Cultural heritage and tourism. A comparison of two destinations in Southern Moravia

This paper addresses the question: why do two destinations with extremely valuable cultural heritage gain attractions have completely different tourism traffic results? The main aim of this paper was to find the various causes of this inequality. The comparative method was used and Lednice and Dolní Kounice in Southern Moravia were selected as case studies. Statistical data and strategic documents on regional and local levels were analysed. The study showed significant differences in the strategic conceptual plans. Dolní Kounice was a more popular destination for suburban tourism for the inhabitants of Brno, the historical heritage was only an added value. In the case of Lednice, the use of its heritage for tourism was one of the main development priorities. This paper further noted that cultural tourism is often seen as a sector of the economy rather than a part of the culture.


Introduction
The cultural-historical potential is certainly an important prerequisite for the development of tourism. However, most European regions have a dense network of historic heritage sites, in many cases very valuable. Nevertheless, the performance of individual destinations varies considerably. Therefore, other factors that may affect their success need to be considered. To reveal these factors, we chose a comparison between two destinations in the South Moravian Region, which are similar in many respects and yet different in terms of tourist use.
In rural areas, the transition to a post-industrial society has resulted in a shift from an agricultural territory to an area for tourism (Vidickienė et al., 2020) among others. In addition to natural attractions, the potential of cultural tourism plays an important role in this shift. In Central Europe, virtually every rural region has a certain amount of cultural heritage. The question is how each region can use this potential for the development of tourism and consequently for rural development. Equally important, however, is the extent to which the use of the cultural potential for the development of tourism is sustainable.
There are many ways to utilise the potential for cultural tourism development. It is extremely important to promote the destination. As with any other commodity, in a market economy, it is not the quality that matters but the market penetration and ability to sell. Another important aspect is the infrastructure. This is important not only from a visitor's point of view, for whom it should make conditions more pleasant and suitable but also for entrepreneurs, for whom it should produce financial benefits. Without sufficient accommodation, catering and accompanying services, a tourist will not spend enough money in the given place.
At present, information availability and access to online communication are gaining importance. Equally important is the cooperation of providers within individual destinations. Today's tourists are not satisfied with a single attraction. Destinations should be offered as a package, encompassing cultural heritage, entertainment, relaxation and other attractions.
At present, the issue of personal security is becoming increasingly important. This includes protection against terrorism and crime and the availability of rescue activities and medical care. Of course, also of importance is the professionalism of the staff, the hospitality of the locals and the like.
To clarify the above aspects, two destinations in the South Moravian Region with a high potential for the development of cultural tourism were selected; both, however, showed completely different results. These were Lednice, near the Czech-Austrian border, and Dolní Kounice, in the hinterland of the city of Brno. The article aimed to find an answer to why these two destinations showed substantially different results in the tourism industry.

Cultural tourism
Cultural tourism is a combination of tourism and cultural heritage (McKercher and DuCross, 2002). This combination has become a global social practice (Richards, 2021a). According to Du Cros and McKercher (2020), to produce sustainable cultural tourism means the integration of heritage and tourism goals into management and marketing. Hølleland et al. (2017) considered cultural heritage to be a subcategory of cultural ecosystem services. This can include, among others, cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetical values, social relations, sense of place and aesthetical heritage. This means that cultural heritage is created both by tangible and intangible factors (Lemay-Perreault, 2022). Cultural heritage is dynamic because it does not depend only on past and present physical or spiritual features and aspects but also on the perceptions and needs of tourists, which are permanently changing. It thus follows that cultural heritage is not only a subject of protection but also a matter of creation or change (Mijnheer and Gamble, 2019). Moreover, cultural heritage is a keystone of local identity which plays a significant role in politics, economic development, society and worldview (Nowicka, 2022). This largely takes place through the interaction between tourists and locals. Involving local residents in rural cultural tourism seems to be of great importance (Kebete, 2022). Small towns as centres of rural areas also have a place in the development of cultural tourism (Richards, 2021b).
