Digital Tools and Rural Tourism Competitiveness Under Conditions of Tourism Disruption: Evidence from Consumer Perspectives

Abstract

Tourism is highly exposed to external shocks such as pandemics, geopolitical instability, and security-related disruptions, which particularly affect small and rural enterprises. Although digital tools are frequently discussed as mechanisms supporting tourism competitiveness under conditions of tourism disruption, consumer-centred evidence remains limited. This study examines how consumers in Latvia evaluate digital tools and which factors they associate with rural tourism competitiveness and improvement priorities. The study is guided by a conceptual framework in which digital tools function as intermediary mechanisms linking conditions of tourism disruption to rural tourism competitiveness through consumer perceptions of accessibility, convenience, and trust. A mixed-methods CATI survey (N = 1004) was conducted in February–April 2025, combining statistical analysis of closed-ended responses with thematic analysis of consumer-defined competitiveness and improvement priorities derived from open-ended questions. The results show that age is the main factor differentiating evaluations of digital tools, while regional and settlement-type differences remain weak. Online booking and digital payments are valued across all age groups, whereas tools such as virtual tours show stronger age-related variation. When discussing competitiveness, respondents most frequently refer to institutional conditions, promotion, pricing, and digital tools as key competitiveness dimensions. However, when identifying improvements, priorities shift toward diversification of tourism offers and physical accessibility. Digital tools remain important and are primarily associated with practical functions such as booking, payments, information access, and online visibility that make rural tourism offers easier to find and use. The findings highlight the growing role of digital accessibility and information transparency as foundational conditions for rural tourism competitiveness under conditions of tourism disruption and uncertainty.

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the world’s fastest-growing economic sectors and an important driver of socio-economic development. Across OECD countries and beyond, tourism contributes to economic growth, employment, infrastructure development, and regional income generation (OECD, 2024). Given tourism’s importance within the global economy, it is essential to understand the risks that may affect tourism systems and their associated value chains (Parray et al., 2023).

The near-total shutdown of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the sector’s systemic importance as an economic and social force (UN Tourism, 2025a). The pandemic severely affected travel and tourism globally, with estimates indicating the loss of 62 million jobs and nearly USD 4.9 trillion in economic losses in 2020 (Papagianni et al., 2024). While tourism has resumed growth, recovery has been uneven and remains sensitive to external shocks such as health crises, extreme weather events and geopolitical instability. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, tourism accounted for 10.3% of global GDP (USD 9.6 trillion) and 10.2% of global employment (333 million jobs) (Cárdenas-García et al., 2024). International tourist arrivals reached a record 1.5 billion in 2019, continuing to outperform long-term growth forecasts (OECD, 2020).

Recent data indicates continued post-pandemic recovery in international tourism, although demand remains sensitive to inflation, geopolitical uncertainty, and traveler confidence (UN Tourism, 2025b; Statista Inc., 2025). In this context, availability of credible information remains important for sustaining travel confidence and responsible tourism behaviour.

Tourism responses to disruptions are shaped not only by the occurrence of events but also by how these events are perceived. High-intensity disruptions tend to attract disproportionate media attention, amplifying perceived risk beyond actual impact and influencing travel decisions (Biardeau et al., 2026). At the same time, existing research often relies on macro-level data, providing limited insight into individual perceptions and behavioural responses. This highlights the importance of examining tourism from the consumer perspective under conditions of uncertainty.

1.1. Tourism Risk Environment and Conditions of Tourism Disruption

In recent years, the tourism industry in the Baltic States has faced multiple overlapping shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and broader political tensions, as well as natural disasters and climate-change-related impacts on destinations. Political and social instability can quickly interrupt travel plans and generate severe economic hardship in regions dependent on tourism income (Parray et al., 2023). Compared with many other industries, international tourism is often among the first to be affected by geopolitical risks such as terrorism, armed conflicts or wider political instability, with spill-over effects on transport and hospitality industries (Gozgor et al., 2022). These risks are closely linked to political stability, safety and security, which are central components of destination choice and tourism demand (Papagianni et al., 2024).

Geopolitical risk is commonly defined as the threat associated with wars, terrorist acts, and tensions among states that disrupt the normal and peaceful course of international relations, capturing both the probability of such events and the risks associated with escalation of ongoing crises (Caldara & Iacoviello, 2022). Bohl et al. (2017) conceptualize geopolitical risk as arising from three interacting structures—political, economic and environmental—where political risk reflects power competition and conflict, economic risk reflects market dynamics and crises, and environmental risk reflects changes in the non-human environment, including climate-related disasters (Bohl et al., 2017). Because international tourism relies on stable mobility and cooperative relations, restrictions and deteriorating international relations can disrupt interdependent tourism demand and supply across countries (Khalid et al., 2024). Empirical research continues to report a persistent negative effect of heightened geopolitical tensions on tourism demand and tourist flows (Papagianni et al., 2024; Xie, 2023), shaping traveler perceptions and decision-making (Grigoriadis et al., 2025). While the negative effects of geopolitical risks on overall tourism demand are well documented, their specific impact on rural tourism flows is less directly observable, as tourism statistics in Latvia are primarily compiled at an aggregated level and distinguish only general tourism and domestic travel segments (Ministry of Economics, 2019).

Tourism responses to disruptions have been shown to vary across contexts, reflecting differences in economic conditions, distance, and destination characteristics (Biardeau et al., 2026). At the same time, rural tourism plays an important role in regional development and the distribution of tourism-related benefits (Makkonen & Williams, 2024; Lusena-Ezera et al., 2023). In Latvia, tourism activity is also characterized by regional disparities, with differences in tourism development and demand across regions (Van der Steina et al., 2023).

In this context, it is important to examine whether such differences are also reflected at the consumer level, particularly in how individuals evaluate tourism offers, perceive risks, and prioritise improvements under conditions of tourism disruption.

1.2. Rural Tourism Vulnerability and the Latvian Context

Rural and regional tourism matters for regional development and can act as a vehicle for peripheral regions based on the place-based nature of tourism resources and attractions (Makkonen & Williams, 2024). Economic impact analyses frequently emphasize tourism’s role in public planning, destination marketing and local development decisions (Pole et al., 2025). Rural and regional tourism can also support a more spatially balanced distribution of tourism-related benefits across a country (Lusena-Ezera et al., 2023). According to UN Tourism, rural tourism is a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s experience is linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle and culture, and sightseeing in non-urban settings (UN Tourism, 2023). In Latvia, the Tourism Law defines rural tourism as a type of tourism that, based on local social, cultural, and natural resources, offers tourists opportunities for recreation or the use of tourist accommodation in a rural territory (Saeima, 1998). Consistent with this understanding, rural tourism in Latvia includes not only tourist accommodation but also a broader set of tourism products and services, such as recreation, nature-based experiences, local food, cultural activities, and other offers linked to the rural environment and local resources.

Because rural tourism is embedded within local economic, social and cultural structures, its development is shaped by multiple interrelated drivers across supply, demand and motivations, and even small shifts in tourist flows can generate significant economic and social consequences for rural areas (Streimikiene & Bilan, 2015; Hailemariam & Ivanovski, 2021). Rural areas across Europe also face structural challenges such as population decline, limited employment opportunities, infrastructure constraints, and uneven digital connectivity, all of which affect tourism development and enterprise competitiveness (European Commission, 2021; UN Tourism, 2023; Alonso et al., 2024).

Crisis situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical instability have posed multifaceted challenges for rural tourism operations and communities reliant on tourism-based income (Lieberthal et al., 2024). As a result, tourism smallholders and rural tourism enterprises are often more exposed to livelihood risks (Yu et al., 2023). Evidence from regional business contexts suggests that abrupt changes in tourism flows, inflation, supply chain disruptions and workforce losses (including emigration and conscription-related shortages) can create significant operational pressure, even where businesses avoid complete shutdown (Tomej et al., 2023). At the same time, innovation-oriented approaches such as smart specialization strategies may offer opportunities to stimulate local innovation and competitiveness based on heritage and place-based resources, including through social and digital innovation (Bravaglieri et al., 2025). Yet border and peripheral regions can remain problematic sites for tourism development when assessed through the lens of innovation and competitiveness (Makkonen & Williams, 2024).

