Negative Attitudes Towards Domestic Leisure Tourism in Bulgaria: Regional Disparities and Policy Implications

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the attitudes of Bulgarian citizens towards domestic leisure tourism, to identify the reasons behind negative attitudes across different territory types. An adapted version of Fishbein’s multi-attribute model was applied to a nationally representative sample through a two-staged clustered sampling method with a stratification at two stages. The purpose of this research is to examine consumer attitudes towards both winter and summer domestic leisure tourism by region. The highest level of negative attitudes towards domestic winter leisure tourism were found in non-maritime territories, followed closely by the densely populated non-maritime and the maritime areas. The main concerns are the lack of natural snow and insufficient tourism services. For summer leisure tourism, negative attitudes are relatively higher with the overdevelopment of resorts and pollution cited as the primary issues. The discussion compares these findings with those of previous studies. This study contributes to the existing literature through its original approach and practical relevance. Its significance lies in the potential to inform the development of effective regional marketing policies. Practical and theoretical implications are provided, offering insights into regional and national tourism strategies. These include territorial planning to prevent overdevelopment, improving tourism services, and adopting the best practice to mitigate environmental pollution.

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world [1]. According to data provided by the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) [2], in 2024, the Travel & Tourism sector contributed 10% to the global GDP. This includes both the direct contribution of tourism (tourist spending on goods and services) and the indirect effects on the national economy. In 2024, tourism generated around 357 million jobs, and domestic tourist spending increased by 5.4% in comparison to 2023 [2]. Domestic tourism has proven to be an effective instrument for stimulating economic growth [3], and this is most evident in the context of recreational tourism, where hotels report increasing revenues [4]. Existing research has largely focused on the positive aspects of domestic leisure tourism, such as travel motivations, consumer satisfaction, and destination loyalty [5,6,7,8,9]. These studies have highlighted how domestic leisure tourism supports national economies and enhances cultural identity. Various factors related to both the external and internal environment contribute to forming an emotional connection between tourists and destinations. This connection plays a crucial role in understanding tourist behaviour [10]. However, the continuous development of tourism can also lead to several negative impacts. While there is a growing body of literature addressing domestic tourism motivations and attitudes [11,12,13], a limited number of studies have examined negative attitudes towards domestic leisure tourism, which are typically explored at a local scale (e.g., a single resort or region) rather than at a national level. This paper seeks to identify the negative factors that influence the attitudes of Bulgarian citizens towards domestic leisure tourism, so that they can be minimized through the implementation of strategies and good practices for tourism development.

From a theoretical perspective, most previous studies have applied well-established attitude models (e.g., the three-component model, Theory of Reasoned Action, or Theory of Planned Behaviour) to explain tourist motivations and intentions. While useful, these approaches rarely capture the negative perceptions that can discourage domestic travel. Methodologically, prior research often relies on non-representative samples, focusing on certain demographic groups or single case studies, which limits the generalizability of their findings. Empirically, little is known about how regional disparities (e.g., maritime vs. non-maritime territories) and seasonality (summer vs. winter tourism) shape negative attitudes. These gaps leave policymakers without clear evidence to design effective regional strategies. This study seeks to address these limitations by applying a modified version of Fishbein’s multi-attribute attitude model to a nationally representative sample of Bulgarian citizens. Unlike prior applications of Fishbein’s model, which focus on destination choice and motivations [14,15], our approach quantifies negative attitudes across both winter and summer domestic tourism contexts.