The definition of cultural tourism is ambiguous. Orel Frank and Medarić (2018) point out that in each case the specific point of view of the researcher is decisive. From our position, it was mainly a matter of distinguishing cultural tourism from recreational tourism. From this point of view, we combined cultural tourism with a cognitive function. Specifically, this means that the main or at least one of the most important goals of tourists is to get to know other regions and localities; particularly, their historical and natural values and the lives and customs of their inhabitants. Some authors (Sanchez-Sanchez et al., 2021) associate cultural tourism with customer loyalty, but this is somewhat at odds with the definition of tourism through cognitive function. Petroman et al. (2013) single out five types of cultural tourism depending on the motivational importance of culture and travellers' experience. Cultural tourism could be divided into organised tourism, which is more suitable for an annotated exploration of the most important monuments, and creative tourism (Duxbury et al., 2019), which allows a tourist to compile the program himself and thus have the opportunity to better understand local residents' lives.
Cultural tourism is mainly associated with urban tourism, as most of the cultural heritage and cultural facilities are located in cities. However, Sasu and Epuran (2016) emphasised the aspect of authenticity provided by rural tourism. While cities usually concentrate on the sights of the whole region, the countryside offers a local experience. Rural tourism creates an opportunity for local activities (Sardaro et al., 2021). Instead of family farms, family guest houses or other family businesses in the field of tourism can be established. Although job opportunities in tourism cannot generally replace job opportunities in agriculture, tourism can make a significant contribution to rural development. Associated with this is the question of share capital. This is usually insufficient in the countryside. The decisive factor is whether the development of cultural tourism will enable the development of small rural businesses that keep profits in place. This is probably a prerequisite for the sustainability of such businesses (Elmo et al., 2020). Major research trends include the shift from tangible to intangible heritage, more attention for indigenous and other minority groups and geographical expansion in the coverage of cultural tourism research (Richards, 2018).
The paper aims to determine the conditions, assumptions and driving forces of the use of cultural heritage and cultural potential for the development of tourism based on a comparison of two destinations and to discuss its significance for rural development.

Comparative methodology
Comparison is not only an essential cognitive process but also facilitates the acquisition and deepening of geographical knowledge (Simon et al., 2020). Using the comparative method in geography is described, for example, by Langdon (1956): Geography can be described as a discipline characterizing the associations of phenomena that create the character of certain territories (regions) and identifying similarities and differences between them. Thus, geography can be in a sense conceived as a science of comparing regions. The comparative method can be quantitative (if we compare the data) or qualitative (if we compare the overall characteristics of the regions). Thus, we can compare not only indicators but also, for example, the function of the phenomenon, the degree of institutionalization, the nature of the social environment and so on. It is possible to compare regions between each other or concerning a standard, superior or ideal region.
Attempts to compare different tourism destinations are frequent. Pileček (2020) demonstrated the potential of tourism via the examples of Israel, Georgia and Cyprus. In doing so, it took into account four groups of factors: natural conditions, cultural and historical wealth, tourism infrastructure and transport infrastructure. The problem is to determine specific indicators and their weights in terms of individual types of tourism. Vajčnerová et al. (2016) proposed a methodology for comparing visitor satisfaction levels in three selected tourism regions of South Moravia. However, this approach required the use of a sociological survey and evaluated consequences (satisfaction of visitors) rather than causes. A specific feature of the South Moravian region within Czechia was the wine culture (Šťastná et al., 2020). The comparative method includes the specification of the compared areas, the definition of the comparison features and the assessment of comparability.
Two destinations with relatively similar conditions were selected for our comparison ( Figure 1): a small town called Dolní Kounice (2,453 inhabitants) and a large village called Lednice (2,272 inhabitants). Dolní Kounice is situated 27 min south-west of Brno, and Lednice 39 min south of Brno.
