1. Introduction
Small accommodation businesses, especially in rural tourism destinations, dominate in terms of the hospitality industry [
1,
2,
3]. They play an important role in rural revitalization, poverty relief, and employment, and also improve the economic decline in rural areas [
2,
4,
5,
6]. The sustainability of small accommodation businesses in rural areas effects the region’s development. Therefore, their performance has high importance for local, regional, and national economies [
3,
7,
8]. Even though business sustainability is a condition for competitiveness, efficiency is a business performance measurement, and it is also associated with business competitiveness and sustainability [
4]. The characteristics of small accommodation businesses are the small size, regarding the number of bedrooms and beds; employees; and amount of capital used [
9], as well as low efficiency [
10]. The owners/managers of small accommodation businesses in rural areas, in order to increase their income, focus on the development of diversified activities [
9,
11]. The provision of various activities can boost the growth of rural tourism and all the businesses associated with it [
12,
13]. Most researchers have focused on the characteristics of the businesses and their owners/managers, the start-up motivations, and even the factors that affect the business performance [
2,
6,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18]. Additionally, researchers seemed to be concerned with creating sustainable and resilient management models as well as measures adopted by small businesses to deal with crises and disasters [
19].
Efficiency, as a performance measure, has been widely recognized in the hospitality sector [
4,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25]. However, the estimation of the efficiency of small accommodation businesses, especially those operating in rural areas, including those in non-coastal areas, is limited [
1,
2,
10]. From the perspective of the factors that influence the efficiency of businesses in rural areas, the literature review showed that efficiency is limited [
14]. Even though the variety of activities is a rural tourism success factor [
13], Teodoro et al. [
26] argued that, in a set of variables, the supply of services other than lodging does not influence business success.
Ten year ago, Symeonidou [
27], as the subject of a thesis, assessed the technical efficiency of rural tourism enterprises in Central Macedonia in order to investigate their competitiveness and sustainability. She mentioned that the existing inefficiency in the field of hospitality and rural tourism triggers investigations regarding the impact that provided activities have on the level of businesses’ efficiency.
Because discrete types of business were investigated within other research frames as efficiency factors [
2,
10,
15], it is important to explore the types of accommodation businesses in terms of the variety of business activity, taking into account the fact that corresponding literature reviews on the issue are limited. Consequently, the main hypothesis of this research is that the variety of business activity is an environmental business factor of efficiency.
In this context, the purpose of this paper is to assess the efficiency of small accommodation businesses in rural areas using non-coastal rural areas in Central Macedonia as an exploratory example. In parallel, a set of variables (size, operating days, years of operation, and type of business), including the variety of services, as efficiency factors, are investigated in order to design and implement more effective policy measures for rural tourism revitalization and help entrepreneurs in correct decision making.
Specifically, it attempts to address the following research questions:
What is the level of efficiency in small accommodation business in non-coastal areas of Central Macedonia, Greece?
Is the variety of business’s activity a factor that influences efficiency?
In order to answer the questions, a double bootstrapping truncated data envelopment analysis (DEA) method was applied. Classing performance indicators such as revenue per available room, occupancy rate, return on assets, and other similar indicators are used as tools to measure hotel success [
21,
28,
29]. According to Oliveira, Pedro, and Marques [
5], these measures do not take into account the multiple variables of the hotel industry and the interactions between them. Consequently, they were not absolutely efficiency. Today, among various methods measuring business’s performance, a bootstrap DEA has been affirmed that can measure the efficiency of businesses with similar goals and objectives [
30] using the relationship of inputs and outputs. This method lead to the production of more comprehensive and accurate performance measures [
31] and addresses the disadvantages of the traditional techniques of DEA, making the results more robust and reliable [
32]. The truncated method was used in the second step to answer the second question, investigating the variety of activities (simple or complex) as a factor that contributes to the efficiency of the accommodations in non-coastal areas. To the best of our knowledge, the application of double bootstrapping truncated DEA is one of the first attempts to use this methodology with a focus on the variety of activities of small accommodation businesses in non-coastal areas in Greece and Europe. This represents the main novelty of our study.