This paper seeks to provide a structured and data-driven analysis of regional disparities in domestic tourism attitudes, thereby contributing new empirical evidence to both academic discourse and policy development. In Bulgaria, many still prefer to spend their winter holidays abroad, choosing destinations and resorts in Austria, France, or Italy. A good portion of the domestic tourist flow—both in summer and winter—is directed abroad, thereby supporting foreign economies through spending on taxes, fees, and services, while the domestic economy loses out. This provides the rationale for this research to study public attitudes towards domestic leisure tourism in Bulgaria. The study focuses on three major population groups based on geographic location. The first group comprises residents of Bulgaria’s coastal regions. The second includes residents of non-coastal areas, which are further divided into two subgroups: (1) residents of the two largest cities—Sofia (the capital) and Plovdiv (the second-largest city), and (2) residents of the remaining non-coastal regions. The objective of this research is to investigate the regional disparities in negative attitudes towards domestic leisure tourism in Bulgaria, focusing on both summer and winter contexts. By identifying the underlying factors—such as overdevelopment, environmental degradation, service quality, and infrastructure limitations—this study not only contributes to academic discourse but also provides actionable insights for policy and planning. In doing so, it highlights the importance of strengthening domestic tourism as a sustainable alternative to outbound travel, thereby supporting national economic resilience.

2. Literature Review

Bulgaria has rich recreational and tourism potential and cultural ecosystem services [16,17]. The climate is suitable for both winter and summer domestic leisure tourism. To the east, it borders the Black Sea, and the coastline offers excellent conditions for leisure and recreation—over 200 km of sandy beaches, new and modern hotels, spa centres, water and sports facilities. The favourable weather conditions contribute towards the appeal of tourism, particularly during the peak season (July–August) when maximum air temperatures are between 28 and 35 °C, and the water temperature is around 25 °C.

To the south, Bulgaria borders Türkiye and Greece—both of which have well-developed coastlines that directly compete with Bulgaria’s domestic tourism market. Over two million people, or approximately 25% of the country’s population, live and work in the capital city of Sofia [18]. Geographically, Sofia is equidistant from both the Bulgarian Black Sea coast and the northern Greek Mediterranean coast. As a result, during the summer months, long queues often form at the border crossings with Greece, sometimes lasting 5–6 h. Despite this inconvenience, the tourist flow to Greece is comparable to that to the Bulgarian coast [18].

Bulgaria also enjoys good transport connections with Türkiye, both by air and land. The tourism offering there, along with the high level of hospitality extended to Bulgarian visitors, makes Türkiye a particularly attractive destination. This results in a significant flow of Bulgarian tourists, especially at the beginning and end of the summer season [18].

Land characteristics are important for the resilience of domestic tourism demand [19]. Bulgaria’s terrain is highly diverse, with mountainous regions covering almost half (47.54%) of the country’s territory [20]. Several nationally significant winter resorts have been developed, including Pamporovo, Borovets and Bansko. Among these, Bansko is the most popular both within Bulgaria and internationally due to its modern infrastructure and excellent ski slopes. It is especially attractive to tourists from Greece and is also frequented by visitors from neighbouring countries such as North Macedonia and Serbia, as well as tourists from other parts of Europe and the Middle East. All three national winter resorts are located from only 1.5 to 2 h by road from the capital, making them easily accessible to residents of the capital.

The literature review is examined in two directions: (1) definition and classification of the territorial units in which citizens are surveyed, and (2) theories for researching public attitudes.

2.1. Spatial Model

Models in geography are developed on the basis of natural, social, and economic phenomena [21]. Models can be divided into a priori (straight A = B) and a posteriori (A/B) [22]. A priori models are based on the construction of a theory, with the problem of interpreting calculations being particularly important. A posteriori models are obtained by formalized theories, with the beginning being related to empirical observations. The results can be transferred to the theory. A priori models are most commonly used in geography [23]. The main concepts in the creation of spatial models, with each concept defining a focus, a centre of collection of a certain nature of knowledge, are geometric, technical, presentational, artistic, and communicational [24]. In the creation of the spatial model of the regions in Bulgaria, the presentational and communicational centres are leading.

Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) [25] adopted a common classification of territorial units for statistical purposes (NUTS—Nomenclature of Territorial Units), based on geocode standard. The NUTS classification encompasses three levels:

• NUTS 1: Major socio-economic regions.
• NUTS 2: Basic regions for the application of regional policies.
• NUTS 3: Small regions for specific diagnoses.

