lot and then they came and had their wedding at our place. We didn’t propose anything by inviting them, we simply wanted to offer them a bit of the rural experience”.

At the same time, 15 of the respondent entrepreneurs are members of other virtual communities, more precisely, Facebook groups where tourism in Romania is promoted, such as Localm, EpicVisits, Muntii Carpati, Port Cultural/ Oamenii patrimoniului, Gate to Romania, Cabane și pensiuni, Viața la sat, Holidays with views, Mutat la țară – viața fără ceas, and one of the respondents even manages several groups with this specific: “In this sense, I manage and moderate several groups with a tourist profile.” At the end of the questionnaire, only one respondent believes that the virtual community does not help him to increase the profit of his ecotourism business, but the other 32 respondents are convinced of the contribution of virtual communities to the profit of their business.

Conclusions

Following the answers given by the respondents, we can confirm the hypothesis that the pandemic helped Romanian ecotourism businesses to de­velop. We also answered our 3 research questions: (RQ1) The restrictions im­posed by the pandemic that prevented Romanian tourists from choosing holiday destinations abroad, the specifics of locations in remote and isolated areas, the restricted and intimate space proposed by the accommodation units adapted to tourists who want to disconnect but to work in a working regime at distance, but also the offers of activities in nature proposed by ecotourism entrepreneurs favored the choice of Romanian tourists who reoriented them­selves towards holiday destinations in Romania. (RQ2) The virtual communities are formed by mostly Romanian tourists who choose to travel local and experience ecotourism in their own country and they are active on social media, ready to post feedback about the destination they are visiting, helping in this case the entrepreneurs to promote their businesses. (RQ3) At the same time, online communication and virtual communities have helped entrepreneurs get their ecotourism businesses known and reach their target audience, increase their business profits and contribute to the local development of the region where they operate.

References

[1] Gibson, C. (2008). Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3): 407–422.

[2] Tribe, J. (2009). Book review of The Study of Tourism: Anthropological and Sociological Beginnings, by Dennison Nash. Tourism Management, 30(1): 142–43.

[3] Urry, J. & Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage Publications.

[4] Metro-Roland, M. M., Knudsen, D. C. & Greer, C. E. (2016). Landscape, tourism, and meaning. Routledge.

[5] Streimikiene, D., Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E. & Simanavicius, A. (2021). Sus­tainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature re­view. Sustainable Development, 29(1): 259–271.

[6] UNWTO (2017). 2017 is the international year of sustainable tourism for development. https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/press-release/2017-01-03/2017-international-year-sustainable-tourism-development. Retrieved on 06.06.2022.

[7] Central Economic Development Agency (2020). Time to reset the tourism sector’s button. https://ceda.nz/latest-news/time-to-reset-the-tourism-sectors-button/. Re­trieved on 01.05.2022.

[8] Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3): 610–623.

[9] UNWTO. (2020). “Sustainability as the new normal” – a vision for the future of tourism. https://www.unwto.org/covid-19-oneplanet-responsible-recovery. Re­trieved on 086.06.2022.

[10] Lück, M., Seeler, S. & Radic, A. (2021). Hitting the reset button for post-COVID-19 cruise tourism: The case of Akaroa, Aotearoa New Zealand. Academia Letters, Article 219, https://doi.org/10.20935/AL219.

[11] Lück, M., Seeler, S. & Radic, A. (2021). Hitting the reset button for post-COVID-19 cruise tourism: The case of Akaroa, Aotearoa New Zealand. Academia Letters, Article 219, https://doi.org/10.20935/AL219.

[12] Månsson, M., Cassinger, C., Eskilsson, L., & Buchmann, A. (2020). Introduction: In the juncture of media convergence and tourism–towards a research agenda. The Routledge Companion to Media and Tourism, 1–9.

[13] Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London, UK, Thousand Oaks, CA & New Delhi, India: Sage.

[14] Butler, R. (1990). The influence of the media in shaping international tourist patterns. Tourism Recreation Research, 15: 46–53.

[15] Månsson, M., Cassinger, C., Eskilsson, L., & Buchmann, A. (2020). Introduction: In the juncture of media convergence and tourism–towards a research agenda. The Routledge Companion to Media and Tourism, 1–9.

