Young tourists consider that ecotourism (Figure 1) is primarily educational and respectful of nature (89.45%), takes place in nature (87.61%), is sustainable (87.15%), contributes to supporting the community (85.32), stimulates local economies (85.32%), and contributes to biodiversity conservation (79.35%).

The score obtained based on the respondents’ answers allowed to establish the hierarchy of the importance that the young tourists surveyed allow to ecotourism features as follows: 1—educational character and respect for nature; 2—the fact that ecotourism is done in nature, in fresh air and contributes to maintaining the physical and mental health; 3—it sustains rural communities as visitors turn to accommodation and meals increasing the income of the entrepreneurial inhabitants; 4—it stimulates the local economy by consuming local products that ensure the development of production of foodstuffs, traditional products, capitalizing natural resources, and labor, providing income to households and local authorities; 5—it is a sustainable form of tourism; 6—it contributes to biodiversity preservation through respect for the world of plants and animals; 7—it takes place in a lesser extent in protected areas; and 8—therefore, it has a relatively minimal impact on the natural and sociocultural environment.

The average score calculated based on 5-Point Likert scale was 1.106, and most of the scores were over this level, except ecotourism as it takes place in protected areas and minimum impact on the environment (Table 3).

In a study conducted among young tourists, Georgescu and Herman (2020) affirmed that their ecological attitude, previous pro-environment experience, and habits positively influence their behavioral intention (Stanciu, 2014). The results obtained are also confirmed by those achieved by Stanciu (2014); ecotourism allows learning and understanding of the traditions of local communities on the sustainable use of natural resources (Milićević et al., 2021; Country Facts, 2022), helping to stimulate the local economy. In Serbia, Milicevic et al. (2021) analyzed how potential young ecotourists perceive the image of domestic ecotourism destinations, and how sociodemographic characteristics and travel behavior influence the representation of the image of the destination (Nicula et al., 2018).

The most important criteria considered by young people in choosing an ecotourism destination are as follows (Figure 2): the beauty of the landscape (93.11%), possibility of performing many outdoor activities (83.94%), and hospitality of the hosts (83.94%).

Using the semantic differential, the obtained scores allowed to classify the motivations of the respondents in the decreasing order of their importance as follows: 1—the beauty of the landscapes; 2—hospitality; 3—the multitude of activities in nature; 4—biodiversity of the vegetal and animal world; 5—local gastronomy; 6—service price/quality ratio; and 7—the popularity of the area.

The general average score was 4.120, and considering this level, we may easily notice that almost all the motivations regarding the choice of an ecotourism destination registered higher scores, except the popularity of the area and the service price/quality ratio (Table 4).

This shows that young tourists want to visit especially eco-destinations with a large variety and beauty of the landscapes, where many activities could be done in nature (walking, hiking, biking, horse riding, bird and animal watching, swimming, playing with animals, taking pictures, and making video films), where one can get knowledge on the diversity of flora and fauna, and in the rural communities where the hosts are full of hospitality and offer a large range of local products and dishes.

Through the wide range of activities proposed by ecotourism, it contributes to the improvement of the environmental component of sustainable tourism. The preferences of young tourists for healthy products and local gastronomy are also confirmed by the findings of Nicula et al. (2018), who showed that in the last decade tourists have become more and more oriented toward a healthy and authentic diet (Franceschinis et al., 2021).

The results showed that it is a connection between tourists’ income and price/quality ratio of ecotourism services, 31.65% respondents affirmed that it is very important and 46.34% answered that it is important. Only 12.38% of the respondents considered that this ratio has no connection to their income. Using the 5-Point Likert scale it was obtained a score of 0.848.

The main activities that the 218 young respondents want to carry out in the ecotourism destinations, in order of preference, are both those related to nature and cultural ones (Figure 3): hiking (91.28%), tasting of traditional products (87.15%), participation in local events (84.88%), craft demonstrations (82.11%), cycling (81.19%), sports activities (78.44%), and local guided tours (77.98%). Young people are least attracted to rafting and canoeing (57.33%), respectively, fishing and hunting (55.50%). The Sibiu County Tourism Association in collaboration with the Sibiu County Council have initiated a program entitled “Hiking Years”, which aims to improve the county’s hiking infrastructure and promote specific ecotourism activities. This program regularly organizes hiking and ecotourism fairs. The administrations of ecotourism destinations in Romania, certified or in the process of certification, should consider the wishes of young people when organizing leisure activities.