Thus, the research aim was to compare cultural tourism in the mentioned destinations to discuss reasons for the differences and compare the following factors of tourism: the attractiveness of cultural tourism, tourist infrastructure, organisational and informational prerequisites and motivations. 'Attractions' refer mainly to tangible and intangible historical cultural heritage, but also aspects of nature protection. 'Infrastructure' refers to accommodation and catering capacities and transport infrastructure. 'Organisational and informational provisions' are institutions, information centres and digital information systems. 'Motivations' refers to how interested individual groups of the population are in visiting the relevant destinations.
To reveal possible connections, we compared the socio-economic conditions of both destinations. In doing so, we considered particularly the structure of the population and its position in the labour market. To identify strategic intentions, the strategic plans of community-led local developments of the relevant local action groups and the documents of the corresponding voluntary associations of municipalities were evaluated.
Both destinations had basic social and technical infrastructure. In both, there were valuable attractions of historical heritage. Both municipalities were located near vineyards and fruit groves. The destinations are fully comparable in terms of size, population numbers and cultural heritage. However, their performances in the field of tourism were diametrically different.
Statistical data from the Czech Statistical Office, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic, and the CzechTourism Agency were used for the analysis. Standard geographic maps were used for spatial analysis of position and distance. An analysis of strategic documents of local action groups LEADER and voluntary associations of municipalities were used to compare the institutional provision of cultural tourism. Field research and personal knowledge of the studied area, which are irreplaceable in geography, played an important role. The main requirement was the comparability of data for both destinations, which ensured that data on individual aspects of the situation came from identical sources. However, specific data (which can only be based on available sources) are not as important as synergistic thinking.
The likelihood that other researchers will achieve the same results using the same methods is limited. The geographical situation, in particular, its social, economic and environmental aspects, is constantly changing. The second reason is the subject of the research. A necessary prerequisite for a comprehensive understanding of the situation is always knowledge of the spatial relationships of the studied area and understanding of its historical development. In social geography, specific methodological procedures cannot be mechanically repeated. Long-term experience shows that even a very experienced researcher cannot compete with less experienced experts in their territory. The purpose of this work is mainly to share and inspire other researchers to use the same approach and comparative method within areas of their focus to be able to see the issue of cultural potential of the studied areas from a new angle.

Attractiveness for cultural tourism
The small town Dolní Kounice (Figure 2) is situated in a narrow valley alongside the Jihlava River in the foothills of the Bobrava highlands. The origin of Dolní Kounice is connected with the founding of the Premonstratensian monastery Rosa Coeli in 1183. The monastery became the economic and cultural centre of the wider area. A Gothic castle was built to defend the monastery, completed in 1330. The prosperity lasted until the beginning of the 16th century when the monastery was demolished by the inhabitants of the town. Also in the 16th century, the city was a refuge for evangelists. The castle was later rebuilt into a fortified chateau. In the middle of the 15th century, Jews that were expelled from royal towns came to Dolní Kounice. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Jewish community of Dolní Kounice was one of the most important in Moravia. A total of 649 Jews in 90 houses lived in Dolní Kounice in 1850. In the 19th century, Dolní Kounice did not follow industrialisation and was not connected to the railway network. Since then, the town has stagnated. A devastating flood in 1862 affected 180 houses and the original church. Small businessessuch as mills, brickyards, blueprint factories, quarries, cement producers, mother-of-pearl producers and leather and metalworking plantsmostly no longer exist today. Viticulture and fruit growing survived. People commuted to work.
The main cultural tourism attractions in Dolní Kounice were the ruins of the Premonstratensian monastery Rosa Coeli and the church of the Virgin Mary (owned by the Bishopric of Brno at the time of this study), a privately-owned Renaissance chateau, the Jewish quarter with a synagogue and cemetery, the Baroque pilgrimage chapel St. Florian with the Stations of the Cross (on Gallows Hill above the town, from 1654), the Neo-Renaissance Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter and Paul (consecrated in 1899) and the Orthodox Church of St. Barbara (originally the Roman Catholic Chapel of St. Fabian and Sebastian). This was an accumulation of a relatively large number of monuments of different cultures in a small area. Despite insensitive interventions in the last century, the city formed a valuable monument (Kuča, 1996). Some houses on the square had a late-Renaissance core and historic facades. The number of visitors to the main attractionthe ruins of the Rosa Coeli monasterywas estimated to be 19,000 people in 2019 (the last year before the COVID-19 pandemic).