Latvia provides a relevant case study for examining rural tourism competitiveness under disruptions. The Ministry of Economics identifies tourism as a key contributor to national development and export revenue, while also noting that high dependency increases exposure to negative demand shocks (Jurkane, 2021). Tourism directly contributed 4.8% of Latvia’s GDP in 2019, while total tourism spending fell by 73% from 2019 to EUR 145.4 million in 2020 and remained at EUR 145.5 million in 2021; employment in tourism-related industries decreased from 8.3% (2019) to 7.1% (2021) (OECD, 2022). At the same time, tourism activity in Latvia remains spatially concentrated, with a large share of visitors staying in the capital region, while rural areas continue to face structural demographic and economic challenges (Van der Steina et al., 2023; Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025c). Latvia can therefore be understood as a small, geopolitically exposed tourism market with pronounced regional disparities and a strong need to sustain competitiveness beyond the capital region. Rural tourism is closely linked to domestic tourism flows, which constitute a significant share of tourism demand, particularly in regional areas (OECD, 2022; Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025c).

While tourism research has widely examined digitalisation and tourism resilience, less attention has been given to how consumers evaluate digital tools under conditions of tourism disruption, particularly in rural tourism contexts.

Crisis situations, such as pandemics or geopolitical instability, tend to reshape travel behaviour, increasing the importance of domestic and short-distance travel and strengthening the role of rural tourism as a more accessible and perceived safer alternative. In such conditions, consumer perceptions, expectations, and priorities become especially relevant, as they directly influence destination choice and service evaluation.

1.3. Digital Tools in Rural Tourism Under Conditions of Uncertainty

Against this background, digital tools may help maintain visibility, improve accessibility, and reduce perceived uncertainty in the customer journey. Information and communication technologies have become a persistent driver of tourism development, accelerating the spread of platforms, standards, and service architectures that shape competitiveness across the sector (OECD, 2020). In tourism, technological innovation is linked to improved visitor experience by increasing the availability of information, making services easier to use, and adding elements that strengthen engagement (Wei et al., 2019). Digital tools can support different stages of the travel process and add value across the travel journey, including information search, planning, booking, payment, on-site use, and post-visit evaluation through feedback and reviews (Palos-Sanchez et al., 2021).

In rural tourism, digital transformation is often treated as a practical condition for competitiveness, helping small providers strengthen destination visibility, improve service delivery, and support the empowerment of local communities through solutions such as online booking systems, social media communication, and community-generated digital content (Aryapranata et al., 2025; Alonso et al., 2024). Digitalisation in tourism is associated with tools such as online booking systems, digital marketing, and platform-based services, which enhance both efficiency and customer experience (OECD, 2020). More broadly, digital transformation in tourism is increasingly linked to customer engagement, experience enhancement, and competitiveness, while also raising issues of trust, usability, and security in digitally mediated environments (Bekele & Raj, 2025; Bogers et al., 2022).

From the consumer perspective, digital touchpoints such as information quality, booking and payment functionality, online presence, digital maps, review platforms, and pre-visit visualization tools may function as signals of accessibility and reliability that shape trust and the evaluation of tourism offers (Xiang et al., 2015; Ukpabi & Karjaluoto, 2018). This is especially relevant in rural contexts, where offers may be fragmented, less visible, or harder to compare before travel. Digital tools can therefore matter not only because they modernise service delivery, but because they help visitors find, understand, verify, and use rural tourism offers under conditions of uncertainty.

However, limited attention has been paid to how different socio-demographic groups (e.g., age, place of residence) interpret the importance of digital tools, how they define competitiveness in rural tourism, and which improvements they prioritise under changing tourism conditions.

This study addresses this issue by analysing consumer evaluations of digital tools and competitiveness factors in rural tourism in Latvia, with a particular focus on socio-demographic variation and consumer-defined improvement priorities.

1.4. Research Questions

To address these issues, the study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: 

How do consumers evaluate the importance of digital tools in rural tourism enterprises, and do these evaluations differ across socio-demographic groups, particularly age groups, regions, and settlement type?

RQ2: 

What factors do consumers perceive as critical for the competitiveness of rural tourism enterprises under conditions of tourism disruption?

RQ3: 

What improvement priorities do consumers identify as necessary to enhance the accessibility, usability, and attractiveness of rural tourism services?

These research questions guide the empirical analysis of consumer evaluations of digital tools and perceived competitiveness and improvement priorities in rural tourism.

2. Theoretical and Contextual Background

2.1. Risks and Vulnerability in Tourism

Over the past decade, the global tourism industry has faced a series of interconnected shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts such as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, increasing political instability, climate change impacts, and natural disasters. Political and social instability can rapidly disrupt travel patterns, generating significant economic hardship in regions that depend heavily on tourism-related income (Parray et al., 2023). Recognizing this vulnerability, countries seeking to sustain tourism development often prioritize peace, political stability and economic security as fundamental preconditions for tourism growth.

Compared with many other economic sectors, international tourism is frequently among the first to be affected by geopolitical risks. Terrorist attacks, armed conflicts, and diplomatic tensions can immediately influence travel intentions, airline operations and cross-border mobility (Gozgor et al., 2022). These risks are closely linked to political stability, safety and security, which are central determinants of destination choice and tourism demand (Papagianni et al., 2024). Geopolitical risk is commonly defined as the threat associated with wars, terrorist acts, and tensions among states that disrupt the normal and peaceful course of international relations, capturing both the probability of such events and the risks arising from their escalation (Caldara & Iacoviello, 2022).

Bohl et al. (2017) conceptualize geopolitical risk as emerging from three interrelated structures: political, economic and environmental. Political risk reflects power competition and conflict between actors, including violent interstate confrontations; economic risk arises from market dynamics such as financial shocks and sectoral crises; while environmental risk is linked to changes in the non-human environment, including climate-change-induced disasters (Bohl et al., 2017). Given tourism’s reliance on stable international relations and cooperative cross-border flows, restrictions and deteriorating geopolitical conditions can disrupt the interdependence between tourism demand and supply (Khalid et al., 2024). Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that heightened geopolitical tensions exert a persistent negative effect on tourism demand and inbound tourist flows (Papagianni et al., 2024; Xie, 2023), shaping travelers’ risk perceptions and decision-making processes (Grigoriadis et al., 2025).

In assessing security conditions, tourists may rely on travel warnings issued by their home countries’ foreign ministries (BMZ, 2024). Safety and security have therefore become important elements of destination image and travel decision-making. Previous research also indicates that perceived risk may negatively affect tourism-related attitudes, while trust can support more positive evaluations and behavioural intentions under uncertain conditions (Zhou et al., 2022). Tourists’ perceptions of personal safety and destination security influence travel intentions, while proactive attention to safety can support the resilience and attractiveness of tourism destinations (Parray et al., 2023; Kaszas & Keller, 2022).

Information search is a fundamental component of tourists’ decision-making processes, as travelers rely on both internal knowledge and external information sources when selecting destinations (Jacobsen & Munar, 2012). In this context, access to timely and reliable information becomes an important factor supporting decision-making under uncertain conditions. The development of digital information infrastructures enables tourists to better understand available options and adjust travel plans accordingly (Wang & Wang, 2022).

2.2. Rural Tourism Development Under Structural Constraints

Tourism plays a crucial role in regional economies, with economic impact analyses highlighting its influence on public planning, destination marketing and development strategies (Pole et al., 2025). Tourism is frequently regarded as a vehicle for the development of peripheral and rural regions due to the place-based nature of tourism attractions and resources (Makkonen & Williams, 2024). Rural and regional tourism also enables a more spatially balanced distribution of tourism-related benefits across national territories (Lusena-Ezera et al., 2023).

However, rural tourism development is shaped by complex interactions between economic, social, cultural and institutional factors. Because tourism services represent bundles of goods and experiences that vary according to tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics, length of stay, motivation and travel behaviour, even small fluctuations in tourist flows can have disproportionate economic and social impacts in rural areas (Hailemariam & Ivanovski, 2021). Numerous models have been developed to explain the success or failure of rural tourism development based on supply, demand and motivational drivers; nevertheless, rural destinations remain structurally more vulnerable to shocks due to limited infrastructure, restricted access to capital and labour, and higher seasonality (Streimikiene & Bilan, 2015).

Crisis situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical instability have intensified these vulnerabilities. Rural tourism enterprises and communities reliant on tourism-based livelihoods faced abrupt income losses, workforce shortages and heightened uncertainty (Lieberthal et al., 2024). Tourism smallholders are therefore particularly exposed to livelihood risks under crisis conditions (Yu et al., 2023). Evidence from regional business studies indicates that abrupt declines in leisure tourist flows, combined with inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions, created significant operational challenges for small tourism enterprises, even when complete business closure was avoided (Tomej et al., 2023).