This system is used for harmonizing and analysis of regional statistics across Europe and supports the policy development and EU funds distribution process. Using this classification and in accordance with Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 [26] establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, the boundaries of the maritime region of Bulgaria have been determined. For a region to be designated as maritime, it must meet several basic requirements:

-

Geographic location: The region must have a direct connection with or border a body of marine water. This includes coastlines, islands, or peninsulas.

-

Economic activity: The region must have significant economic activity related to the sea. This may include fishing, maritime transport, tourism, aquaculture, and other maritime industries.

-

Infrastructure: Availability of infrastructure that supports maritime activities, such as ports, shipyards, lighthouses, and facilities to maintain maritime safety.

-

Regional significance: The region should play an important role in the regional economy and development, providing employment and income to the population.

-

Ecological significance: Maritime regions often have unique ecosystems and biodiversity that are important for environmental protection.

These criteria are important for determining strategic priorities and planning the development of maritime regions. This attitude survey uses the classes for the typology and their conditions defined by EUROSTAT [27] for statistical purposes. Two categories define the basic coastal typology:

-

coastal regions (Figure 1);

-

non-coastal regions (those regions that are not defined as coastal regions).

Coastal regions are defined as NUTS level 3 regions in the EU. At least one of the following criteria must be met to be declared a region as a coastal one [27]:

• Any NUTS 3 region with a sea border (coastline).
• Any NUTS 3 region that has more than half of its population within 50 km of the coastline, based on population data for 1 km² grid cells (Bulgaria completes this criterion).
• The NUTS 3 region for Hamburg in Germany.

2.2. Structural Model of Consumer’s Attitude

The study of attitudes in tourism is a crucial component of understanding tourist behaviour, decision-making processes, and satisfaction [28]. The scientific literature on attitudes towards tourism development is grounded in well-established theoretical foundations from social psychology, marketing, and behavioural sciences. An attitude is a hypothetical construct that expresses how much a person likes or dislikes something [29]. The object of an attitude can vary widely—it may be a person, object, place, or concept. Attitudes are shaped by experience, information, and emotions [30]. In the context of tourism, attitudes are defined as an individual’s predisposition towards a given object (e.g., product, destination, service), and are similarly formed through experience, information, and emotions [31]. These attitudes are generally understood to consist of three key components:

• Cognitive—knowledge and beliefs about a particular tourism-related object or experience.
• Affective—the emotional reaction towards that object.
• Behavioural—the readiness or intention to engage in specific actions (e.g., visiting a destination).

These components are described in the Three-component Attitude Model, a classical concept in both social psychology and marketing. This model builds upon the early theoretical work of Rosenberg and Hovland [32], who outlined the three-dimensional structure of attitudes. It has since been developed and widely applied across various domains, including tourism. Building on this foundation, in 1963, Martin Fishbein [33] introduced the Multi-Attribute Attitude Model, which focused on the quantitative measurement of individual attributes that contribute to overall attitudes. This model played a key role in the development of the Theory of Reasoned Action (ToRA), published by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 [34]. While ToRA is related to the three-component model, it offers a more structured and predictive framework. It emphasizes the decision-making process and posits a causal relationship between attitudes and behaviour. According to the ToRA, human behaviour is driven by behavioural intentions, which, in turn, are influenced by attitudes towards the behaviour (i.e., what the individual thinks about the action) and subjective norms (i.e., what others think about the action).

The main distinction between the three-component model and the ToRA lies in their focus: the former describes the structure of attitudes, whereas the latter offers a framework for predicting how attitudes influence behaviour. Later [35] expanded the ToRA into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), introducing perceived behavioural control as an additional factor influencing intention and behaviour. TPB has since been extensively studied and applied across numerous fields. Several scholars have further contributed to its refinement and application: Ref. [36] compared TPB with ToRA; ref. [37] explored potential extensions to TPB and outlined directions for future research; ref. [38] applied the theory within the context of health behaviours; ref. [39] conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of TPB in predicting various behaviours; and ref. [40] reflected on the development and responses to TPB.