Central Macedonia was chosen as a study area due to its importance in the country’s economy and the need to encourage entrepreneurship in the region’s non-coastal rural areas. The region of Central Macedonia is the largest of 13 regions in the country, with coastal and non-coastal areas and important tourism resources (mountains, lakes, rivers, thermal springs, archeological sites, cultural heritage, and people with a sense of hospitality). The region of Central Macedonia, compared with the others 12 regions, presents the lowest efficiency score and significant fluctuations in technical efficiency over the years 2002–2013, because of the inability of regional tourism managers to adjust the inputs efficiently [
25].
This paper contributes to three different strands of literature:
- (a)
The evaluation of efficiency score using the bootstrapping truncated DEA method in small accommodation businesses;
- (b)
The evaluation of the efficiency score of small accommodation businesses that are located in non-coastal areas;
- (c)
The investigation of variety of business activity as a factor of small accommodation business inefficiency, among other factors such as size, age, operating days, and type of business (engaged in agriculture or not).
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, a literature review is presented, followed by a section providing the data and methodology. The next section presents the study’s results and discussion, and the paper finally concludes with the limitations and directions for further research.
2. Literature Review
Previous empirical studies that deal with small accommodation businesses in rural areas have focused on the issues of contributing to local development, presenting the profile of entrepreneurs and businesses as well as business success factors [
2,
5,
9,
10,
17,
33]. Studies in rural tourism have shown that entrepreneurs start their businesses mostly centered on their family’s quality of life and a passion for the countryside and the rural way of life, as well as the possibility to work autonomously [
6,
34,
35]. Even though the motivation for entrepreneurs to enter the rural tourism business are also based on economic reasons [
18], limited studies, so far, have dealt with their economic and technical efficiency. The literature review showed that the informal form of small business in rural area, which, in many cases, take the form of owners’ hobbies, did not push researchers to use the concept of and the need for their efficiency to be assessed. This may happen due to efficiency [
36], which is linked with the management style of a typical business structure.
Researchers determined the businesses’ efficiency as the optimal formula between inputs and outputs (revenues/expenses ratio) [
15] and the optimal allocation of resources [
37]. According to Luo, Yang, and Law (p. 1141) [
22], “
Efficiency represents the relationship between inputs and outputs during operation”. Technical efficiency was determined as “
the reflection of how a firm can obtain maximum output from a given set of inputs” [
38]. Moreover, “
the measure of the ability of a firm to obtain the best production from a given set of inputs or a measure of the ability to use the minimum feasible amount of inputs given a certain output level” [
10]. Business efficiency is closely related to sustainability and competitiveness [
39] as a measure that analyzes whether it is possible to achieve a sustainability objective in business [
32]. The efficiency measurement has been widely recognized in the hospitality sector [
20,
21,
22,
23,
24]. However, the estimation of efficiency in rural tourism is limited [
4,
10,
14,
39].
Recently, Parte and Alberca [
4] analyzed business performance through efficiency scores in Spanish firms in order to investigate the efficiency of cultural and rural tourism destinations. This study showed that the diversification of tourist destinations is a strategy that affect the positive performance of tourism businesses. Additionally, the study showed that the average efficiency score is higher for very small businesses compared to other business sizes. In 2020, Alberca and Parte [
39] carried out a study that examined efficiency in tourist apartments and hostels in Spain, using DEA models. Additionally, they examined a variety of efficiency drivers, such as the business size, using the Mann–Whitney U-test and the Kruskal–Wallis test. They concluded that the business size is negatively associated with efficiency score, and the diversification of the tourist destination is a useful strategy that improves business performance and competitiveness. In Greece, Koutsouris et al. [
15] explored the influence of owners’ socioeconomic characteristics and their businesses on business efficiency using Categorical Regression Analysis. They showed that the number of beds and rooms, classification of units, and financial support are the most influential factors of businesses’ efficiency. They also highlighted that businesses whose owners are primarily occupied in farming are more efficient. Fotiadis et al. [
13] proposed the Destination Management and Business Effectiveness model, utilizing data collected from 174 Greek rural tourism enterprises. They used Factor Analysis and noted that, by providing a variety of activities, the growth of rural tourism and all the associated businesses could be increased. Arru et al. [
10], using the DEA method and based on a sample of 37 farms in Sardinia, investigated technical efficiency related to agritourism and recreational functions. They noted that this was one of the first attempts in Europe to use efficiency analysis in agritourism. They concluded that the surveyed businesses were inefficient and that an adequate use of inputs improved efficiency. Moreover, in businesses that combined accommodation and meal services, the accommodation services were used more efficiently than those for the provision of meals.