[16] Buhalis, D. & Zoge, M. (2007). The strategic impact of the Internet on the tourism industry. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2007: 481–492.

[17] Zeng, B. & Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about social media in tourism? A review. Tourism management perspectives, 10: 27–36.

[18] Pachucki, C., Grohs, R. & Scholl-Grissemann, U. (2022). Is nothing like before? COVID-19–evoked changes to tourism destination social media communi­cation. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 23. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jdmm.2022.100692.

[19] Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press, 3.

[20] Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press, 3.

[21] Mulhern, F. (2013). Integrated marketing communications: From media channels to digital connectivity. Schultz, D. E., Patti, C. H., & Kitchen, P. J. in The Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications (19–36). Routledge.

[22] Leung, X. Y., Bai, B. & Stahura, K. A. (2015). The marketing effectiveness of social media in the hotel industry: A comparison of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(2): 147–169.

[23] Miguéns, J., Baggio, R. & Costa, C. (2008). Social media and tourism destinations: TripAdvisor case study. Advances in tourism research, 26(28): 1–6.

[24] Månsson, M., Cassinger, C., Eskilsson, L., & Buchmann, A. (2020). Introduction: In the juncture of media convergence and tourism–towards a research agenda. The Routledge Companion to Media and Tourism, 1–9.

[25] Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

[26] Edo-Marzá, N. (2016). Communication in tourism 2.0: redefining roles, restating ‘the traditional’, reaching the world. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, (31): 9–14.

[27] Buhalis, D. & Zoge, M. (2007). The strategic impact of the Internet on the tourism industry. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2007: 481–492.

[28] Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. (2016). Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal of business research, 69(12), 5833–5841.

[29] Cadwell, P., Federici, F. & O’Brien, S. (2022). Communities of practice and translation: An introduction. JoSTrans: the Journal of Specialised Translation, (37).

[30] Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2(2006): 683-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01276-1.

[31] Rheingold, H. (1995). Les communautés virtuelles. Addison-Wesley France.

[32] Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European management journal, 17(3): 252–264.

[33] Guay, L. (2009). Proulx, S., Poissant, L. et Sénécal, M. (2006). Communautés virtuelles : penser et agir en réseau. Québec, Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval. Revue Des Sciences de L’éducation, 35(1), 247. doi:10.7202/029944ar

[34] Tous, R., Gomez, M., Poveda, J., Cruz, L., Wust, O., Makni, M., & Ayguadé, E. (2018). Automated curation of brand-related social media images with deep learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(20), 27123–27142.

[35] Benítez, V. A., López, M. T. & Gutiérrez, I. M. (2018). Turista 2.0, comportamiento y uso de los medios sociales. Chasqui. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación, (137): 207–223.

[36] Chu, S. C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1): 47–75.

[37] Živković, R., Gajić, J. & Brdar, I. (2014). The impact of social media on tourism. Singidunum Journal of Applied Sciences, 758–761.

[38] Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 17(1): 63-74.

[39] Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of service research, 13(3): 253–266.

[40] Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. & Schafer, D. (2012). Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review, 35 (9), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948.

[41] Rydén, P., Kottika, E., Hossain, M., Skare, V. & Morrison, A. M. (2020). Threat or treat for tourism organizations? The Copenhagen Zoo social media storm. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(1): 108–119.

[42] Scholl-Grissemann, U., Peters, M. & Teichmann, K. (2020). When climate-induced change reaches social media: How realistic travel expectations shape consumers’ attitudes toward the destination. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8): 1413–1429.

[43] Pawlowska, A. (2016). Tourists and social media: Already inseparable marriage or still a long-distance relationship? Analysis of focus group study results conducted among tourists using social media. World Scientific News, 106–115.

[44] Liu, Y. & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 31(4): 53–64.

[45] Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation review, 10(3): 163–176.

[46] Chinazzi, M., Davis, J. T., Ajelli, M., Gioannini, C., Litvinova, M., Merler, S., … & Vespignani, A. (2020). The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science, 368(6489): 395–400.

[47] Goffman, E. (2020). In the wake of COVID-19, is glocalization our sustainability future?. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1): 48–52.

