Satisfaction with Sustainable Tourism, Vojvodina Province: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Igor Trišić.

The goal of researching the development of sustainable tourism in protected areas, which are trying to be tourist destinations, is to gain ecological, socio-cultural, and economic benefits for residents, visitors, and stakeholders. This means that residents, visitors, managers, and state services should be directly involved in the planning and implementation as important bearers of tourism development planning.

  • sustainable tourism
  • PoS model
  • protected area
  • nature-based tourism

1. Introduction

The goal of researching the development of sustainable tourism in protected areas, which are trying to be tourist destinations, is to gain ecological, socio-cultural, and economic benefits for residents, visitors, and stakeholders. This means that residents, visitors, managers, and state services should be directly involved in the planning and implementation as important bearers of tourism development planning. Tourist activities in protected areas should be directed towards the improvement of ecological principles, socio-cultural attitudes, the realization of economic profit, and the strengthening of institutions. There is no doubt that protected areas contribute to the preservation of biological diversity and ecosystems, as well as the habitats of various plant and animal species. In this way, they enable scientific research, and different types of education with the aim of adequate use of these areas for the purpose of sustainable tourism [1,2][1][2]. In these areas, tourism significantly contributes to the preservation of natural and anthropogenic resources, the ethnic heritage of the local population, and the improvement of their economic situation [3,4,5][3][4][5]. Protected areas in the world contain rare ecosystems, habitats, and species that attract tourists [6,7,8][6][7][8]. The possibility of observing the natural environment, flora and fauna is a special attraction [9]. Numerous tourism development strategies in Serbia include exactly those destinations with sensitive ecosystems. One of the purposes of tourism development is the promotion of the ecological values of tourist destinations. It is also significant from the aspect of sustainable tourism [10,11][10][11].
There is an extremely rare ecosystem in the Special Nature Reserve “Meadows of Great Bustard” (MGB). This ecosystem consists of the plain, steppe, salt marsh, and marsh habitats. The symbol of this reserve is the endangered flock of Great Bustards (Otis tarda) in Serbia [12]. It is a globally vulnerable (VU) [13,14][13][14] and a highly endangered species in Serbia [12,15][12][15]. In the local community, there is not enough power to protect this area. Therefore, it is necessary to plan a more significant role that residents would get through personal control and sustainable development of tourism in MGB, with the possibility of creating tourism development strategies.