In many countries, rural areas face structural disadvantages compared with urban areas, including lower productivity, weaker labour markets, demographic decline, and more limited infrastructure, all of which also affect tourism development (Liu et al., 2023). From a sociocultural perspective, rural areas are also associated with distinctive social and cultural environments and ways of perceiving place (Dai et al., 2023). Understanding these broader rural conditions is important for assessing the role of tourism in rural development. Among the instruments and strategies promoting rural tourism development, smart specialization strategies are viewed as important mechanisms for stimulating regional innovation. Based on local heritage and resources, rural communities and territories may become areas of innovation through both social and digital initiatives (Bravaglieri et al., 2025). However, as a specific case of peripheral regions, border regions can remain problematic sites for tourism development from the perspective of innovation and competitiveness (Makkonen & Williams, 2024).

In this context, rural tourism is valued for its capacity to support local income and employment, disperse tourism demand across territories and seasons, and create development opportunities beyond major urban centres (UN Tourism, 2023).

The following subsection provides the Latvia-specific context relevant for interpreting rural tourism competitiveness under conditions of tourism disruption.

2.3. Latvian Context: Tourism Flows, Regional Disparities and Rural Tourism Conditions

2.3.1. Tourism Flows and Recovery in Latvia

The Ministry of Economics has identified tourism as a significant driver of economic development in Latvia, an important source of export revenue, and a contributor to GDP. At the same time, strong dependence on the sector increases exposure to negative demand shocks (Jurkane, 2021). Tourism directly contributed 4.8% of Latvia’s GDP in 2019. After the pandemic, total tourism spending fell by 73% from 2019 to EUR 145.4 million in 2020 and remained stable at EUR 145.5 million in 2021; employment in tourism-related industries decreased from 8.3% in 2019 to 7.1% in 2021 (OECD, 2022).

Latvia’s tourism sector is characterised by pronounced spatial and temporal fluctuations in tourist flows. Figure 1 illustrates the number of tourists accommodated in hotels and other tourist accommodation establishments in Latvia between 2011 and 2024, covering the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the broader geopolitical consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

According to the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, accommodation services in Latvia were used by 1.6 million foreign travelers in 2024, which was 14.3% more than in 2023, although still 18.4% below the pre-pandemic level of 2019 (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025c). Recovery from COVID-19 was gradual and was further affected by the broader consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; at the same time, the inflow of Ukrainian refugees was recorded in official statistics as inbound visitors, which partially inflated the reported tourism figures. Although the formerly large flow of Russian tourists has significantly decreased, this decline has been partly offset by arrivals from neighbouring and other European countries (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025c; Van der Steina et al., 2023).

At the same time, domestic tourism remains an important part of tourism mobility in Latvia. In 2024, Latvian residents made 3.1 million overnight trips within Latvia; 60.3% of these trips were for visiting relatives and friends and 32.3% for leisure, indicating the continued importance of regional and nature-based travel within the country (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025b).

The regional distribution of domestic overnight trips also points to the importance of non-capital destinations, with Pierīga accounting for 24.6% of overnight domestic trips, followed by Kurzeme (19.7%), Latgale (19.0%), Vidzeme (17.4%), and Zemgale (9.5%) (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025b). Complementing this pattern, data on accommodation nights reserved through online platforms show that 75.4% of guest nights in 2024 were booked by foreign visitors and 24.6% by domestic visitors; regionally, these nights were concentrated primarily in Riga (55.2%), followed by Kurzeme (18.8%) and Pierīga (16.8%) (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025a).

At the same time, tourism activity in Latvia remains spatially concentrated, with a large share of visitors staying in the capital region, while rural areas continue to face structural demographic and economic challenges (Van der Steina et al., 2023; Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2025c).

A recent study in Latvia also indicates that the geopolitical context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has had limited influence on incoming tourists’ perceptions of Latvia as a travel destination, with most respondents reporting that they feel safe travelling to Latvia (Pole et al., 2025).

2.3.2. Regional Disparities and Rural Tourism Conditions

Latvia is divided into five statistical regions—Riga, Vidzeme, Kurzeme, Zemgale and Latgale—which coincide with the planning regions of the country (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2024).

Latvia exhibits pronounced regional inequalities in tourism activity. More than half of the country’s population is concentrated in Riga and its surrounding municipalities, which creates challenges for strategic and spatial planning on national, regional, and local scales (Akmentina, 2023). Although Latvia’s regions have been promoted in foreign markets, approximately 74% of overnight stays by foreign guests remain concentrated in Riga (Van der Steina et al., 2023). Statistical data therefore indicate marked regional disparities in tourism flows (Figure 2).

Research from Jurkane (2021) points to several continuing challenges in regional tourism development, including infrastructure constraints, difficulties in attracting finance for small businesses, reduced inflows of foreign tourists, a decreasing number of guests served in accommodation establishments, and the inability of tourism enterprises to ensure continuous economic activity. At the same time, the COVID-19 period also contributed to an increase in domestic tourism, which partly supported tourism activity outside the capital region (Jurkane, 2021).

In Latvia, the attractiveness of rural tourism is closely linked to rural landscapes, traditional farmsteads, and the cultural meaning of countryside space, which function not only as part of local quality of life but also as a pull factor for visitors, reflecting the symbolic and experiential value of the Latvian countryside, including landscape harmony and perceptions of authenticity (Klepers & Druva-Druvaskalne, 2020). Overall, the Latvian tourism context is characterised by sensitivity to external shocks, strong regional concentration in inbound tourism, and the continued importance of domestic mobility for regional and rural tourism activity. These features provide the contextual background for analysing consumer perceptions of digital tools and competitiveness in rural tourism.

2.4. Digital Tools and Competitiveness in Rural Tourism

Digital tools increasingly play an important role in shaping how tourism offers are discovered, evaluated, and used in digitalised tourism environments. In this study, they are conceptualised as mechanisms that influence rural tourism competitiveness through consumer perceptions.

Digitalisation can be understood as a set of sociotechnical processes through which technologies are adopted at individual, organisational, and societal levels (Polukhina et al., 2025). It can also be understood as an ongoing transformation process rather than a one-off technological upgrade, requiring enterprises to recognize and use the innovative potential of digital tools in changing market conditions (Kumar & Shekhar, 2020). In tourism, such transformation may expand market reach and improve the ability of enterprises to remain competitive in increasingly digital and globalised environments (Akhtar et al., 2021; Fraccastoro et al., 2021).

In tourism, this changes how visitors perceive and access services (Chamboko-Mpotaringa & Tichaawa, 2021), and it also reflects growing preferences for online solutions in time-constrained everyday routines (Raga, 2020). As a result, demand for more personalised choice and booking experiences has increased, requiring enterprises to identify customer preferences with greater precision. This is particularly relevant in tourism, where digital tools support not only transactions but also the collection and interpretation of customer preferences, enabling more tailored communication and service design (Zhang, 2023). At the same time, travel-planning expectations differ across age groups in terms of destination choice, purpose, and timing, making audience needs a key consideration in marketing and communication (Starcevic & Konjikusic, 2018).

Digital channels also shape how travelers search for information and use peer content such as reviews, influencing how they evaluate tourism offers and form trust online (Xiang et al., 2015; Ukpabi & Karjaluoto, 2018). Earlier tourism research has likewise shown that information search is closely related to uncertainty avoidance and influences subsequent travel planning and purchase decisions (Money & Crotts, 2003). Research on tourism risk and safety also suggests that trust in information sources and perceived risk can shape travel-related decision-making in different informational contexts (Lečić et al., 2025). A similar mechanism is reflected in tourism technology-acceptance research, where perceived ease of use supports perceived usefulness, and perceived usefulness together with trust influences online booking intention (Chouykaew et al., 2024).

Research also shows that tourists rely on different information sources at different stages of the travel experience, which means that the value of digital tools depends not only on their availability but also on their function within the customer journey (Fernández-Cavia et al., 2020). In this context, access to timely and reliable information becomes an important factor supporting decision-making under uncertain conditions. The development of digital information infrastructures enables tourists to better understand available options and adjust travel plans accordingly (Wang & Wang, 2022). This becomes especially relevant in crisis contexts, where digital platforms can help maintain continuity and make planning easier in customer decision-making—for example through online booking and payments, digital information provision, and virtual previews, often complemented by hybrid approaches that preserve personal communication (Bondarenko et al., 2025).