[48] Li, J., Nguyen, T. & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Coronavirus impacts on post-pandemic planned travel behaviours. Annals of tourism research.  https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102964.

[49] Etter, M., Ravasi, D. & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of management review, 44(1): 28–52.

[50] Welbers, K. & Opgenhaffen, M. (2019). Presenting news on social media: Media logic in the communication style of newspapers on Facebook. Digital Jour­nalism, 7(1): 45–62.

[51] Zhai, X., Zhong, D., & Luo, Q. (2019). Turn it around in crisis communication: An ABM approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2019.102807.

[52] Du Plessis, C. (2018). Social media crisis communication: Enhancing a discourse of renewal through dialogic content. Public relations review, 44(5): 829–838.

[53] Aliperti, G., & Cruz, A. M. (2019). Investigating tourists’ risk information processing. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102803.

[54] Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M. & Bano, S. (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence of students from selected universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6), 1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11061683.

[55] Moorman, C. & McCarthy, T. (2021). CMOs: Adapt Your Social Media Strategy for a Post-Pandemic World. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/01/ cmos-adapt-your-social-media-strategy-for-a-post-pandemic-world. Retrieved on 15.06.2022.

[56] Frith, J. (2021). Introduction to Business and Technical Communication and COVID-19: Communicating in Times of Crisis. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(1): 1–6.

[57] Platon, O. E. (2020). Brand Communication during the COVID-19 Crisis. Global Economic Observer, 114–118.

[58] Buckley, R. (2021). Pandemic travel restrictions provide a test of net ecological effects of ecotourism and new research opportunities. Journal of Travel Re­search, 60(7): 1612–1614.

[59] Georgilas, A., Tsitsoni, T., Andreopoulou, Z., Tsakaldiki, M. & Kostopoulou, S (2021). The increase of visits and prospects of ecotourism in Greek forest areas during the period of the covid-19 pandemic. MIBES Transactions, 15(1): 27–35.

[60] Mazilu, M. & Drăguleasa, I. A. (2021). The Development of Ecotourism South-West Oltenia Region. International Journal of Innovation Scientific Research and Review, 3: 1755–1760.

[61] Soare, I. (2020). The Evolution of Tourist Flow and Accommodation Facilities in Suceava County and their Possible Reconfiguration due to the Covid-19 Pan­demic. Economics and Applied Informatics, (2): 180–188.

[62] Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

[63] Kim, Y. (2011). The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: Identifying issues and learning lessons for culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2): 190–206.

[64] Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions (Vol. 1). Sage.

[65] Craig, C. A. & Karabas, I. (2021). Glamping after the coronavirus pan­demic. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(2): 251–256.

[66] Keller, E. & Fay, B. (2016). How to use influencers to drive a word-of-mouth strategy. Warc Best Practice, 1: 2–8.

Bibliography

Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M. & Bano, S. (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence of students from selected universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6), 1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11061683.

Aliperti, G., & Cruz, A. M. (2019). Investigating tourists’ risk information processing. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102803.

Benítez, V. A., López, M. T. & Gutiérrez, I. M. (2018). Turista 2.0, comportamiento y uso de los medios sociales. Chasqui. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación, (137): 207–223.

Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 17(1): 63–74.

Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. & Schafer, D. (2012). Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review, 35 (9), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948.

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Buckley, R. (2021). Pandemic travel restrictions provide a test of net ecological effects of ecotourism and new research opportunities. Journal of Travel Research, 60(7): 1612–1614.

Buhalis, D. & Zoge, M. (2007). The strategic impact of the Internet on the tourism industry. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2007: 481-492.

Buhalis, D. & Jun, H. S. (2011). E-Tourism, Contemporary Tourism Reviews, Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford.

Butler, R. (1990). The influence of the media in shaping international tourist patterns. Tourism Recreation Research, 15: 46–53.

Cadwell, P., Federici, F. & O’Brien, S. (2022). Communities of practice and translation: An introduction. JoSTrans: the Journal of Specialised Translation, (37).

Central Economic Development Agency (2020). Time to reset the tourism sector’s button. https://ceda.nz/latest-news/time-to-reset-the-tourism-sectors-button/. Re­trieved on 01.05.2022.