2. Satisfaction with Sustainable Tourism

Vital information on the importance of protected areas for tourism offers and sustainable development can be obtained through research on sustainable tourism in protected areas [23,24][16][17]. Numerous scientific studies examine the significance of the development of local communities and their connection with the ecology of protected areas, in order to preserve biodiversity [25,26][18][19]. Sustainable tourism generates the roles of all stakeholders in the creation of tourism development. Sustainability takes into account geographical features and different environmental and local conditions [27][20]. Therefore, the basis for sustainable tourism progress is a constant study of tourism and the identification of the roles of interested parties in planning and controlling tourism evolution [28][21]. During the development of tourism in preserved areas, numerous goals must be met [30][22]. In researching these areas, the most important goals are those related to the development of ecology, socio-cultural elements, economic growth, and the inclusion of institutions [31,32][23][24]. Sustainable tourism in protected areas is based on a system of plans, measures, and activities [33][25] which should be included in tourism development [34,35][26][27]. The objective of such a development is to satisfy tourists and the local population, gain income from tourism, and use it for the development of special forms of tourism on the territory of the protected areas [36,37][28][29]. The development of certain forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, nature conservation, hiking, excursion, educational, sports-recreational, rural tourism, and gastronomy, can significantly influence the promotion of protected areas as tourist destinations [35,38,39][27][30][31]. Providing income should be focused on improving the natural values of these sensitive destinations, which represents a significant pillar of sustainability. At the same time, the ecological aspect is the driving force behind other sustainable dimensions, such as economic, socio-cultural, and institutional. In the existing literature, in addition to ecotourism, nature-based tourism forms are mentioned as crucial forces of sustainability in protected areas. Some forms of tourism can contribute to the strengthening of various factors that affect the growth of tourism in protected areas [40][32]. A destination where ecological values are violated is not attractive to visitors [41,42,43,44][33][34][35][36]. In addition to elementary attractive tourist factors, the evolution of tourism in protected areas can be influenced by other factors, such as the protection of the area, the intensity of its use, and its carrying capacity [45][37]. The role of the local community in tourism development, zoning, socio-cultural influences, the contribution of tourism to the local economy, development control, waste management, and others are also essential [34,36,41,46,47,48,49,50][26][28][33][38][39][40][41][42]. Besides, the level of degradation of the specific area caused by mass tourism [51][43], and the number of inhabitants around the protected area and protection zone are also highlighted. It is known that tourism is an extremely vulnerable activity, so there are many factors that influence its development. First of all, air and water pollution, protection costs, the impact of human activities, social impacts, mass travel, and the creation of new and different types of tourism [41,52,53][33][44][45]. That is why there are many studies on these effects. Research on residents’ attitudes and perceptions of tourism development may provide valuable information for decision-makers [54][46], and it is crucial for successful and sustainable tourism development. Several studies revealed that residents’ support and their perceived benefits are preconditions for tourism sustainability [55,56,57,58][47][48][49][50]. The involvement of host communities plays an important role in determining the success of sustainable tourism [59,60][51][52]. However, many local residents may be slow to diffuse their knowledge of sustainable tourism development compared with local governments and local opinion leaders [61][53]. Residents’ perception of sustainable tourism development potential in their particular place is crucial for their attitude and behavior [62][54]. Jurowski and Gursoy [63][55] found that residents who receive more benefits favor the development of sustainable tourism at a higher level than those who receive no or few profits. Wang [64][56] revealed that factors such as: witnessing negative environmental events, formal environmental education, the media, as well as individual outdoor experiences have positive effects on residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism. Zhu et al. [62][54] suggest that increasing local residents’ benefits, decreasing their costs from tourism, raising their positive perceptions and confidence in tourism, and inspiring their attachment to the community would help to enhance their support for tourism development. Moreover, they might then be more enthusiastic about local policies and affairs of tourism development, and maintaining the sustainability of local resources. If resident perceptions and preferences do not support tourism development policies and programs, programs are likely to fail or be ineffective in implementation, ultimately failing to achieve sustainability [65][57]. Many authors apply the PoS model for their research. This was also done by Huayhuaca et al. [66][58], whose research objective was to study the impact of sustainable tourism on the local population in Frankenwald Nature Park in central Germany. As part of that research, the respondents stated four dimensions of sustainability: ecological, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional. In addition, the impact of sustainability dimensions on residents’ satisfaction was studied. The research results have singled out ecological and socio-cultural sustainability. Furthermore, sustainable tourism has had an impact on residents’ satisfaction with sustainable tourism, which stands out as a significant result of the research. Similar research was done by Cottrell et al. [67][59], surveying visitors in two protected areas in Germany. The methodology of this research was mainly based on the PoS model on the examination of ecological, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional sustainability to the satisfaction of the local population. Research results indicated the importance of ecological and socio-cultural