From a competitiveness perspective, digital technologies may enhance tourism performance by improving service quality and enabling experience-oriented offerings, while strengthening customer engagement and satisfaction (Wei et al., 2019). However, tourism competitiveness has no single definition or universal measurement approach; it is typically treated as a multidimensional concept that depends on context-specific determinants and destination characteristics. In rural tourism contexts, this multidimensionality is especially important, because competitiveness depends not only on the attractiveness of the offer itself but also on accessibility, infrastructure, information availability, governance conditions, and the ability to respond to structural constraints typical of peripheral areas (Crouch & Ritchie, 2003; Neumeier & Pollermann, 2014; Dumitru & Cosma, 2023).

Within this literature, digitalisation is often described as a potential source of competitive advantage, linked to resilience, efficiency gains, innovation, and more effective marketing (Marakova et al., 2025). Similar conclusions appear in recent tourism-focused reviews, where digital technologies are associated with both experience improvement and competitiveness-related outcomes (Bekele & Raj, 2025). More generally, digital innovation enables new ways of organising services, connecting actors through platforms and ecosystems, and continuously adapting business models, creating both new opportunities and managerial challenges for tourism enterprises (Bogers et al., 2022).

In rural tourism, competitiveness is commonly linked to the ability of enterprises and destinations to attract and satisfy visitors (Crouch & Ritchie, 2003) while also adapting to changing conditions despite typical structural constraints of peripheral areas (Neumeier & Pollermann, 2014). At the same time, limited or unreliable connectivity in rural and remote locations can restrict the adoption of digital services (Thomas, 2024). In this setting, the visitor’s ability to find, understand, and trust the offer becomes particularly important (Xiang et al., 2015). When digital technologies are applied across business processes in ways that support customer value creation and experience improvement, they can strengthen enterprises’ capacity to adjust under uncertainty and shifting market conditions (Verhoef et al., 2021). Finally, the ability to assess and monitor competitiveness remains a precondition for sustainable rural tourism development (Dumitru & Cosma, 2023).

Based on the literature discussed in this section, the following section presents the conceptual framework guiding the empirical analysis of consumer perceptions of digital tools and rural tourism competitiveness.

2.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Building on the literature on tourism digitalisation, consumer behaviour, information search, perceived risk, trust in digital environments, rural tourism competitiveness, and conditions of tourism disruption, this study develops a conceptual framework explaining how digital tools influence the competitiveness of rural tourism enterprises in contexts characterised by conditions of tourism disruption.

In this framework, conditions of tourism disruption—such as pandemics, geopolitical instability, and other crisis situations—are interpreted as broader contextual conditions that may increase uncertainty, perceived risk, and information asymmetry in travel decision-making. Research on tourism risk and safety suggests that tourist behaviour under uncertainty is shaped not only by perceived risk, but also by trust in information sources and broader informational contexts (Lečić et al., 2025). Under such circumstances, consumers rely more strongly on accessible, reliable, and transparent information when evaluating tourism offers. This is also consistent with tourism research showing that uncertainty is linked to information search and to subsequent planning and purchase behaviour in travel decisions (Money & Crotts, 2003).

Digital tools are conceptualised as intermediary mechanisms that reduce informational uncertainty and information asymmetry and support different stages of the tourism travel decision and service use process. More broadly, technologies can be understood as mediating how users access and interpret information (Verbeek, 2006). In this study, digitalisation in tourism is interpreted through two interrelated dimensions. The first dimension concerns digital presence and online visibility, which enable potential visitors to discover and evaluate tourism offers in digital information environments. This includes tools such as websites, social media, and online review platforms that influence the discoverability and perceived credibility of tourism services. The second dimension refers to functional digital solutions that support travel planning and service use. These include tools such as online booking and payment systems, digital maps and guides, QR-code-based information, and virtual tours that facilitate information access, booking, and on-site experience.

Together, these digital tools influence consumer perceptions of accessibility, information availability, convenience, trust, and perceived risk. They also affect the perceived usefulness of tourism offers and the ease with which these offers can be evaluated in digital environments.

These perceptions in turn shape the perceived competitiveness of tourism enterprises, including those operating in rural tourism contexts, by influencing how easily tourism offers can be discovered, evaluated, and selected in digital information environments under conditions of uncertainty.

Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual framework linking conditions of tourism disruption, digital tools, consumer perceptions, and rural tourism enterprise competitiveness.

The conceptual framework therefore interprets digital tools as intermediary mechanisms linking conditions of tourism disruption with rural tourism competitiveness through consumer perceptions, particularly through accessibility, information availability, trust, perceived risk, and evaluation of tourism offer under uncertainty. This framework guides the empirical analysis presented in the following sections.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study uses a mixed-methods design to examine consumer perceptions, expectations, and priorities related to digital tools in rural tourism enterprises under conditions of tourism disruption. The study adopts an exploratory design focused on consumer evaluations and perceived competitiveness dimensions. The methodological approach combines: (i) a review of academic literature and secondary data on tourism flows and Latvia’s disruption context (2011–2024); (ii) quantitative analysis of a CATI survey conducted from February to April 2025 (N = 1004); and (iii) inductive thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010; Braun & Clarke, 2021).

3.2. Survey Design and Data Collection

Primary data were collected via a structured CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) survey administered in Latvia. CATI was selected as an appropriate survey mode for achieving broad territorial and socio-demographic coverage across Latvia, including respondent groups that may be less reachable through online-only surveys. Given the focus of the study on consumer perceptions, the method was used to capture population-level evaluations of digital tools in rural tourism rather than direct observation of actual digital behaviour during a tourism experience. Accordingly, the survey captures perceived importance and evaluations of digital tools rather than observed usage behaviour. Prior to the main data collection, a pilot study was conducted with 30 respondents from different regions to test question clarity, scale suitability, and content validity. Based on the pilot results, several items were refined to improve the reliability and clarity of the survey instrument. The sample was designed to achieve broad coverage across age groups, statistical regions, and settlement types. In total, 1004 valid responses were obtained. The respondents represent adult residents of Latvia approached from a consumer perspective, that is, as potential or actual users of rural tourism services and not only as recent rural tourism visitors.

The questionnaire included:

• Socio-demographic variables (age group, region, settlement type);
• Closed-ended items on perceptions of digital tools in rural tourism enterprises measured using Likert-type scales (Likert, 1932);
• Behavioural and attitudinal indicators (including perceived importance of digitalisation);
• Open-ended questions on digitalisation, competitiveness, and desired improvements in rural tourism.

The survey items were constructed for the purposes of this study on the basis of the research questions, the conceptual framework, and the reviewed literature. They were not adopted as a single validated scale, because the study combined several analytically distinct dimensions, including perceived importance of digital tools, evaluations of current use, and open-ended views on competitiveness and improvement priorities. The pilot study was used to refine item wording, improve clarity, and assess content suitability.

3.3. Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics (v. 30). In line with the exploratory design of the study, the quantitative analysis relied on descriptive and bivariate techniques to identify response patterns and associations across socio-demographic groups. These methods were used to examine distributional patterns and group differences, but not to test causal relationships or to validate structural relationships between constructs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise respondent characteristics and response patterns. Associations between socio-demographic variables and perceptions of digital tools were examined using cross-tabulations and Pearson’s chi-square tests for categorical variables. For ordinal variables, Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated; Pearson correlations were additionally reported where appropriate for comparability with prior studies (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2019). In interpreting the quantitative results, particular attention was paid to the distinction between statistical significance and effect size.

3.4. Qualitative Analysis

Open-ended survey responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, which is suitable for identifying recurring patterns in meanings and expectations without imposing predefined categories (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The analysis involved repeated reading of responses, initial coding of recurring ideas, grouping of related codes into broader categories, and iterative refinement of higher-order themes. Because individual responses often covered more than one issue, responses could contribute to multiple themes (Nowell et al., 2017). The coding resulted in fourteen competitiveness dimensions: digital presence and online visibility; innovation, digital tools and smart solutions; marketing and promotion without explicit digital reference; price and affordability; market access and demand conditions; service quality and experience; infrastructure and physical accessibility; diversity of tourism offer and uniqueness; sustainability and environmental aspects; state and institutional support and policy; skills, education and knowledge; cooperation and networks; labour constraints; and demographic constraints.