Chinazzi, M., Davis, J. T., Ajelli, M., Gioannini, C., Litvinova, M., Merler, S., … & Vespignani, A. (2020). The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science, 368(6489): 395–400.

Chu, S. C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Adver­tising, 30(1): 47–75.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The de­velopment and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation review, 10(3): 163–176.

Craig, C. A. & Karabas, I. (2021). Glamping after the coronavirus pandemic. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(2): 251–256.

Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Data Reportal. (2022). Digital 2022 – România, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-romania, accessed on June 8, 2022.

Du Plessis, C. (2018). Social media crisis communication: Enhancing a discourse of renewal through dialogic content. Public relations review, 44(5): 829–838.

Edo-Marzá, N. (2016). Communication in tourism 2.0: redefining roles, restating ‘the traditional’, reaching the world. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, (31): 9–14.

Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of language and lin­guistics, 2(2006): 683-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01276-1.

Enache, L. (2021). Ecotourism, Feminine Entrepreneurship, Local De­velop­ment. Inter­national Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Commu­nica­tion, 10(2): 58–68.

Etter, M., Ravasi, D. & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social media and the formation of orga­nizational reputation. Academy of management review, 44(1): 28–52.

Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions (Vol. 1). Sage.

Frith, J. (2021). Introduction to Business and Technical Communication and COVID-19: Communicating in Times of Crisis. Journal of Business and Technical Commu­nication, 35(1): 1–6.

Georgilas, A., Tsitsoni, T., Andreopoulou, Z., Tsakaldiki, M. & Kostopoulou, S (2021). The increase of visits and prospects of ecotourism in Greek forest areas during the period of the covid-19 pandemic. MIBES Transactions, 15(1): 27–35.

Gibson, C. (2008). Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3): 407–422.

Goffman, E. (2020). In the wake of COVID-19, is glocalization our sustainability future?. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1): 48–52.

Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. (2016). Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal of business research, 69(12), 5833–5841.

Guay, L. (2009). Proulx, S., Poissant, L. et Sénécal, M. (2006). Communautés virtuelles : penser et agir en réseau. Québec, Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval. Revue Des Sciences de L’éducation, 35(1), 247. doi:10.7202/029944ar.

Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3): 610–623.

Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M. S., & Madden, T. J. (2016). The influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand relationships: A three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1): 27–41.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Keller, E. & Fay, B. (2016). How to use influencers to drive a word-of-mouth strate­gy. Warc Best Practice, 1: 2–8.

Kim, Y. (2011). The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: Identifying issues and learning lessons for culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2): 190–206.

Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European management journal, 17(3): 252–264.

Leung, X. Y., Bai, B. & Stahura, K. A. (2015). The marketing effectiveness of social media in the hotel industry: A comparison of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(2): 147–169.

Li, J., Nguyen, T. & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Coronavirus impacts on post-pandemic planned travel behaviours. Annals of tourism research.  https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102964.

Liu, Y. & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 31(4): 53–64.

Lück, M., Seeler, S. & Radic, A. (2021). Hitting the reset button for post-COVID-19 cruise tourism: The case of Akaroa, Aotearoa New Zealand. Academia Letters, Article 219. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL219.

Månsson, M., Cassinger, C., Eskilsson, L., & Buchmann, A. (2020). Introduction: In the juncture of media convergence and tourism–towards a research agenda. The Routledge Companion to Media and Tourism, 1–9.

Mazilu, M. & Drăguleasa, I. A. (2021). The Development of Ecotourism South-West Oltenia Region. International Journal of Innovation Scientific Research and Review, 3: 1755–1760.

Metro-Roland, M. M., Knudsen, D. C. & Greer, C. E. (2016). Landscape, tourism, and meaning. Routledge.

Miguéns, J., Baggio, R. & Costa, C. (2008). Social media and tourism destinations: TripAdvisor case study. Advances in tourism research, 26(28): 1–6.

Moorman, C. & McCarthy, T. (2021). CMOs: Adapt Your Social Media Strategy for a Post-Pandemic World. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/01/cmos-adapt-your-social-media-strategy-for-a-post-pandemic-world. Retrieved on 15.06.2022.

Mulhern, F. (2013). Integrated marketing communications: From media channels to digital connectivity. Schultz, D. E., Patti, C. H., & Kitchen, P. J. in The Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications (19-36). Routledge.