sustainability to the respondents. They identified four dimensions of sustainability as significant factors for tourism development. The research of Asmelash and Kumar [68][60] is based on the study of the functions that protected areas could have in sustainable tourism development. They conducted research by measuring four dimensions of sustainability in the regional state of Tigray, which is one of the nine regional states of Ethiopia. In the research results, the economic, socio-cultural, and institutional sustainability indicators stand out as significant, while the most important dimension is ecological. This can be related to the state of ecological factors within the observed protected area. The impact of sustainable tourism on residents’ satisfaction was investigated by Trišić et al. [69][61], through the individual impacts of each of the four dimensions of sustainability on the sustainable development of tourism within two protected areas in Serbia and Croatia. The PoS model was also used during this research. The research results singled out the ecological and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability as the most significant for sustainable tourism. The importance of including residents in the processes of management, organization, and control systems is part of the obtained results. In addition, the conclusions of this research confirmed that the importance of local culture, tradition, customs, cultural-historical heritage and crafts is important, in addition to natural values. The primary forms of tourism are nature-based tourism and ecotourism. A very important part of tourism evolution planning, especially in protected areas, is the carrying capacity of the spatial location. Apart from positive effects, tourism can also have a very negative impact on the overall development of a location, which occurs in the case of its massive and uncontrolled development. This is exactly the kind of tourism growth that must not take place in very sensitive and conserved areas. It is extremely important that those who manage protected assets take into account all levels of assessment of carrying capacities: ecological, psychological, socio-cultural, and economic capacities. When planning and implementing tourism, one must understand and accept the limitations of the carrying capacity through these four levels, and in that way, direct the proper growth of tourism to the satisfaction of the local population and visitors. It is a very important compromise between the desire for a large number of tourists and the possibility of accepting them in protected areas such as the MGB. According to the sustainability implementation model proposed by Haid et al. [70][62], communication between destination stakeholders is crucial for the successful implementation of sustainability initiatives. It has to be taken into account that promoting sustainability, carrying capacity, and advocating for sustainability to local businesses are key factors. Destination management organizations play a vital role in communicating sustainable efforts, advocacy for sustainability internally and externally, and the importance of tourism initiatives to the locals. The authors also stressed that involving various stakeholders and fostering cooperation through communication are essential drivers for the process, as communication becomes a primary driving force by replacing discretion. Communication is a key element not only for external communication of the national parks and protected areas with residents and other stakeholders. Smith et al.’s [71][63] study set in a South African context revealed the importance of effective communication for park managers during the COVID-19 period, leading to positive outcomes, such as increased use of online communication technology, time and cost savings, and the need for empowering staff through ongoing open communication. Ramkissoon [72][64] concludes that a harmonious relationship among residents, places, government, businesses, and tourists promotes social, environmental, and economic sustainability in sustainable tourism development. Communication with residents is key to understanding their perceived social impacts of tourism and developing appropriate management strategies to support tourism development. As this protected area has a very rare ecosystem and endangered representatives of flora and fauna, special attention must be paid to the carrying capacity when planning tourism. The assessment of the carrying capacity for the MGB should be the result of the impact of tourism on the environment and should represent an important component of planning the development of tourism activities in this protected area. It can be one of the mechanisms for setting sustainable tourism standards. So far, several attempts have been made in order to reliably define the bearing capacity that would refer to the MGB. This especially applies to all types of tourist activities, including the development of tourism of special interests, among which are scientific research and ecotourism. Bearing in mind that the majority of negative environmental and other problems are caused by a large concentration of visitors, tourist capacities and contents, many authors deal with defining the carrying capacity and the necessity of determining the maximum number of tourists who can stay in a certain spatial area at the same time. Data research concludes that the carrying capacity represents the maximum number of people that can be located in a certain locality, without irreversible changes and degradation of the physical environment, and without significantly compromising the quality of the recreational experience [73][65]. Many studies have been carried out around the world, and especially in the USA, with the aim of specifying the procedures for calculating the carrying capacity and creating specific formulas, which would be valid for a certain type of tourist destination, such as protected areas. Despite this, there is still no reliable and scientifically proven method for calculating bearing capacity accepted throughout the world. Most authors or organizations studying this problem use different standards obtained from their own research and experience. Each perception during the research is very different, so this also affects the specificity of the applied standards. Using different parameters, a carrying capacity of 40 people per kilometer of the educational trail can be recommended in this nature reserve. With such a small number of visitors, the natural activities of the Great Bustard will not be disturbed.