Ref. [41] also contributed significantly to attitude theory, particularly with respect to the three-component model. Their work extends beyond the structural aspects of attitudes to explore broader psychological theories, including the formation, function, and change of attitudes. While adopting the classic cognitive–affective–behavioural framework, they also emphasized the importance of social norms, context, and persuasive communication.

In marketing, the three-component model of attitudes encompasses cognitive, affective, and behavioural element. It has been widely applied to understand consumer preferences and decision-making processes in tourism contexts [42,43]. This model is particularly useful in gauging how residents and tourists perceive tourism infrastructure, service quality, and the broader impacts of tourism development [44,45,46]. Ref. [42] discuss the three-component model within the broader context of consumer behaviour, further reinforcing its relevance to tourism.

The study of consumer attitudes is essential not only for understanding tourist behaviour but also for effectively managing tourism processes and activities. This includes the design and delivery of tourism products and services, human resource management, the strategic administration of tourism organizations, and the sustainable development of tourism destinations. According to [47], tourist attitudes are most commonly analysed in relation to tourism destinations.

3. Materials and Methods

The quantification of the consumers’ attitudes towards a given subject can be utilized using multi-attribute attitude models. Typically, these models allow researchers to measure consumers’ attitudes towards a given subject, based on their beliefs about several of its attributes. Often, these models are approximated using Fishbein’s version, synthesized in the form of the following formula [33]:

$${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{jk}}=\sum {\mathsf{\beta }}_{\mathrm{ijk}} \times {\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{ijk}}$$

(1)

where ${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{jk}}$ represents the attitude score for brand j by consumer k slope, expressed as a percentage; ${\mathsf{\beta }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}\mathrm{k}}$ signifies the belief of consumer k concerning the degree to which brand j exhibits attribute i; ${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}\mathrm{k}}$ denotes the importance weight for attribute i of brand j as perceived by consumer k.

In order to estimate the customers’ negative attitudes towards different attributes of the Bulgarian (winter and summer) domestic leisure tourism, we applied an adapted version of the Fishbein’s multi-attribute attitude model, considering the sampling data available, as follows:

$${\widehat{\mathrm{A}}}_{\mathrm{j}}=\sum {\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \times {\widehat{\mathrm{I}}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$$

(2)

where ${\widehat{\mathrm{A}}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ represents the attitude score for brand j (in our context, the term ‘brand’ refers to the particular attributes of domestic leisure winter and summer tourism in Bulgaria); ${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$ signifies the belief concerning the degree to which brand j exhibits attribute i based on the same sample; ${\widehat{\mathrm{I}}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$ denotes the importance weight for attribute i of brand j based on a nationally representative random sample. The adapted version of the model serves as a foundation for understanding how various factors influence the perceptions and the behavioural intentions in the tourism context and includes these intentions implicitly.

As previously mentioned, the way customers’ attitudes are estimated is built upon a nationally representative random sample. This sample was obtained through a two-staged clustered sampling approach with a stratification at two stages. The stratification was done by residence place type (capital, Bulgarian district city, other towns, and rural residential places) and by the Bulgarian NUTS 3 administrative districts (28 in total). In the first stage, clusters were randomly selected from Bulgarian electoral areas. In the second stage, households were randomly chosen within these clusters to form the sampling units. A structured quantitate survey targeting 18+ household members within the chosen electoral areas was distributed face-to-face during Apr–May 2023 using TAPI format. This data collection process resulted in a nationally representative sample comprising 1003 successfully interviewed respondents.