Data Inclusion and Handling of Non-Substantive Responses

While all 1004 respondents completed the survey, not all provided substantive answers to the open-ended questions. Responses containing no meaningful content were excluded from the thematic analysis (e.g., “x”, “–”, “I don’t know”, “no opinion”, “hard to say”). The quantitative analysis retains N = 1004.

To avoid attributing digital meaning where it was not explicitly stated, the analysis distinguished between: (i) statements about online presence/visibility (e.g., being discoverable online, website/social media presence); (ii) statements about functional digital tools (e.g., online booking, payments, digital information); and (iii) statements about marketing or promotion without explicit reference to digital elements. This distinction was applied consistently throughout coding in order to avoid overinterpreting general promotion or information-related statements as inherently digital.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Respondents received information about the study purpose, data use, and their right to withdraw at any time. No personally identifiable data were collected, and results are reported only in aggregate, following established ethical standards in social science and tourism research (Bryman, 2016). The quantitative part of the dataset is published in the research data repository Dataverse.lv (Zeverte-Rivza et al., 2025).

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The sample comprised 1004 respondents across all regions of Latvia: Riga (n = 329), Pierīga (n = 222), Vidzeme (n = 83), Kurzeme (n = 122), Zemgale (n = 115), and Latgale (n = 133). By settlement type, respondents were from Riga city (n = 329), other urban areas (n = 374), and rural areas (n = 301). Age distribution was: 18–24 (9.5%, n = 95), 25–34 (14.9%, n = 150), 35–44 (21.6%, n = 217), 45–54 (18.8%, n = 189), 55–64 (18.9%, n = 190), and 65–74 (16.2%, n = 163).

4.2. Age-Related Differences in Perceived Importance of Digital Tools in Rural Tourism

4.2.1. Perceived Use of Advanced Digital Solutions in Rural Tourism Enterprises

Respondents evaluated the statement that rural tourism enterprises use the latest digital opportunities. Overall, evaluations were moderately positive: 79.1% of respondents agreed or rather agreed (27.8% and 51.3%, respectively), while 15.4% rather disagreed, 2.0% disagreed, and 3.5% selected “hard to say”.

Response distributions differed across age groups. Respondents aged 18–24 showed a lower share of full agreement (8.4%) and a higher share of “rather disagree” responses (21.1%), whereas agreement was stronger among respondents aged 45–54 and 55–64 groups (29.6% and 39.5% full agreement, respectively). Respondents aged 65–74 also evaluated digital uptake relatively positively, although with slightly higher uncertainty.

These age-group differences were statistically significant (Pearson χ² = 82.294, df = 20, p < 0.001, likelihood ratio p < 0.001). The linear-by-linear association was also significant (p = 0.021). However, the effect size was weak (Pearson’s r = 0.073, p = 0.021; Spearman’s ρ = −0.160, p < 0.001; the sign depends on coding direction). Thus, the association is systematic but substantively limited in magnitude.

4.2.2. Perceived Importance of Technological Innovations and Digital Opportunities

Technological innovations in rural tourism (e.g., online booking, digital payments, virtual tours, and e-commerce) were rated highly across all age groups, with most responses concentrated in the upper part of the scale (8–10). At the descriptive level, younger respondents more often selected high but not maximal ratings (7–8), while respondents aged 35–54 more frequently assigned very high ratings. The oldest age groups (55–64 and 65–74) showed a more dispersed pattern.

Age-group differences were statistically significant (Pearson χ² = 88.553, p = 0.001). At the same time, neither linear-by-linear association nor correlation coefficients indicated a consistent linear age trend (Pearson r = 0.045; Spearman ρ = 0.023). This suggests that variation exists across age groups, but the overall age effect is limited and non-linear.

4.2.3. Age Differentiation Across Specific Digital Tools

A more differentiated picture emerges when specific digital tools are examined separately.

• Virtual tours showed the strongest age-related differentiation. Maximum ratings were most frequent among respondents aged 35–54, while younger and oldest respondents showed greater dispersion. The linear trend was highly significant (p < 0.001), with the strongest correlations among the analysed tools (Pearson r = 0.178; Spearman ρ = 0.271).
• Digital guides and maps also showed a significant age gradient. Respondents aged 25–44 most frequently assigned maximum importance, whereas younger and older groups displayed greater variation. The association was statistically significant (p < 0.001), with moderate correlations (Pearson r = 0.117; Spearman ρ = 0.158).
• Digital review platforms were valued across all age groups, but respondents aged 35–54 most frequently gave maximum ratings. The correlations were weak but statistically significant (Pearson r = 0.107; Spearman ρ = 0.153; both p < 0.001), indicating limited but systematic variation by age.
• Online booking and digital payments were highly valued in all age groups. Descriptively, respondents aged 35–54 most often assigned maximum importance, while older groups again showed greater dispersion. Although the linear association was significant (p = 0.003), the correlations were weak (Pearson r = 0.092; Spearman ρ = 0.095).
• QR code–based information showed a non-linear pattern. Respondents aged 25–54 generally evaluated QR-based tools positively, whereas younger and older respondents showed more fragmented assessments. Pearson’s coefficient was statistically significant (r = 0.124, p < 0.001), but Spearman’s coefficient was non-significant (ρ = 0.004, p = 0.892), indicating no clear monotonic age trend.

Table 1. Age-related strength and direction of perceived importance of digital tools in rural tourism.

Digital Solution	Linear Trend (Statistics)	Strength of Age Effect	Descriptive Summary
Virtual tours	Spearman ρ = 0.271, Pearson r = 0.178, p < 0.001	Moderately strong	Showed the strongest age-related differentiation, with higher ratings most frequently observed among respondents aged 35–54.
Digital guides & maps	Spearman ρ = 0.158, Pearson r = 0.117, p < 0.001	Moderate	Showed age-related variation, with the highest ratings more frequently observed among respondents aged 25–44.
Digital review platforms	Spearman ρ = 0.153, Pearson r = 0.107, p < 0.001	Moderate	Were evaluated positively across age groups, with higher ratings more frequently observed among respondents aged 35–54.
Online booking & digital payments	Spearman ρ = 0.095, Pearson r = 0.092, p = 0.003	Weak–moderate	Were highly valued across all age groups, with only modest age-related variation.
QR codes */e-information	Spearman ρ = 0.004 (n.s.), Pearson r = 0.124, p < 0.001	Weak/non-linear	Showed uneven evaluations across age groups, without a clear monotonic age pattern.

* While Pearson’s r indicates a statistically significant association between age and perceived importance of QR-based information tools, the near-zero Spearman correlation suggests a non-linear relationship across age groups.

summarises the main age-related patterns across digital tools.

Overall, age differences were more pronounced for information- and experience-related tools, while core transactional tools such as booking and payment showed weaker differentiation. These differences should therefore be interpreted as patterned but generally modest.

4.2.4. Perceptions of Whether Rural Tourism Enterprises Take Customer Preferences into Account

Perceptions of whether rural tourism enterprises take customer preferences into account were generally positive across all age groups. However, response patterns again differed by age: younger respondents more often selected moderate agreement categories, while older respondents more frequently chose the strongest agreement categories.

The association between age and evaluation is statistically significant (Pearson χ² = 73.470, p < 0.001). Spearman’s correlation indicates a weak relationship (ρ = −0.172, p < 0.001), suggesting a modest tendency for younger respondents to evaluate customer orientation more cautiously than older respondents.

4.3. Regional and Settlement-Type Convergence of Digital Expectations

Compared with age, differences by region and settlement type are weak and mostly non-significant. For most digital tools, including online booking, digital payments, digital guides, virtual tours, and QR-based information, Pearson chi-square tests were non-significant (p > 0.05), and correlation coefficients were very small, indicating broadly similar digital expectations across Latvia. The only partial exception was digital review platforms, for which urban respondents reported slightly higher importance; however, the effect size was small. Overall, age showed more variation than region and settlement-type within the socio-demographic factors examined in this study.

4.4. Qualitative Results: Open-Ended Responses on Competitiveness

Qualitative findings are based on responses to the open-ended question: “In your opinion, what could rural enterprises do to become more competitive?” Responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis and grouped into competitiveness dimensions, capturing both enterprise-level actions and perceived structural conditions. Because multiple themes could be identified in a single response, the reported percentages represent the share of respondents mentioning each theme and do not sum to 100%.

Table 2. Consumer-defined competitiveness dimensions derived from open-ended responses (N = 1004).