Our results show that the choice of activities that can be practiced in protected areas depends on the age of the tourists, a fact confirmed by other studies. Franceschinis et al. (2021) showed that previous practice of outdoor activities inside protected areas and sociodemographic data have a major contribution in choosing the type of activity (Dorobantu and Nistoreanu, 2012).

The average score calculated based on the 5-Point Likert scale for all the 16 activities possible to be done by young tourists in an ecotourism destination was 1.041. A total of 16 activities recorded a higher score reflecting their importance and, in the decreasing order, they are the following: 1—hiking, 2—tasting traditional local cuisine, 3—participating in local events (feasts, weddings, baptisms, folk dances, etc.); 4—cycling to visit the zone, 5—learning crafts and participating in demonstrations in workshops, 6—carrying out sports activities, 7—local tours, 8—fauna watching; 9—photo tours, 10—taking part to folk evenings, 11—flora observation, 12—horse riding, 13—participation in agricultural activities (cows, ewes, and goats milking; fruit and vegetable harvesting; collecting eggs; and feeding calves, piglets, and other animals), 14—climbing the hills and mountains in the area, 15—rafting and canoeing, and 16—fishing and hunting (Table 5).

The sustainable development of tourism requires the application of ecological thinking (IBM, 2022). When choosing a holiday destination, young people focus on the following criteria: the possibility of recreational activities (93.57%), food (93.57%), and accommodation (93.11%) (Figure 4).

The criteria that determine the young tourists to spend their holidays in an ecotourism destination, based on the score achieved by using the 5-Point Likert scale, in their descending order, are as following: 1—recreational activities, 2—food, and 3—accommodation; these three criteria being the most important ones as they achieved scores over the average one (1.432). They are followed by: 4—local products and 5—tourist programs, which registered scores below the average level of the group of criteria (Table 6).

As other authors point out, the sustainable development of tourism requires the application of ecological thinking (Sima, 2017) in relation to all categories of tourism services.

The young people questioned in this survey know well the ecotourism destinations in Romania and the activity of the Romanian Ecotourism Association that promotes these destinations. According to young people, the most popular ecotourism destinations are Danube Delta (86.70%) and Mărginimea Sibiului (78.89%) (Figure 5).

Based on the score obtained using the semantic differential, the decreasing order of the top 10 ecotourism destinations in Romania, in the opinion of the young tourists surveyed, is as following: 1—the Danube Delta, 2—Marginimea Sibiului, and 3—Eco Maramures; these three zones achieved a score over the average one (3.549).

They are followed by 4—Tara Dornelor (Dorna Land), 5—Baile Tusnad (Tusnad Baths) and surroundings, 6—Tinutul Zimbrului (Bison land) Vanatori Neamt, 7—Transylvania Hills, 8—Zarnesti–Padurea Craiului (The forest of the King), 9—Cheile Nerei (Nera Gorge), and 10—Tara Hategului (Hateg Land)–Retezat (Table 7).

Our results show that the Danube Delta is the most famous ecotourism destination for young people. This one is part of the Dobrogea region, famous for other protected areas, such as Razim–Sinoe lagoon complex, Măcin Mountains National Park, and North Dobrogea Plateau (Thompson and Arowosafe, 2020). Similar to Thompson and Arowosafe (2020), at the local level, there is a need for good collaboration between the public and private sectors for the promotion and management of ecotourism destinations (Tisca et al., 2016). Tisca et al. (2016) emphasized the need to focus on service quality (Stoleriu et al., 2019). Stoleriu et al. (2019) reviewed the comments posted by tourists on Tripadvisor after visiting the Danube Delta, pointing out that the reviews relate to contact with nature and wildlife, their experiences being mostly passive, predominantly visual (Vinerean et al., 2021).

Hypothesis 2:

During the COVID 12 pandemic (2020–2021) young people visited local ecotourism destinations several times

During their undergraduate and/or master’s studies, students spend between 4 and 6 years in Sibiu County, and this offered them the opportunity to visit the most famous holiday destinations in the surroundings of Sibiu. The answers received regarding their visit in the last 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (Liu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022; Mamirkulova and Mi, 2022) (Figure 6) show that, even during this period, the young people traveled. In a study published in 2021, Vinerean et al. (2021) reported a decrease in the number of tourists from Sibiu to 59.23% in 2020 compared to 2019 (Dumitras et al., 2017). The most visited tourist destinations by young people in the last 2 years were Păltiniș Resort (80.73%), Trasfăgărășanul (74.31%), Mărginimea Sibiului (72.94%), Bâlea Lac and Bâlea Cascadă (72.01%), and Transalpine (67.43%).