The survey instrument (structured questionnaire) used in current study consists of six sections, each designed to collect respondents’ opinions on various aspects of Bulgarian domestic leisure tourism. These sections cover general holiday tourism practices, winter holiday habits, summer holiday preferences, demographic characteristics of the respondents, and other relevant factors. To assess negative attitudes towards domestic leisure tourism, four specific questions were extracted from the full survey instrument and are presented as follows:

• Q8. In your opinion, what are the main disadvantages of the Bulgarian winter (ski) holiday tourism?—measured on a nominal scale.
• Q9. Please rate the extent to which the following characteristics describe winter (ski) holiday tourism in Bulgaria, using a scale from 1—“Not applicable at all” to 7—“Fully applicable”: Q9.1. Inadequate natural snowfall during the active winter season, Q9.2. Tourist services that are not sufficiently high quality, Q9.3. Excessive development of mountain resorts, Q9.4. Primary focus on attracting foreign tourists—all measured on an ordinal scale.
• Q17. What do you consider to be the primary drawbacks of Bulgarian summer (sea) leisure tourism?—measured on a nominal scale.
• Q18. On a scale from—“Not applicable at all” to 7—“Entirely applicable”, to what extent do the following characteristics describe summer (sea) holiday tourism in Bulgaria (on the Black Sea coast)?: Q18.1. Excessive construction and urbanization of coastal regions, Q18.2. Pollution of the sea waters, Q18.3. Neglect of Bulgarian domestic tourists, Q18.4. Inadequate and poorly maintained infrastructure—all measured on an ordinal scale.

The validation of the questionnaire is realized using the Cronbach’s alpha test in order to verify the reliability of the items and scales for the questions measured on the ordinary scale. The test of the reliability showed that questions Q9 (0.846) and Q18 (0.876) possess high internal consistency.

The importance weight $\left({\widehat{\mathrm{I}}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\right)$ estimation of Formula (2) is obtained using the distribution of responses provided by participants for questions Q8 and Q17, applying the largest weight (4) to the most frequently mentioned answer and the smallest weight (1) to the answer mentioned the least often.

To estimate the consumers’ beliefs $\left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\right)$ of Formula (2), regarding the extent to which the given domestic leisure tourism type (winter or summer) possesses a given attribute (specific feature), a weighted average for each question item in Q9 and Q18 is calculated, based on the frequency distribution of the respondents’ answers as follows:

$${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{\mathrm{p}=1}^7{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{ijp}} \times {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{ijp}}}{\sum _{\mathrm{p}=1}^7{\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{ijp}}}}$$

(3)

where ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}\mathrm{p}}$ the scale measure (1—“Not applicable at all” to 7—“Entirely applicable”) concerning the degree to which brand j exhibits attribute i; ${\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}\mathrm{p}}$—the number of respondents mentioned given scale measure.

For the facilitation of the present study’s estimation processes, the usage of IBM SPSS Statistics (version 30) and Microsoft Excel 365 were applied.

4. Results and Discussion

Using the adapted version of the Fishbein’s multi-attribute attitude model, based on data from a nationally-representative random sampling survey, we estimated the negative attitudes towards the Bulgarian domestic winter leisure tourism by the respondents from the specific types of Bulgarian territories—maritime, densely populated non-maritime, and other non-maritime ones. The following results are calculated using the data on question Q8 for the importance weight and question Q9 for the belief (

Table 1. Negative attitudes towards the Bulgarian domestic winter leisure tourism by territory type.

Attribute	$$\begin{gathered} \mathbf{Importance} \mathbf{Weight} \\ \left({\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right) \end{gathered}$$	Territory Type
		Maritime Territories		Densely Populated Non-Maritime Territories		Other Non-Maritime Territories
		$$\begin{gathered} \mathbf{Belief} \\ \left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right) \end{gathered}$$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$	$$\begin{gathered} \mathbf{Belief} \\ \left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right) \end{gathered}$$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$	$$\begin{gathered} \mathbf{Belief} \\ \left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right) \end{gathered}$$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$
Inadequate natural snowfall during the active winter season	4	4.1	16.6	4.4	17.5	4.6	18.3
Tourist services that are not sufficiently high quality	3	3.6	10.8	4.2	12.7	3.9	11.8
Excessive development of mountain resorts	2	5.1	10.3	4.8	9.7	5.0	9.9
Primary focus on attracting foreign tourists	1	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9	4.9
Attitudes (${\widehat{\mathrm{A}}}_{\mathrm{i}}$)		Total:	42.7	Total:	44.9	Total:	45.0

):

The results above show that the highest negative attitude is observed in the other non-maritime territories (45.0), followed closely by the densely populated non-maritime territories (44.9), and maritime territories (42.7). The primary concerns are the inadequate natural snowfall and insufficient tourist services.