A survey, as a thesis, conducted on 145 agritourism businesses, in order to examine their competitiveness and sustainability, showed that agritourism businesses operate under low efficiency. The researcher pointed out that a study should be conducted regarding the effect of other services’ provision, beyond just the accommodation, on the enterprise’s efficiency [
27].
According to the variety of activity, tourism businesses are divided into simple and complex activity. The first category includes businesses that provide only one type of tourism product (accommodation). The second one includes enterprises that provide more than one type of tourism products (accommodation with catering or other activities) [
40]. The literature review showed that research on the impact of services provided is limited. In terms of small accommodation businesses’ efficiency in rural areas, it seems that there are no researchers occupied with conducting surveys on financial results as a measure of success or failure, while research on the variety of activities’ impact on business efficiency seems to be completely absent.
Khanal and Mishra [
41] investigated the effect of agritourism as a strategy of income diversification and empowerment. They concluded that small farms achieve higher incomes by pursuing a strategy of diversifying their activities.
Mura and Kljucnikov [
3], in a study of 142 small rural tourism businesses in Slovakia, concluded that the benefits from agricultural tourism activities contribute to the success of businesses and the minimization of business risk.
Research on small agritourism farms in Michigan was conducted to determine the success factors. The sales were taken as a measure of success and indicated that the most successful farms provided a thematic catalog in addition to a differential mix of services and products [
12].
While the literature of small accommodation businesses and, especially, rural tourism lacks research regarding the concept of efficiency and application of DEA models, the relevant literature in the hotel sector is more fruitful, [
20,
25,
42]. The use of the DEA method in conventional hotels showed that they perform better in focused strategy than in diversification strategy [
43] and the provision of additional leisure services affects their efficiency in a negative way [
5]. As well as the size, the location, seasonality, number of employees, and allocation of resources are all factors that cause inefficiency [
21,
42,
44]. Researchers have argued that the improvement of efficiency can be achieved by modifying the inputs and outputs and reducing the size of the hotel units [
25,
43].
5. Discussion
The “rooms” variable in a tourist unit has a positive and statistically significant coefficient of α = 0.05. The continuous “operating days” variable contributes to inefficiency as it presents a positive coefficient that is statistically significant for α = 0.05. The other factors used in this model do not have statistically significant results. However, the “age” variable influences the efficiency and, in particular, the newer accommodations are more efficient because, according to Pikkemaat and Zehrer [
64], the traditional small family-run businesses have a lack of innovation. On the other hand, the “type of business” variable shows that engaging in agricultural activities at the same time does not enhance the effectiveness of tourism businesses (
Table 7).
The results indicate that accommodation businesses in non-coastal areas operate at a low level of efficiency. The results indicate that accommodation businesses in non-coastal areas operate at a low level of efficiency. Comparing the results with previous research focusing on rural businesses, there are similarities and differences.
The efficiency results show that the majority of accommodation businesses in non-coastal areas of Central Macedonia are characterized by inefficiency (58%), which is something that coincides with the results of similar studies that have been conducted, not only in Greece [
15,
27], but also in Europe [
4,
10,
14].
The novelty of this study is that it expands the efficiency results by the variety of activities, including the tourist product, which indicates that the type of accommodation is associated with the type of service provision (simple–complex). The efficiency results by accommodation type indicate that simple accommodations achieve higher efficiency levels than complex ones, in contrast with revenues and overnight stays. This finding is in contrast with previous research [
13], which noted the attracting power of having a variety of activities in rural tourism. In contrast to expectations, the variety of activities has a negative and significant influence on the efficiency of small accommodations.
Simple activity drives the efficiency of businesses. This particular finding is similar to the results of corresponding studies, which were conducted on hotels for mass-tourism [
5]. In rural tourism, research has shown that the supply of other services besides housing promotes the increase in net occupancy rates [
26]. Complex activity is associated with lower efficiency due to higher operating costs or the lack of occupational training, entrepreneurship capabilities, and management skills, as well as innovation [
15,
64]. This result is probably related to the owners/managers’ skills and abilities. Therefore, they must be encouraged to improve their occupational and entrepreneurship capabilities by training and education, while maintaining the authenticity of offerings. It is apparently not enough to provide a variety of activities; these must also be efficiently managed so that additional investments and costs pay off.