Oliveira, E. & Panyik, E. (2015). Content, context and co-creation: Digital challenges in destination branding with references to Portugal as a tourist destina­tion. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(1): 53–74.

Pachucki, C., Grohs, R. & Scholl-Grissemann, U. (2022). Is nothing like before? COVID-19–evoked changes to tourism destination social media commu­nication. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 23. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100692.

Pawlowska, A. (2016). Tourists and social media: Already inseparable marriage or still a long-distance relationship? Analysis of focus group study results conducted among tourists using social media. World Scientific News, 106–115.

Platon, O. E. (2020). Brand Communication during the COVID-19 Crisis. Global Economic Observer, 114–118.

Proulx, S., Poissant, L. & Sénécal, M. (2006). Communautés virtuelles : penser et agir en réseau. Presses Université Laval.

Rheingold, H. (1993). A slice of life in my virtual community. Global networks: Computers and international communication, 57–80.

Rheingold, H. (1995). Les communautés virtuelles. Addison-Wesley France.

Rydén, P., Kottika, E., Hossain, M., Skare, V. & Morrison, A. M. (2020). Threat or treat for tourism organizations? The Copenhagen Zoo social media storm. Inter­national Journal of Tourism Research, 22(1): 108–119.

Scholl-Grissemann, U., Peters, M. & Teichmann, K. (2020). When climate-induced change reaches social media: How realistic travel expectations shape consumers’ attitudes toward the destination. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8): 1413–1429.

Sharma, G. D., Thomas, A., & Paul, J. (2021). Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based framework. Tourism management perspectives, 37, 100786.

Soare, I. (2020). The Evolution of Tourist Flow and Accommodation Facilities in Suceava County and their Possible Reconfiguration due to the Covid-19 Pan­demic. Economics and Applied Informatics, (2): 180–188.

Streimikiene, D., Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E. & Simanavicius, A. (2021). Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustainable Development, 29(1): 259–271.

Tous, R., Gomez, M., Poveda, J., Cruz, L., Wust, O., Makni, M., & Ayguadé, E. (2018). Automated curation of brand-related social media images with deep learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(20), 27123–27142.

Tribe, J. (2009). Book review of The Study of Tourism: Anthropological and Socio­logical Beginnings, by Dennison Nash. Tourism Management, 30(1): 142–43.

UNWTO (2017). 2017 is the international year of sustainable tourism for development. https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/press-release/2017-01-03/2017-international-year-sustainable-tourism-development. Retrieved on 06.06.2022.

UNWTO. (2020). “Sustainability as the new normal” – a vision for the future of tourism. https://www.unwto.org/covid-19-oneplanet-responsible-recovery. Retrieved on 086.06.2022.

UNWTO. (2021). Impact assessment of the Covid-19 outbreak on international tourism, https://www.unwto.org/impact-assessment-of-the-covid-19-outbreak-on-international-tourism. Retriuved on 08.06.2022.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London, UK, Thousand Oaks, CA & New Delhi, India: Sage.

Urry, J. & Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage Publications.

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of service research, 13(3): 253–266.

Welbers, K. & Opgenhaffen, M. (2019). Presenting news on social media: Media logic in the communication style of newspapers on Facebook. Digital Journalism, 7(1): 45–62.

Zeng, B. & Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about social media in tourism? A review. Tourism management perspectives, 10: 27–36.

Zhai, X., Zhong, D., & Luo, Q. (2019). Turn it around in crisis communication: An ABM approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2019.102807.

Zhao, K., Zhang, P. & Lee, H. M. (2022). Understanding the impacts of user-and marketer-generated content on free digital content consumption. Decision Support Systems, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113684.

Živković, R., Gajić, J. & Brdar, I. (2014). The impact of social media on tourism. Singidunum Journal of Applied Sciences, 758–761.

Manuscript was submitted: 20.07.2022.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 09.08.2022 till 25.08.2022.

Accepted: 26.08.2022.

Брой 53 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, октомври 2022 г. се издава с финансовата по­мощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП3/75 от 18 декември 2021 г.

Issue 53 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (October 2022) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP3/75 of December 18, 2021.