Combining the data for the question Q17 and Q18, we estimated importance weight and the belief for the consumers’ negative attitudes towards the Bulgarian domestic summer leisure tourism. The results are presented in

Table 2. Negative attitudes towards the Bulgarian domestic summer leisure tourism by territory type.

Attribute	Importance Weight $\left({\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right)$	Territory Type
		Maritime Territories		Densely Populated Non-Maritime Territories		Other Non-Maritime Territories
		Belief $\left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right)$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$	Belief $\left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right)$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$	Belief $\left({\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\right)$	${\widehat{\mathsf{\beta }}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}\times {\widehat{\mathbf{I}}}_{\mathbf{i}\mathbf{j}}$
Excessive construction and urbanization of coastal regions	4	6.0	23.9	5.9	23.5	5.9	23.7
Pollution of the sea waters	3	5.2	15.5	5.1	15.4	5.2	15.7
Neglect of domestic tourists	2	4.4	8.8	4.9	9.8	4.8	9.6
Inadequate and poorly maintained infrastructure	1	4.4	4.4	4.9	4.9	4.6	4.6
Attitudes (${\widehat{\mathrm{A}}}_{\mathrm{i}}$)		Total:	52.6	Total:	53.7	Total:	53.6

as follows:

Although the differences between the respondents’ attitudes from the different territory types are not evident, negative attitudes are relatively higher compared to winter tourism. The densely populated non-maritime territories show the highest score (53.7), followed by other non-maritime territories (53.6), and maritime territories (52.6). Overbuilding and pollution are the main issues that arise.

The analysis indicates that both winter and summer domestic leisure tourism in Bulgaria face significant negative attitudes, with summer tourism being viewed more negatively overall. The primary concerns revolve around environmental issues, infrastructure, and the focus on foreign tourists over domestic ones. Addressing these issues could help improve the perception and the attractiveness of the domestic tourism in Bulgaria. Complex factors influence the development of domestic leisure tourism. Although interest in domestic tourism has increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel restrictions imposed around the world, in the recent studies, the focus is not only on this topic but also on its sustainability [48,49,50] and the connection between attitudes and loyalty to domestic tourism destinations [51,52,53]. Several studies examine attitudes towards this type of tourism, looking at the attitudes through the prism of the subjective norms, knowledge, and source of recommendation to specific domestic destination [54,55].

The ecological factor, particularly environmental sustainability, is becoming increasingly important to tourists. The results of this study indicate that travellers prioritize sustainable tourism development and eco-friendly travel options—especially when engaging in summer domestic leisure tourism, but also during winter holidays. Domestic tourism is often criticized for contributing to local environmental degradation through overbuilding, over-urbanization, and resulting pollution; however, these challenges are not exclusive to domestic tourism but apply to the tourism sector as a whole.

A key factor contributing to negative attitudes towards domestic tourism is its frequent association with lower service quality, limited infrastructure, and a lack of novelty. Many tourists perceive international travel as more exotic and enriching, leading them to undervalue domestic offerings. Ref. [56] examined the impact of service quality on domestic tourists’ satisfaction and their intention to revisit a coastal region. Their findings confirm that service quality significantly influences tourist attitudes, supporting the results of the present study. Moreover, domestic destinations often struggle to provide competitive pricing and high-value experiences, further contributing to negative perceptions.