Competitiveness Dimension	Respondents (n)	% of Respondents *	Descriptive Summary	Indicative Analytical Alignment
State & institutional support and policy	186	18.5%	Taxation, bureaucracy, regulation, public support instruments and infrastructure investment.	Institutional support
Marketing and promotion (without explicit digital reference)	146	14.5%	General promotion, advertising, events, traditional media, and visibility through non-specified or non-digital channels.	Awareness/perceived attractiveness
Price and affordability	117	11.7%	Price levels, affordability and price–quality balance.	Perceived value
Innovation, digital tools & smart solutions	112	11.2%	Online booking, payments, QR-based information, digital guides, virtual tours, Wi-Fi, and automation.	Information accessibility/perceived usefulness
Diversity of offer and uniqueness	97	9.7%	Broader, more distinctive, or more varied tourism offers, activities, and experiences.	Perceived attractiveness/perceived value
Skills, education and knowledge	96	9.6%	Training, education, competences, including digital skills, and exchange of experience.	Capability conditions
Market access and demand conditions	91	9.1%	Seasonality, market size, and limits of tourism demand.	Demand conditions
Digital presence and online visibility	87	8.7%	Online visibility, accessible information, websites, social media, and platform presence.	Information accessibility/awareness
Finances	60	6.0%	Funding, liquidity, investment capacity, and financial constraints.	Capability conditions/resource capacity
Labour and demographic constraints	48	4.8%	Labour shortages, youth outmigration, ageing, and human resource limitations.	Capability conditions/structural constraints
Service quality and experience	46	4.6%	Hospitality, responsiveness, customer orientation, and service experience.	Service quality
Sustainability and environmental aspects	46	4.6%	Environmental responsibility, nature protection, and sustainable practices.	Perceived value/sustainability-related quality
Cooperation and networks	40	4.0%	Cooperation, shared platforms, partnerships, and joint offers.	Social capital
Infrastructure & physical accessibility	23	2.3%	Roads, transport access, signage, other physical access conditions and basic facilities.	Accessibility

* Multiple coding was allowed; percentages represent the share of respondents mentioning each theme.

summarises these results (N = 1004).

Although the dimensions reported in Table 2 were derived inductively from open-ended responses, they can be interpreted in relation to broader analytical constructs discussed in the literature, including perceived value, service quality, accessibility, institutional support, and social capital. In this way, the table retains the empirical coding logic of the qualitative analysis while also clarifying its conceptual relationship to established social science dimensions.

The most frequently mentioned dimension was state and institutional support and policy (n = 186; 18.5%), followed by marketing and promotion (n = 146; 14.5%), price and affordability (n = 117; 11.7%), and innovation, digital tools and smart solutions (n = 112; 11.2%). Other frequently mentioned dimensions were diversity of offer and uniqueness (n = 97; 9.7%), skills, education and knowledge (n = 96; 9.6%), market access and demand conditions (n = 91; 9.1%), and digital presence and online visibility (n = 87; 8.7%).

Digitalisation emerged as one of the consumer-defined dimensions of competitiveness. Respondents explicitly connect competitiveness with being visible, being findable, and being able to communicate and serve customers in contemporary ways. This appears in both functional digital tools and online visibility. In the category innovation, digital tools and smart solutions (n = 112; 11.2%), respondents mentioned online booking and payment options, QR-based information, digital guides and maps, virtual tours, Wi-Fi, and automation. These were described as practical tools that support access to and use of rural tourism services. This is reflected in comments such as: “Digital solutions such as virtual tours would help better understand the offer” and “QR codes and digital guides would be very useful”.

A related but analytically separate dimension concerns digital presence and online visibility. Here respondents emphasised the importance of being visible online, having accessible and up-to-date information, and maintaining a presence on social media and widely used platforms and review sites. Illustrative responses include: “Rural tourism places should provide more information online and on social media” and “If it is not possible to find the offer online, it is difficult to decide whether to visit”. These responses highlight the role of online visibility in accessing information and supporting decision-making.

Marketing and promotion without explicit reference to digital channels (n = 146; 14.5%) was described through general formulations such as “more advertising” or “promote yourselves”. These responses point to a general expectation for stronger visibility and outreach (events, local outreach, and traditional media), although the specific communication channels were often not identified. Part of this promotion discourse may implicitly include digital channels.

State and institutional support and policy (n = 186; 18.5%) was most frequently described in relation to taxation, bureaucracy, regulation, public support instruments, and infrastructure investment as conditions shaping the development possibilities of rural tourism enterprises. In many responses, these issues were framed not as secondary conditions, but as practical preconditions for improvements in pricing, marketing, service development, and digitalisation. In some responses, digitalisation, diversification, or service improvements were explicitly linked to state support or financing. For example, “Entrepreneurs need state support and training to develop digital skills” and “Without funding and knowledge, it is difficult to implement new solutions”. A closely related dimension alongside institutional support was skills, education, and knowledge (n = 96; 9.6%). Respondents mentioned training, education, digital skills, and exchange of experience, suggesting that implementation capacity is also considered important in relation to enterprise development.

Price and affordability were mentioned by 117 respondents (11.7%) and were typically expressed through a value-for-money lens. Respondents stressed the importance of price–quality alignment, affordability for local visitors, and occasional dissatisfaction when prices were perceived to exceed the quality delivered. Diversity of offer and uniqueness were mentioned by 97 respondents (9.7%), indicating that respondents associate competitiveness with a broader and more distinctive offer. This is illustrated by statements such as: “I would like to see more activities and experiences, not just accommodation” and “There should be something that others do not offer”. A differentiated offer is perceived as an adaptation mechanism under fluctuating tourism flows and seasonality, creating added value beyond accommodation. In practical terms, consumers expect more than a place to stay—additional activities and experiences, events, authenticity, niche products, and a clear distinctive feature that sets one provider apart from others.

Respondents also mentioned market access and demand conditions (n = 91; 9.1%), especially seasonality and the limited size of the domestic market, as structural constraints shaping competitiveness beyond the direct control of individual enterprises. Finances (n = 60; 6.0%) were discussed as a separate constraint related to investment capacity and liquidity. Labour and demographic constraints (n=48; 4.8%) referred mainly to labour shortages, youth outmigration, and difficulties maintaining services in rural areas. Typical comments included: “There are no people willing to work in rural areas” and “Young people leave”.

Less frequently mentioned, but still present across responses, were service quality and experience (n = 46; 4.6%), sustainability and environmental aspects (n = 46; 4.6%), cooperation and networks (n = 40; 4.0%), and infrastructure and physical accessibility (n = 23; 2.3%). In the case of service quality, respondents referred to hospitality, responsiveness, and customer orientation, for example: “It is important that the service is of high quality and customer-oriented”. Environmental aspects were associated with responsible business practice, as reflected in comments such as: “It is important that rural tourism enterprises protect the environment and nature”. Figure 4 presents the relative frequency of the competitiveness dimensions identified in the open-ended responses.

The qualitative results show that consumers define competitiveness through a combination of enterprise-level factors and broader structural conditions. Digitalisation is part of this broader competitiveness logic, but respondents most often describe it in practical terms related to accessibility, visibility, and usability rather than as innovation for its own sake.

4.5. Expected Improvements in Rural Tourism

Additional qualitative insights were drawn from the open-ended question in which respondents indicated what improvements they would like to see in rural tourism. The analysis focuses on consumer-defined priorities—namely, what visitors consider most necessary to improve so that rural tourism offers are easier to choose, trust, and use. Although the themes overlap with the previously established set of competitiveness factors, the emphasis here is forward-looking, capturing practical expectations and concrete improvement demands under conditions of volatile tourism flows. Figure 5 visualises the relative importance of improvement areas mentioned by respondents.

The most frequently mentioned theme was diversification and uniqueness of the tourism offer (n = 171; 17.0%). Respondents referred to more varied on-site activities, family-oriented options, workshops, tastings, and experiences beyond accommodation (e.g., “something unique”, “more to do once you arrive”). Several responses also referred to the need to present these offers clearly in advance.

Infrastructure and physical accessibility (n = 139; 13.8%) were also frequently mentioned, including roads, signage, parking, toilets, and public transport access. Marketing and promotion without specifying channels (n = 146; 14.5%) were expressed through general references to increased visibility and outreach.

Digital-related expectations were also prominent. Innovation, digital tools and smart solutions (n = 101; 10.1%) included references to online booking and payment options, unified platforms or databases, digital maps and guides, QR-based information, virtual tours, and usability of digital services (including internet access). Digital presence and online visibility (n = 81; 8.1%) emphasised up-to-date and trustworthy online information, modernised websites, clearer descriptions, and stronger discoverability via widely used channels (including platform presence and review visibility).