Efficiency and sustainability are closely related [
39]. Inefficient businesses can improve their efficiency with the lowest consumption of resources. As expected, the more rooms there are, the more difficult they are to be managed, and therefore the efficiency is decreased. This finding is similar to previous studies [
4,
27,
64] because small accommodation businesses are more flexible and can be more effectively adapted to the various conditions that may occur [
3]. Along the same lines, the impact of accommodating capacity showed a limited effect of economy of scale. Smaller units are more efficient due to lower operating costs and rental labor as family labor tends to be the main resource utilized in the examined accommodations. Additionally, they have the ability to be more informal with the customers, providing them with a more authentic experience, which, in turn, enhances tourist loyalty [
2,
11,
65]. Researchers have argued that small accommodation businesses in rural areas attract tourists that seek involvement in the rural experience, which can be provided more easily by the smaller units [
26]. The findings showed that the majority of examined accommodation businesses were created within a period of increasing tourist demand. Today, after a long-term financial crisis, they may be considered as oversized, and it would be more effective to minimize their size so as to improve their efficiency. In case of increasing demand, collaboration among small accommodation businesses located in one particular area is suggested in order to deal with the problem of their small size [
64,
66].
The relationship between the number of “operating days” through the year to business efficiency was also explored. The result is in the line with other studies, which show that equivalent accommodation businesses in rural areas are open throughout the year, but they often receive customers during the weekends and religious holidays (Easter, Christmas etc.) [
7,
10,
12,
15]. However, the continual operation of accommodation businesses leads to the increase of operational costs, which are not able to be defrayed by the equivalent income that is gained.
In contrast to the literature “age” does not influence the efficiency. According to Pikkemaat and Zehrer [
64], newer accommodations are more efficient because the traditional small family-run businesses have a lack of innovation. On the other hand, Teodoro [
26] argued that the older rural tourism units are better established in the market and have some loyal clients. Finally, the engagement in agricultural activities is not confirmed as a relevant business efficiency factor, even though Koutsouris et al. [
15] mentioned that the combination of tourism and farming is able to support farming households.
6. Conclusions
This paper analyses business efficiency in small accommodation businesses in non-coastal rural areas in Greece. Applying the double bootstrap truncated DEA method estimated the efficiency score of small accommodation businesses in the research area and the influence of the variety of activities in a set of business variables. Simar and Wilson’s model [
48], which produces more robust and reliable results than the techniques traditionally used in this line of research [
32], was adopted. As a research area, Central Macedonia was selected because of the region’s geographical and economic position in Greece and Europe.
The efficiency results confirm that the majority of accommodation businesses in non-coastal areas of Central Macedonia are characterized by inefficiency (58%), which is something that coincides with the results of similar studies that have been conducted, not only in Greece [
15], but also in Europe [
10]. The influence of some business variables on firm efficiency was confirmed, specifically revealing the significant, negative effect of activities, size, and operating days on the efficiency score. The results expand the strategy in the hospitality field by linking two key constructs: efficiency and business strategy. Understanding the influence of the factors (variety of activities, size, and operating days) on small accommodations’ efficiency can assist entrepreneurs, owners/managers, hospitality executives, and educators in defining their business strategy and can also contribute to increasing businesses’ success and efficiency. It would be very interesting if future research was conducted to validate the current findings and compare them with new ones, based on companies located in coastal areas or across the country.
To conclude, some variables with contradictory results (namely age of business and combined farming–hospitality businesses) may deserve additional, eventually qualitative, research for clarification, and they would also be interesting for the variable “variety of activities”, where a distinction between activity types and corresponding resources required may add to an understanding of the here presented results. Furthermore, the present research was carried out at the end of the financial crisis and at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is something that stimulates the researchers of this particular study to repeat it after some years, focusing on the same accommodation businesses, so as to find out which remain active despite these challenges, as well as the latter’s impact on their efficiency score.
The aims of sustainability and resilience of small businesses are the reduction of disaster losses, the maintenance of sustainable resource management, and the implementation of sustainable systems [
67,
68,
69]. It would be interesting to research measures to develop the resilience of small accommodation businesses, regardless of their efficiency score, which would, however, probably add to their resilience.