As for the intangible heritage, some traditions were in the process of being renewed, such as the feast and the pilgrimage to St. Anthony. The development of wine culture was taken care of by the Brotherhood of Winemakers and Diggers 1737, which organises wine exhibitions, the celebration of St. Gothard and other events. (Figure 3).
The village of Lednice is situated in a pond landscape in the floodplain of the river Dyje, seven km from the district town of Břeclav. The village is first mentioned in 1222. From the middle of the 13th century until 1945, it was the property of the Liechtenstein family. In the area between Lednice and Valtice, the Liechtensteins created the largest composed landscape in Europe. Despite the intensive construction activity, the village did not develop much due to the exposed border position. Lednice was the centre of the feudal estate. There was a food industry. The settlement also was multicultural -Germans, Czechs, Croats, Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists and Jews lived there. The  Jewish settlement (268 people in 1869) nearly disappeared by World War II (Kuča, 1998).
Vineyards covered an area of 146 ha in the territory of the village. Agricultural education had been developing in Lednice since 1895. At the time of this study, the Faculty of Horticulture of Mendel University was located there. The railway was brought to the village in 1901 but became purely a tourist attraction. After World War II, the German population was displaced. Groups of settlers, mostly from neighbouring Moravian villages, colonised the area, so the continuity was not completely interrupted. The latest activity was the therapeutic spa, which has operated since 2009.
The Lednice-Valtice area is part of the UNESCO Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve, which includes many protected areas of local and international importance. Directly on the territory of the village, there was the National Natural Monument Pastvisko u Lednice, the National Nature Reserve Lednice Ponds (also a part of the bird reserve NATURA 2000), the natural monument Květné jezero and the Floodplain Dyje Nature Park.
The main attraction was the composed landscape of the Lednice-Valtice area, which became a part of the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1996. The main monument in Lednice was a highly romantic chateau, whose current appearance was created in the 19th century in a style imitating Tudor Gothic. In 2019, it was visited by 389 thousand visitors. The chateau was the twenty-first most visited tourist attraction in Czechia and the third most visited Czech chateau. The castle included a large castle park with a palm greenhouse. The French-style garden turns into an Englishstyle park. There were also other buildings on the plot, such as a minaret in the Moorish style, the artificial Gothic ruins of John´s Castle and a hunting lodge. Other sights included the square in the uniform neo-Gothic style, the neo-Gothic church of St. James the Elder (from 1742), the Border lodge on the shore of Hlohovecký Pond, the Classicist farm building Nový dvůr, the romantic Diana's Church, the Empire Pond Chateau, the romantic Classicist Appolon's Church, the late-Classicist covered colonnade of Three Graces and the neo-Gothic chapel of St. Hubert in Boří les forest. A total of 37 buildings were protected in Lednice. All the main attractions of tourism in Lednice were state-owned. There also were recent legal disputes over the determination of ownership between the Czech Republic and the Liechtenstein family. (Figure 4).
It can be said that the historical heritage of Lednice is in very good condition and contains many building styles. However, these are not original styles but their modern replicas. Their use is highly commercial. The historical heritage of Dolní Kounice is not in as good a structural condition; however, it is an authentic heritage. The advantage of Lednice was the possibility of connecting historical heritage with nature protection activities, water recreation and wellness.
It is possible to say that differences in the use of historical heritage were conditioned by ownership among others. Reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the historical heritage produce considerable financial costs, which in the 1990's could only be provided by the state. In addition, in the case of private property, ownership had to be stabilised first. In the meantime, the buildings and premises fell into disrepair and their use was not promoted in any way. Private owners thus lost an additional 10 or more years compared to the state. For example, the Dolní Kounice Chateau began to be restored only in 2006. (Figure 5).