Cost-related concerns remained substantial. Price and affordability (n = 80; 8.0%) were described in terms of value-for-money expectations and the ability of local families to afford visits. Service quality and experience (n = 88; 8.8%) focused on hospitality, responsiveness, cleanliness, and comfort as conditions for satisfaction and repeat use.

Sustainability and environmental aspects (n = 71; 7.1%) appeared as norms of care—cleanliness, waste management, respect for nature, and eco-friendly practices.

State and policy support (n = 53; 5.3%) was described as an enabling condition (e.g., roads, support schemes, administrative burden). Market access and demand (n = 52; 5.2%) reflected concerns about seasonality and limited flows. Mentions of finances (n = 20; 2.0%), skills/education (n = 15; 1.5%), cooperation (n = 14; 1.4%), and labour/demographic constraints (n = 14; 1.4%) were comparatively rare in consumer suggestions. When skills and know-how were mentioned, they tended to be linked to feasibility—whether enterprises can realistically implement the improvements consumers expect.

To compare competitiveness dimensions with improvement priorities,

Table 3. Comparison of consumer-defined competitiveness dimensions and improvement priorities (N = 1004).

Competitiveness Dimension	Importance (n)	%	Expected Improvements (n)	%
Digital presence & online visibility	87	8.7%	77	7.7%
Innovation, digital tools & smart solutions	112	11.2%	98	9.8%
Marketing & promotion (offline/non-digital)	146	14.6%	137	13.7%
Price & affordability	117	11.7%	73	7.3%
Market access & demand	91	9.1%	45	4.5%
Service quality & experience	46	4.6%	84	8.4%
Infrastructure & physical accessibility	23	2.3%	131	13.1%
Diversity of offer & uniqueness	97	9.7%	168	16.7%
Sustainability & environment	46	4.6%	67	6.7%
State & institutional support & policy	186	18.6%	50	5.0%
Finances	60	6.0%	16	1.6%
Skills, education & knowledge	96	9.6%	15	1.5%
Cooperation & networks	41	4.1%	13	1.3%
Labour & demographic constraints	48	4.8%	13	1.3%

presents the frequency of each dimension across both open-ended questions.

The comparison shows that dimensions such as diversity of offer and infrastructure were more frequently mentioned in relation to improvements, while state support, skills, finances, and labour constraints were mentioned less frequently in this context. Digital tools and promotion showed similar frequencies across both questions.

When respondents described competitiveness in general, they most frequently referred to state and institutional support (18.6%), promotion (14.6%), price and affordability (11.7%), and innovation, digital tools and smart solutions (11.2%).

When asked what should be improved in practice, respondents more frequently mentioned diversity of offer and uniqueness (from 9.7% to 16.7%) and infrastructure and physical accessibility (from 2.3% to 13.1%). Mentions of service quality and experience also increased (from 4.6% to 8.4%).

In contrast, institutional support (18.6% to 5.0%), skills (9.6% to 1.5%), finances (6.0% to 1.6%), labour constraints (4.8% to 1.3%), and market access and demand (9.1% to 4.5%) were mentioned less frequently in relation to concrete improvements. Digital presence and online visibility (8.7% vs. 7.7%), innovation, digital tools and smart solutions (11.2% vs. 9.8%), and marketing and promotion (offline/non-digital) (14.6% vs. 13.7%) showed smaller differences between the two questions.

5. Discussion

This section interprets the empirical findings in relation to the conceptual framework and the broader literature on tourism digitalisation, rural tourism competitiveness, and tourism resilience under conditions of tourism disruption. Rather than repeating the empirical results, the discussion focuses on explaining how consumer perceptions of digital tools relate to rural tourism competitiveness within a broader set of structural and institutional conditions.

5.1. Digital Tools as Visibility and Functional Mechanisms in the Consumer Travel Journey

A central contribution of this study is that consumers frame digitalisation primarily through its practical role in the travel journey rather than as innovation for its own sake. This perspective complements existing research that often examines digitalisation primarily from the enterprise adoption perspective. Respondents frequently frame digitalisation as a basic expectation of contemporary tourism services rather than as an optional innovation. Frequently mentioned examples include online booking and payments, digital guides and maps, QR-based information, unified platforms, reliable Wi-Fi, and pre-visit visualisation tools such as virtual tours.

These findings suggest that digitalisation may help stabilise demand under conditions of tourism disruption by reducing information asymmetry and facilitating planning under uncertainty. In this sense, digital tools are valued insofar as they make rural tourism offers easier to understand, compare, and verify before arrival. Prior research similarly highlights that virtual tours and other digital interfaces enhance pre-visit understanding and engagement by improving information clarity and usability (Beták et al., 2023; Shikhri & Lanir, 2024).

In this context, digital touchpoints function not merely as technological add-ons, but as signals of accessibility and reliability that influence destination image formation and trust in online environments (Xiang et al., 2015). This interpretation aligns with previous research emphasising that online information quality and digital interfaces function as trust-building signals in tourism decision-making environments. Under volatile travel conditions, such signals become particularly important for supporting informed travel planning and destination evaluation. These findings correspond to the conceptual framework proposed in this study. Under conditions of tourism disruption, digital tools function as intermediary mechanisms that help reduce informational uncertainty and support travel planning. Through this mechanism, digital interfaces shape consumer perceptions of accessibility, convenience and trust, which in turn influence the perceived competitiveness of rural tourism enterprises.

In this sense, digital interfaces can also be interpreted as elements that support accessibility, visibility, and trust under unstable tourism conditions, while remaining connected to broader structural factors shaping rural tourism competitiveness.

5.2. Digital Visibility and the Role of Promotion in Rural Tourism Competitiveness

The open-ended results reveal both a methodological and substantive distinction: respondents frequently request “more promotion” without specifying channels, whereas explicit references to online visibility appear less often. Given that unspecified promotion cannot automatically be interpreted as digital, it was coded separately; however, analytically, part of this discourse partially overlaps with online visibility.

This pattern reflects the broader transformation of tourism communication, where destination choice is increasingly shaped by digitally mediated exposure and user-generated content (Christou et al., 2025). From a consumer decision-making perspective, the relationship appears sequential: visibility mechanisms attract attention, while functional digital tools enhance usability and reduce perceived risk, facilitating the transition from interest to actual choice. Although respondents rarely explicitly mention specific social media platforms in the competitiveness question, references to online visibility and discoverability implicitly reflect the growing importance of social media environments in tourism information search.

5.3. Institutional Support and Skills in Shaping Competitiveness

Consumers frame competitiveness as systemically conditioned. Institutional support and policy-related issues (taxation, bureaucracy, regulation, support instruments) dominate the competitiveness question, indicating that respondents evaluate enterprise performance within broader enabling environments. This aligns with arguments that digital adoption is not solely an enterprise-level decision but is shaped by institutional frameworks, regional ecosystems, and knowledge diffusion processes (OECD, 2020).

The frequent linkage between institutional conditions and skills suggests a two-level feasibility logic: supportive policy environments are insufficient without internal competences, while skills alone cannot compensate for structural constraints such as administrative burden or infrastructure gaps. Similar multi-dimensional implementation challenges are noted in recent reviews of rural tourism digital transformation (Haryono et al., 2025). Competitiveness is thus perceived as dependent on both external enabling conditions and internal capacity.

5.4. Experience, Value and Structural Conditions of Rural Tourism Competitiveness

A richer and more diversified tourism offer is perceived as a strategy to mitigate seasonality and demand volatility, while service quality anchors long-term visitor satisfaction and loyalty. Respondents frequently emphasise the importance of unique and diversified tourism offers, including new activities, experiences, and locally distinctive services that can attract visitors and differentiate rural tourism destinations. In this context, digital tools appear primarily as supporting mechanisms rather than as primary competitiveness drivers. They can help communicate value more clearly and reduce the gap between visitor expectations and actual experience, thereby influencing post-visit evaluations and online reviews (Christou et al., 2025).

Price and affordability feature prominently in the competitiveness framing and remain present in improvement expectations, typically as value-for-money rather than simple “cheapness”. Respondents often connect price concerns to perceived cost pressure and comparisons with neighbouring markets, consistent with the idea that competitiveness is shaped by both enterprise choices and broader structural constraints.