The frequency of visits to the main ecotourism destinations in Sibiu County in the last 2 years is correlated with the answers received to the previous question. From Figure 7, it is observed that, in the years 2020 and 2021, the respondents most often visited these destinations 1–3 times: Trasfăgărășanul (51.83%), Bâlea Lac and Bâlea Waterfall (50%), and Mărginimea Sibiului (46.33%). With a frequency of 3–5 times of visits made by young people in ecotourism destinations in Sibiu County, Păltiniș Resort (25.22%), Transalpina (19.26%), and Transfăgărășan (18.88%) stand out. In the years 2020–2021, young people visited more than five times, especially Păltiniș Resort (22.93%), Ocna Sibiului (21.55%), and Mărginimea Sibiului (16.95%).

Among the ecotourism destinations that have never been visited in these 2 years are as follows: Podragu Lake (77.52%), the village of Biertan (62.84%), and Avrig Lake (57.79%). The average score for these 12 ecotourism destinations is 2.007.

Many of the ecotourism destinations existing in Sibiu County have been visited between 1 and 3 times by the questioned young tourists during the last 2 years, 2020 and 2021. From this point of view, the descending order of these destinations is the following one: 1—Transfagarasan, 2—Balea Lac (Balea Lake) and Balea Cascada (Balea Waterfall), 3—Castelul de Lut din Valea zanelor (Clay Castle from the Fairy Valley), 4—Transalpina, and 5—Paltinis Resort and Ocna Sibiului.

But there are numerous young tourists with an important share in total questioned group who have never visited other ecotourism destinations in Sibiu County including Podragul Lake, Biertan, Avrig Lake, and Fagaras Natural Park.

The ecotourism destinations visited over five times are the Paltinis Resort, which is advantaged because, during the summer season, it is pleasant temperature than in the city of Sibiu and in the winter season skiing could be successfully practiced, and also Ocna Sibiului, where the salted water is pleasant for relaxation and also for treatment.

Based on the obtained score for each ecotourism destination calculated by means of 4-Point Likert scale, the classification of these ecotourism destinations is the following one in the decreasing order: 1—Paltinis Resort, 2—Ocna Sibiului, 3—Marginimea Sibiului, 4—Transfagarasan, 5—Balea Lake and Balea Waterfall, 6—Transalpina, and 7—Cisnadioara. The rest of five destinations got smaller scores than the average score for all the 12 attractions (Table 8).

Regarding the length of a holiday spent in an ecotourism destination, most of the questioned persons, more exactly 74.77%, affirmed that it was between 1 and 3 days, meaning that weekends were frequently used for relaxation and activities in nature far away from the crowded cities. About 27.52% young tourists spent between 5 and 7 days, and only 4.59% had a vacation longer than 2 weeks (Figure 8). The results obtained are comparable to those reported by Dumitras et al. (2017), respectively, short-term vacations in protected areas nationwide (Singh, 2020). Singh (2020) pointed out that the tourism sector has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with severe repercussions for the next 3–5 years. In this context, the author points out that exotic destinations in the natural and cultural world heritage will be less affected by the current situation. “Fast and exotic” or “quixotic tourism” has a chance to develop rapidly in the near future. The condition is to have adequate management and continuous monitoring, contributing to the support of local communities (Băltescu, 2021).

Concerning the mean of transportation to the chosen ecotourism destination, 95.41% young tourists mentioned their own car because it allows arriving quickly and closer to the desired destination and more than this, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was the safest alternative. They mainly use cars for transportation. Our results in terms of transport to holiday destinations show that young people behave less sustainably, which is also confirmed by Mejer et al. (2022) (10 Apps That You Should Not Miss When You Are in Nature, 2022).

On the second position was bicycle which was used by 25.23% of the questioned individuals who preferred this mean of transportation because they like a sporty lifestyle, and the bicycle is a tool to involve a physical effort and maintain health, at the same time, offering a joyful journey through isolated areas in the middle of nature. The train was used by 15.6% of the young tourists, the coach by 12.84%, and the van by 11.01%; the last two means of conveyance being less utilized due to the higher risk of infection during the pandemic (Figure 9).