Tourist infrastructure
Accommodation capacity in Dolní Kounice was provided by a hotel and a boarding house (a total of 64 beds) and two hostels. Boardings were provided by the hotel restaurant, two other restaurants and a patisserie. Other facilities included massages, bowling, a multipurpose sports court and a school playground. Several wine bars offered their services. There was no large parking lot in the city. Within the integrated transport system of the South Moravian Region, there were 37 pairs of connections from the bus station in Dolní Kounice on weekdays and 16 daily connections on weekends. The nearest train station in Moravské Bránice is three km away. The journey to Brno takes 27 minutes by car, 48 minutes by public transport (with a transfer for a train in Modřice) and 2 hours by bike.
Accommodation in Lednice consists of 30 facilities of various types and categories, including six hotels with 582 rooms and 1,338 beds. In 2019, 59,931 guests spent the night there, of which 11,154 were nonresidents. The total number of overnight stays reached 128,285. There were dozens of catering facilities in Lednice. These were well-known and standard restaurants, wine bars, cafes, pizzerias, canteens and bistros for various categories of tourists. Visitors were served by three municipal parking lots with a total capacity of 500 cars and 11 buses, three private parking lots, three reserved parking lots and also parking lots at individual accommodation facilities, spas, Mendel University buildings and recreational ponds. In addition, visitors were served by other facilities, such as golf, mini-golf, bowling, swimming pools, bicycle rentals, fitness centres, the Hippoclub, carriage rides, tennis courts, squash, playgrounds and beach volleyball.
Lednice was connected by two bus lines to the most important towns in the Břeclav district and small towns in the vicinity. A total of 36 pairs of connections departed from Lednice on weekdays and 12 pairs of connections on weekends. The journey to Brno takes 42 minutes by car, 54 minutes by public transport (with a change to the railway in Podivín) and 4 hours by bike.
The accommodation and catering capacities of both destinations were incomparable. While Lednice offered extensive accommodation and meals, in Dolní Kounice this structure was very modest. The same went for parking spaces and fun and recreational possibilities. Only the public transport was similar, which was, however, provided by the parameters and rules of the Integrated Transport System of the South Moravian Region, not by the characteristics of the compared destinations.

Organisational and informational support
The South Moravia Tourist Board had set up five destination area managements (DMOs), bringing together municipalities, tourism entrepreneurs and NGOs. Dolní Kounice and its surroundings belonged to the DMO of Brno and Surroundings and Lednice to the DMO of Pálava and the Lednice-Valtice area.
Brno and Surroundings focused on day trips from Brno. This form of tourism does not require large accommodation capacity at individual destinations but rather substantial catering options and parking opportunities. Dolní Kounice competed with such destinations as the Austerlitz Battlefield and Pernštejn Castle.
Pálava and the Lednice-Valtice area were promoted under the keyword Garden of Europe. It formed a continuous region of tourism, including not only cultural and architectural monuments in Lednice, Valtice and Mikulov but also the recreational area of the Nové Mlýny waterworks, the Pavlov geopark and the Dolní Věstonice archaeological site with the famous 27,000 year-old Věstonice Venus statue. Lednice forms the eastern peak of this region. Optional tours were possible, but exploring the area required a stay of several days, enhanced by evening wine consumption.
Dolní Kounice belonged to the local action group (LAG) Brána Brněnska (Gate of Brno), where it occupied its southernmost part. The LAG's strategy showed that the LAG's area was considered a suburbanised area of Brno, which specialised in suburban recreation. Among the strategic goals in the area of a stable level of economic growth was the support of tourism, in fifth (last) place. In addition, the measures were not directed at cultural tourism, but at agritourism and forest functions. Dolní Kounice was also a member of the Voluntary Association of Municipalities (VAM) Ivančice micro-region. In the VAM documents, the support of tourism was in the ninth (last) place. The budget showed that a great deal of money was devoted to this area; however, it seemed that the main goal was to build and maintain cycle paths, which tended to avoid Dolní Kounice.