At the same time, improvement priorities indicate that competitiveness is not reducible to pricing alone. When asked to specify concrete improvements, service quality and visitor experience gain prominence, suggesting that competitiveness is sustained not only through pricing but also through reputation and repeat visitation. In consumer logic, visibility attracts attention, functional digital tools enable selection, but the delivered experience ultimately determines retention.

Infrastructure and physical accessibility emerge as highly salient competitiveness prerequisites. Roads, signage, transport access, parking, and public facilities are described as foundational conditions that often exceed the control of individual enterprises and therefore intersect with institutional responsibilities. This reinforces the interpretation of rural competitiveness as a multi-level outcome shaped by both enterprise-level action and public-sector support.

Respondents also highlight structural and demographic constraints specific to the Latvian rural context, including labour shortages, youth outmigration, ageing populations, and limited capacity to offer competitive wages. These factors are framed as systemic risks shaping long-term competitiveness rather than short-term operational adjustments.

Sustainability-related expectations appear less prominently in direct competitiveness evaluations but emerge as normative quality considerations in improvement expectations, suggesting that environmental responsibility is increasingly treated by consumers as a baseline condition rather than a distinctive competitiveness factor.

5.5. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence in Understanding Rural Tourism Competitiveness

The quantitative results indicate that age is the socio-demographic factor showing the clearest variation in the perceived importance of several digital tools, although these differences are generally modest in magnitude, while the qualitative responses reveal broadly shared expectations regarding the availability and accessibility of digital tourism information and services.

The mixed-methods design helps clarify not only what consumers expect from digital tools, but also how these expectations vary across social groups. In relation to the conceptual framework, the results confirm that digital tools influence competitiveness primarily through consumer perceptions rather than through purely technological characteristics. The quantitative analysis shows that age produced the clearest variation across the socio-demographic variables examined, whereas region and settlement-type effects remain weak. This complements the thematic findings: consumers broadly converge on digitalisation as functional usability, yet evaluations of experience-oriented tools (e.g., virtual tours) are more differentiated across age groups. This pattern is consistent with prior research showing that travel-planning expectations and digital behaviour vary across age groups, influencing destination choice, information search, and booking preferences (Starcevic & Konjikusic, 2018).

Overall, the findings suggest that the competitive value of digital tools lies not primarily in technological sophistication but in their capacity to reduce uncertainty, support decision-making, and enhance the accessibility of rural tourism offers, while remaining embedded in broader structural and institutional conditions.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Conclusions

The findings provide empirical support for the conceptual framework proposed in this study, which conceptualises digital tools as intermediary mechanisms linking conditions of tourism disruption to rural tourism competitiveness through consumer perceptions.

This study examined how consumers evaluate digital tools in rural tourism and how these tools relate to perceived competitiveness under conditions of tourism disruption. By combining quantitative survey analysis with qualitative consumer perspectives, the research provides new empirical insight into how digitalisation is interpreted within rural tourism systems in Latvia.

The findings indicate that digital tools are widely perceived as one important element of rural tourism competitiveness. Consumers associate digitalisation primarily with practical usability and accessibility rather than with technological novelty. Tools such as online booking and payment systems, digital maps and guides, review platforms, QR-based information, and virtual tours are valued because they make tourism offers easier to find, understand, and use. In this sense, digital tools contribute to competitiveness mainly by reducing informational uncertainty and supporting travel decision-making.

The results also demonstrate that the perceived importance of digital tools varies across age groups, while regional and settlement-type differences remain limited. Younger respondents tend to evaluate the current use of digital solutions more critically, whereas middle-aged and older respondents assign higher importance to several digital tools. Core transactional tools, particularly online booking and digital payments, are widely viewed as standard service infrastructure across all age groups, while experience-oriented tools such as virtual tours show stronger differentiation.

Qualitative responses further reveal that consumers interpret competitiveness in rural tourism within a broader structural and institutional context. Institutional support, regulatory conditions, and the availability of skills are frequently mentioned as factors shaping the ability of rural enterprises to adopt digital solutions and implement improvements. At the same time, when respondents describe concrete development priorities, emphasis shifts toward visitor-facing aspects such as diversification of the tourism offer, service quality, and physical accessibility.

Taken together, the findings support the conceptual framework proposed in this study, which positions digital tools as intermediary mechanisms linking conditions of tourism disruption to rural tourism competitiveness through consumer perceptions. Digital tools contribute to competitiveness primarily by improving the accessibility and usability of tourism information and services throughout the travel planning and service use process, while their role remains dependent on broader structural, institutional, and experiential conditions. At the same time, their effectiveness depends on complementary factors, including institutional support, enterprise capabilities, and the quality of the tourism experience itself.

More broadly, the findings highlight the growing role of digital accessibility and information transparency as relevant conditions for rural tourism competitiveness in increasingly uncertain tourism environments. As digital information environments continue to shape tourism decision processes, understanding how consumers interpret digital tools becomes increasingly important for both research and destination management.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the literature on tourism digitalisation and rural tourism competitiveness by linking digital tools with consumer perceptions under conditions of tourism disruption. It also contributes to discussions on tourism resilience. While much of the existing research focuses on technological adoption at the enterprise level, the findings highlight the importance of consumer perceptions as one mechanism through which digitalisation may relate to competitiveness outcomes.

The results suggest that consumers do not primarily evaluate digital tools as technological innovations but rather as practical mechanisms that reduce uncertainty, facilitate planning, and increase the transparency of tourism offers. This perspective extends existing discussions on tourism digitalisation by emphasising the role of digital tools in shaping consumer trust and decision-making under volatile travel conditions.

The study contributes theoretically by linking digital tools with consumer perceptions of information accessibility, trust, perceived risk, and evaluation under conditions of uncertainty, thereby connecting individual-level cognitive processes with perceived competitiveness in rural tourism.

By integrating quantitative differentiation across age groups with qualitative insights into consumer priorities, the study also demonstrates that digital expectations are socially differentiated yet broadly consistent across regions. This adds empirical nuance to discussions on rural tourism competitiveness by showing how digitalisation interacts with consumer behaviour, institutional conditions, and structural characteristics of rural tourism systems.

6.3. Managerial Implications

For rural tourism entrepreneurs and destination managers, the findings indicate that digitalisation should be understood primarily as a tool for improving accessibility, usability, and information transparency rather than as an end in itself. Ensuring that tourism offers are clearly presented, easily discoverable online, and supported by reliable booking and payment options appears particularly important for strengthening consumer confidence.

At the same time, the results show that digital tools alone are insufficient to ensure competitiveness. Consumers place strong emphasis on diversified and distinctive tourism experiences, service quality, and convenient physical access. Consequently, effective competitiveness strategies should combine functional digital solutions with experience-oriented offer development and clear value communication.

6.4. Policy Implications

From a policy perspective, the findings indicate that digitalisation and competitiveness in rural tourism cannot be addressed solely at the enterprise level. Consumers frequently associate the feasibility of digital adoption with broader institutional conditions, including access to funding, regulatory frameworks, and the availability of digital skills.

Public policy can therefore play an important role in supporting rural tourism competitiveness by strengthening enabling environments for digitalisation. This includes targeted financial support schemes, investments in digital and physical infrastructure, training and knowledge-transfer initiatives, and support for cooperative platforms that improve visibility and reduce individual enterprise burdens.

6.5. Limitations and Future Research

While the study provides insight into consumer perceptions of digital tools in rural tourism, it does not directly assess the digital capabilities or technological readiness of rural tourism enterprises themselves. Consequently, the analysis reflects consumer expectations rather than the observed enterprise-level feasibility of implementing these expectations. The survey data also capture perceptions rather than actual usage behaviour of digital tools, which should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. The quantitative findings should also be interpreted cautiously, as most statistically significant associations identified in the study are weak in magnitude. Given the exploratory design, the applied descriptive and bivariate techniques are suitable for identifying associations, but they do not allow causal inference or structural validation of relationships between constructs. Future research could address this gap by combining consumer surveys with enterprise-level studies, interviews with tourism entrepreneurs, or assessments of digital adoption in rural tourism businesses. Future studies could also integrate behavioural data and apply multivariate or structural modelling approaches where theoretically and empirically appropriate.

As the empirical data were collected in Latvia, the findings should be interpreted in relation to the specific institutional, geographic, and tourism system characteristics of the country. Comparative research across multiple countries, as well as enterprise-level studies, could further clarify how these patterns vary across different rural tourism contexts.