A partial study of consumer attitudes among Bulgarian tourists towards leisure travel on the southern Black Sea coast was conducted by [57]. They also applied Fishbein’s multi-attribute model; however, their focus was not on negative attitudes towards domestic leisure tourism but rather on the attributes influencing destination choice more broadly. Ref. [58] reported similar findings in a 2019 survey conducted in the municipalities of Sozopol, Primorsko, Dobrich, Burgas, and Varna—key summer leisure destinations—and Smolyan and Samokov, where Bulgaria’s national winter resorts are located. Her study highlights the importance of tracking the “leakage” of tourism revenues outside the destination at a regional level. This leakage can signal broader issues reflected in tourists’ negative attitudes and underscores the need to address structural problems within the domestic tourism sector.

5. Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

The results of the study have significance in several key areas. From a practical perspective, the findings can help identify the strongest negative attitudes towards domestic tourism across different regions. This information can support the development of tourism policies aligned with local resources and national objectives. Additionally, the results can inform the creation of more effective strategies for encouraging domestic travel, including well-designed and appropriately targeted public relations campaigns. From a theoretical standpoint, this study demonstrates how Fishbein’s multi-attribute attitude model can be effectively applied to the analysis of data from a nationally representative survey.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Based on the identified issues, such as overdevelopment and pollution in summer and winter resorts, it is recommended that national and regional stakeholders prioritize sustainable territorial planning, robust environmental protection policies (especially for wastewater), and increased control over the implementation of those planning and ecological policies.

To guarantee easy and safe access to the winter resorts, the existing road network needs to be regularly maintained by the municipal authorities on whose territories the resorts are located. The construction of new and widening the old roads would also contribute to the promotion of winter resorts among domestic tourists. The lack of sufficient natural snow in the active (winter) season can be overcome by investing in modern artificial snow-making technologies and alternative tourism products (SPA, wellness and balneology, cultural and historical tourism, hiking, sports, MICE, etc.).

The quality of service and attitude towards domestic tourists can be improved by organizing appropriate staff trainings and standardization. Drawing on best practices from neighbouring countries and main competitors could also inform effective interventions. Since the present study only examines perceptions regarding domestic leisure tourism, taking into account the highlighted negatives and implementing the proposed measures to overcome them could lead to positive behavioural intentions to practice domestic leisure tourism.

5.3. Limitations and Further Research

Despite its contributions, the study also has some limitations. The most significant is that the research focuses exclusively on a single destination—Bulgaria—which limits the ability to generalize the findings internationally. Another limitation is the sampling constraint, which concerns the fact that while a nationally representative sample was achieved using a two-stage clustered sampling method, certain demographic groups or regions may be underrepresented, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to the entire Bulgarian population. Also, the attribute measurement has its limitations due to the application of an adapted Fishbein multi-attribute model which captures key factors influencing attitudes, but this model may not comprehensively address all nuanced socio-cultural or psychological determinants relevant to the domestic tourism perceptions. The self-reported attitudes could also lead to some limitations induced by the reliance on survey respondents’ self-reported attitudes, which introduces possible bias due to the social desirability or recall limitations, which may impact the accuracy of the results. And finally, the territorial typology employed (maritime vs. non-maritime) is based on established statistical standards, yet variations within these broad categories could mask the local-specific factors affecting attitudes.

Future studies should include other destinations to enable comparative analysis. Furthermore, the current results lay the groundwork for additional research that could explore the socio-demographic characteristics of the target audience in more detail. Also, it is recommended that the future studies should incorporate more granular sampling strategies or oversampling of smaller and underrepresented communities to ensure deeper regional and demographic insights (for example, conducting in-depth interviews with ski tourists, organizing focus-group discussions among residents of coastal cities, etc.). There should be expanding the scope of the factors evaluated—including psychological and socio-economic dimensions—could better capture the complexity of domestic tourism attitudes. Qualitative approaches (e.g., interviews or focus groups) may reveal that motivations are not easily measured in the quantitative surveys. Policymakers and researchers should consider more localized studies to better understand intra-regional disparities and tailor interventions accordingly, especially in areas with the unique environmental or the infrastructural challenges. Regular monitoring of public attitudes using longitudinal or panel data designs could enable tracking of the shifts in the perceptions over time, particularly in response to the policy, economic, or environmental changes.