Due to the marginal position of Dolní Kounice within the LAG, it could be asked whether it would not be more advantageous for the destination to be included in one of the neighbouring LAGs. The LAG of Podbrněnsko and the LAG ofŽivé Pomezí (Living Borderland) came into consideration. Of these, the Living Borderland LAG had preservation of historical heritage and the legacy of its ancestors among its main priorities, as well as the development of tourism. In such a case, Dolní Kounice could be the main attraction of the LAG Living Borderland; however, the membership of Dolní Kounice in the LAG Gate of Brno was due to its relationship with Brno and its relationship with the nearby town of Ivančice.
The village of Lednice belonged to the LAG Lednice-Valtice area. The LAG's strategy in the field of community-led local development included the development of tourism as the second of seven development areas. In addition, the fifth area was focused on the protection of cultural monuments, including those under UNESCO protection. The VAM of the Lednice-Valtice area had a similar territorial scope to the LAG. Its strategy included, in addition to the care of material monuments, the preservation of traditions and cultural customs.
Information centres and digital information systems were available in both locations. However, it was true regarding the local level only. At regional, national and international levels (including the REGIONTOUR trade fair in Brno), Lednice was always among the most recommended destinations, while Dolní Kounice was never. It was obvious that, while in Lednice cultural tourism was one of the most important priorities on regional and micro-regional levels, in Dolní Kounice it was on the fringes of interest.

Motivations for the development of cultural rural tourism
It is generally argued that the development of tourism can replace the loss of jobs in agricultural regional development, especially in rural development. This argument is based on the hundred-year-old idea that job opportunities must be available in the village where people live. That is no longer true today. Employment and the labour market are not local issues, but issues of functional micro-regions.
In July 2021, during the summer season of tourism and the coronavirus pandemic, the unemployment rate was 2.4% in Dolní Kounice and 1.9% in Lednice. Therefore, in neither case was gaining job opportunities through tourism urgent. In Dolní Kounice, 2.9% of the economically active population was employed in the catering and accommodation sector and 5.6% were similarly employed in Lednice. Economically active residents of Dolní Kounice tended to commute to work (55.2%), while the residents of Lednice tended to find job opportunities in their own municipality (53%).
From this point of view, it is rather important to maintain job opportunities in the field of tourism, which is not to be threatened. It is ideal if entrepreneurship in tourism in small and medium-sized enterprises becomes part of the lifestyle of entrepreneurs (Castro et al., 2020), which was achieved in Lednice, but not in Dolní Kounice.
The second motive for the development of cultural tourism may be the cultural development of the community and the promotion of its culture to the outside world as part of the culture of the place, region, nation and Europe. Sometimes, the non-economic appreciation of cultural tourism can be more important for local people than the direct economic impacts (Strzelecka et al., 2017). However, this motif was not mentioned in any strategic material concerning Dolní Kounice. In the case of Lednice, it cannot be neglected, as the site is one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
On the contrary, it may be tempting for locals to live in a somewhat mysterious place, the real cultural significance of which is known only to a limited number of people (the case of Dolní Kounice). Opening up to mass cultural tourism would mean tolerating many thousands of visitors, partly foreign ones, their cars, increased traffic, night noise and other accompanying phenomena (the case of Lednice).
It is more or less obvious that both destinations served different groups of tourists. Dolní Kounice was more of a destination for suburban trips for Brno residents, cyclists and for family trips, where historical heritage was a bonus rather than the main purpose. Lednice was primarily a destination for tourists looking for attractive places with comprehensive services and for those who visited the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. This also resulted in different amounts of money that tourists were ready to leave on site. Therefore, income from tourism could be much more attractive for Lednice than for Dolní Kounice.
At the time of the coronavirus pandemic, the fragility of tourism in Lednice, which is more dependent on foreign tourists, proved to be greater, while Dolní Kounice was practically not affected by the decline in tourism (Vaishar andŠťastná, 2020).

Discussion
Strategic development material generally assumes a priori that the tourism industry is an important and growing sector of the economy, linked to postproductive development (Rodriguez et al., 2020). Therefore, it should be in a region's general interest to support the development of tourism. However, this generally valid assumption may not be fulfilled in all places and at all times. Similarly, cultural tourism is understood in strategic documents to primarily be a part of the economy, much less a part of the culture. However, just as environmental motivations penetrate the awareness of planners, so should cultural motivations.