Hypothesis 3:

Young people are accustomed to using the internet for information on various tourist services and use digital applications while traveling in nature

Young respondents are accustomed to using computerization to plan and conduct holidays in ecotourism destinations. Digitization is used by 91.28% of people (199) to book accommodation, 88.07% to search for holiday offers (192 people), 83.94% to book travel tickets (183 people), 74.31% to find out the weather forecast (162 people), 76.60% to offer a review for the quality of the tourist services provided (169 people), and 69.72% (152 people) for the purchase of access tickets to various tourist objectives.

Using the 5-Point Likert scale, the calculated scores for the purposes for which the digital media tools were utilized by the young tourists to plan their desired vacation in an ecotourism destination proved that the order of preference was the following one: 1—for booking accommodation, 2—for searching for holiday offers, and 3—for booking travel tickets, and these three options achieved a score higher than the average score accounting for 1.141 (Table 9).

Our results are in line with those obtained by Băltescu (2021), which points out that for the generation of millennials, the use of the Internet to search for various online resources and electronic devices is part of everyday life (Tlili et al., 2021), and the perception of trust and security influences their consumption intentions.

Given the growing popularity of digitalization in all areas, we wanted to find out if young people are accustomed to use mobile applications during their holidays in nature. The Romanian Ecotourism Association recommends 10 mobile applications that can be used during nature hikes (Ganapathy et al., 2021). Approx. 40% (87 people) of young people often or always use digital maps, 19.72% (42 people) use the Mountain Rescue app, 14.22% (people) use the manual Offline Survivor app, and 14.22% (31 people) uses Net Plant, which helps them identify plants. The least used applications are My Lightning Tracker—identify lightning within a radius of 60 km (69.72%, 152 people) and Star Walk 2—identify star movement on the sky (69.72%, 152 people), which have never been used by young people surveyed (Table 10).

The importance given by the young tourists surveyed to mobile applications to be used in holidays in the middle of nature, according to the scores determined by means of the 5-Point Likert scale, was the following one: 1—ExpMapy, 2—Salvamont, and 3—PlantNet; all these three applications carrying out a higher score than the average one of 1.865.

The other mobile applications, in their descending order have been: 4—iTrackWildlife, 5—Offline Survival Manual, 6—Merlin BirdID, 7—Peak Finder, 8—Field Guides to Clouds, 9—Star Walk 2, and 10—My Lighting Tracker.

We found that the use of mobile applications during travel in nature is less used, which is also confirmed by the literature. There is very little evidence in the literature to show how smartphone apps can influence conservation behaviors and improve the connection between user and nature (Fernández-Ruano et al., 2022), while providing a good tourist experience (Aluculesei et al., 2021). Fernández-Ruano et al. (2022) pointed out that the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in ecotourism offers the possibility of interpreting the environment by including multimedia information brochures or even the integration of gamification (Dinu et al., 2021), as a tool that personalizes the tourist experience, making it more pleasant and interactive and contributing to the consolidation of the image of ecotourism destinations and its attractiveness. Pavlidis et al. (2022b) shows that there are more and more digital innovations in ecotourism, such as augmented reality mobile applications, digital maps, 3D/360° digitization, virtual reconstruction, and online flora recognition resources.

The main sources of information for young people are (Figure 10) the Internet, 91.74% of respondents say it is their favorite source of information; 79.81% get information from friends or relatives; and 54.12% from radio/TV shows.

The results are in line with the literature, which emphasizes that the Internet is an essential tool for segmenting the tourism market, allowing the provision of personalized services according to the needs and preferences of tourists.

At the same time, Dinu et al. (2021) points out that sociodemographic data and consumer behavior are major factors influencing the use of the internet in the accommodation booking system and tourism services.

The score obtained based on the application of the 5-Point Likert scale allowed to establish the hierarchy of the information sources used by the young tourists to plan their vacation in an ecotourism destination as follows: 1—Internet, 2—Relatives and friends, 3—Radio TV shows, 4—Tourism agencies, 5—Documentaries, 6—Leaflets and brochures, and 7—Newspapers and magazines. The average score was 0.582, which was exceeded only by the Internet and relatives and friends (Table 11).