Looking at the examples of the two compared destinations, it was clear that the existence of cultural values was only one of the prerequisites for the development of cultural tourism. It can even be argued that cultural attractions exist in almost every placeyou just need to discover them, use them, promote them, provide the appropriate infrastructure and organise destination management.
It turns out that it is extremely important to have a vision and a concept of and to gain support for the intention to develop cultural tourism. At the same time, however, it must also be taken into account that some localities may not have an eminent interest in the development of cultural tourism because they have different concepts of development or their inhabitants are not willing to sacrifice their peace for tourism, with the not-in-my-backyard ideology (Litvin et al., 2020). Some authors have discussed the problem of overtourism in this sense (Benner, 2020). This is a legitimate view, especially if mass tourism were to threaten the quality of the destination and thus limit its future possibilities. Excessive orientation towards tourism also carries the risk of being affected by various crises, such as the epidemiological situation, fears of terrorism or simply a change of fashion towards other types of destinations (Ritchie and Jiang, 2019).
The place of cultural tourism in rural development can therefore consist of maintaining the memory of the place and the landscape (Ahmad and Hertzog, 2016), preserving local and regional traditions and customs and even creating new traditions in the globalising world. This should then be offered (except for the most attractive places) in the form of soft tourism while ensuring an appropriate level of infrastructure.
Cultural tourism is of economic importance, especially in remote rural micro-regions that do not have enough other activities (Castanho et al., 2020). In other areas, the economic importance of tourism is rather complementary, and its meaning lies more in the support of local and micro-regional identity and the presentation of local cultural values to tourists.
Another question arises from the comparison of the two territories. This is what we mean by rural development. In a liberal market economy, development is understood as growth. Lednice is focused on the growth of tourism in its various aspects. On the other hand, Dolní Kounice is probably not very focused on the growth of tourism. Does this mean that rural development in Lednice has better prospects than iň Dolní Kounice? The essence lies in the fact that rural development can and should be understood in a qualitative sense in the future. The basic criterion should be the usefulness of individual activities to improve the quality of life of the local population (Vaishar et al., 2018). It depends on their residential and life preferences. It is therefore conceivable that while the inhabitants of Lednice are focused on tourism activities, the inhabitants of Dolní Kounice prefer a quiet environment. Therefore, it is probably not possible to find a generally valid formula for evaluating the role of tourism development for rural development.
The criteria for this evaluation may vary in place and time.

Conclusion
This paper compared two very similar tourism destinations in the South Moravian Region, with high-level cultural values, one of which was a destination with highly developed cultural tourism, while the other was underdeveloped in this respect. The results showed that it is not the existence of valuable cultural and historical values that are important, but their presentation.
Cultural heritage needs to be actively preserved, cultivated and made accessible, but that is not enough. The results of this study showed that cultural heritage, although extremely valuable, will in itself only evoke optional trips. The example of Lednice showed that it is necessary to combine cultural tourism with recreation and rehabilitation, sports, consumption and the like. As this spectrum can hardly be offered by a single small destination, micro-regional cooperation is absolutely essential. Only in this case can tourists be expected to spend more nights in the destination and thus bring more financial benefits. These aspects are likely crucial for different results in the development of cultural tourism in both destinations, despite similar cultural values.
Further monitoring of the importance of cultural tourism for rural development can be strongly recommended about changes in the understanding of the concept of rural development from quantitative to qualitative aspects. This change is necessary because a boundless liberal policy of constant growth encounters economic, social and environmental barriers. The countryside could be a space that could be a leader in this process compared to large cities.

Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper is one of the results of the HORIZON 2020 project Social and Innovative Platform On Cultural Tourism and its Potential Towards Deepening Europeanisation 1 , ID 870644, funding scheme Research and Innovation action, call H2020-SC6-TRANSFORMATIONS-2019.