References

  1. Heslinga, J.; Groote, P.; Vanclay, F. Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 773–787.
  2. Mitsch, W.J.; Bernal, B.; Hernandez, M.E. Ecosystem services of wetlands. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2015, 11, 1–4.
  3. Bahamonde-Rodríguez, M.; García-Delgado, F.J.; Šadeikaitė, G. Sustainability and tourist activities in protected natural areas: The case of three natural parks of Andalusia (Spain). Land 2022, 11, 2015.
  4. Timur, S.; Getz, D. Sustainable tourism development: How do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism? Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17, 220–232.
  5. Hall, C.M. Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change? J. Herit. Tour. 2010, 5, 253–266.
  6. Mondino, E.; Beery, T. Ecotourism as a learning tool for sustainable development. The case of Monviso Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, Italy. J. Ecotour. 2019, 18, 107–121.
  7. Burns, G.L. Tourism and national parks: International perspectives on development, histories and change. Ann. Leis. Res. 2011, 14, 395–396.
  8. Yochim, M.J. Tourism and national parks: International perspectives on development, histories and change. J. Tour. Hist. 2010, 2, 237–238.
  9. Eagles, P.F.J.; Romagosab, F.; Buteau-Duitschaeverc, W.C.; Havitza, M.; Glovera, T.D.; McCutcheona, B. Good governance in protected areas: An evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 60–79.
  10. Chancellor, C.; Normanb, W.; Farmerc, J.; Coed, E. Tourism organizations and land trusts: A sustainable approach to natural resource conservation? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 863–875.
  11. Maxim, C. Sustainable tourism implementation in urban areas: A case study of London. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 971–989.
  12. Štetić, S.; Trišić, I. The importance of ecotourism for the development of tourism destination—A case study of the Special Nature Reserve “Meadows of Great Bustard”, Vojvodina. In 4th International Thematic Monograph-Modern Management Tools and Economy of Tourism Sector in Present Era; Bavanda, V., Štetić, S., Eds.; Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans in Cooperation with the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality, Ohrid, North Macedonia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2019.
  13. Martin, C.A.; Alonso, J.C.; Alonso, J.A.; Morales, M.B.; Pitra, C. An approach to sexing young Great bustards Otis Tarda using discriminant analysis and molecular techniques. Bird Study 2000, 47, 147–153.
  14. Gooch, S.; Ashbrook, K.; Taylor, A.; Székely, T. Using dietary analysis and habitat selection to inform conservation management of reintroduced Great bustards Otis tarda in an agricultural landscape. Bird Study 2015, 62, 289–302.
  15. Lazić, L.; Pavić, D.; Stojanović, V.; Tomić, P.; Romelić, J.; Pivac, T.; Košić, K.; Besermenji, S.; Kicošev, S. Protected Natural Resources and Ecotourism in Vojvodina; Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Prirodno-matematički fakultet, Departman za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2008. (In Serbian)
  16. Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.M.; Hall, C.M. Geographies of tourism development and planning. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 307–317.
  17. Sirakaya, E.; Teye, S.; Sonmez, S. Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 57–67.
  18. Valdivieso, J.C.; Eagles, P.F.J.; Gil, J.C. Efficient management capacity evaluation of tourism in protected areas. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1544–1561.
  19. Bello, F.G.; Carr, N.; Lovelock, B. Community participation framework for protected area-based tourism planning. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2016, 13, 469–485.
  20. Bennett, N.J.; Whitty, T.S.; Finkbeiner, E.; Pittman, J.; Bassett, H.; Gelcich, S.; Allison, E.H. Environmental stewardship: A conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ. Manag. 2018, 61, 597–614.
  21. Franceschinis, C.; Swait, J.; Vij, A.; Thiene, M. Determinants of recreational activities choice in protected areas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 412.
  22. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J. International Handbook on Ecotourism; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013.
  23. Holden, A.; Sparrowhawk, J. Understanding the motivations of ecotourists: The case of trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2002, 4, 435–446.
  24. Štetić, S.; Trišić, I.; Nedelcu, A. Natural potentials of significance for the sustainable tourism development—The focus on the special nature reserve. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2019, 69, 279–287.
  25. McCool, S.F. Managing for visitor experiences in protected areas: Promising opportunities and fundamental challenges. Parks: Int. J. Prot. Areas Manag. 2006, 16, 3–9.
  26. Buckley, R. Ecological indicators of tourist impacts in parks. J. Ecotour. 2003, 2, 54–66.
  27. Higham, J.; Miller, G. Transforming societies and transforming tourism: Sustainable tourism in times of change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1–8.
  28. Queiroz, R.E.; Guerreiro, J.; Ventura, M.A. Demand of the tourists visiting protected areas in small oceanic islands: The Azores case-study (Portugal). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 1119–1135.
  29. Hall, C.M.; Gössling, S.; Scott, D. The evolution of sustainable development and sustainable tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability; Hall, C.M., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
  30. Mader, R. Latin American ecotourism: What is it? Curr. Issues Tour. 2002, 5, 272–279.
  31. Leask, A. Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 155–166.
  32. Carr, A.; Ruhanen, L.; Whitford, M. Indigenous Peoples and Tourism: The Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1067–1079.
  33. Chávez-Cortés, M.; Maya, J.A.A. Identifying and structuring values to guide the choice of sustainability indicators for tourism development. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3074–3099.
  34. Torres-Delgado, A.; Saarinen, J. Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: A review. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 31–47.
  35. de Lima, I.B.; Green, R.J. Wildlife Tourism, Environmental Learning and Ethical Encounters, Ecological and Conservation Aspects; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
  36. Sanchez, M.L.; Cabrera, A.T.; Gomez del Pulgar, M.L. The potential role of cultural ecosystem services in heritage research through a set of indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106670.
  37. Leka, A.; Lagarias, A.; Panagiotopoulou, M.; Stratigea, A. Development of a tourism carrying capacity index (TCCI) for sustainable management of coastal areas in Mediterranean islands—Case study Naxos, Greece. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 216, 105978.
  38. Chin, C.L.M.; Moore, S.A.; Wallington, T.J.; Dowling, R. Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo: Visitors’ perspectives on environmental impacts and their management. J. Sustain. Tour. 2000, 8, 20–35.
  39. McCool, S.F.; Moisey, R.N.; Nickerson, N.P. What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 124–131.
  40. Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1274–1289.
  41. Schianetz, K.; Kavanagh, L. Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 601–628.
  42. Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Therrien, M.C. Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 862–879.
  43. Neal, J.; Gursoy, D. A multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2008, 47, 53–62.
  44. Twining-Ward, L.; Butler, R. Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. J. Sustain. Tour. 2002, 10, 363–387.
  45. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ramakrishna, S.; Hall, C.M.; Esfandiar, K.; Seyfi, S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 31, 1497–1517.
  46. Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2005, 43, 111–121.
  47. Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G. Measuring empowerment: Developing and validating the resident empowerment through tourism scale (RETS). Tour. Manag. 2014, 45, 85–94.
  48. Lee, T.H. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46.
  49. Nunkoo, R.; So, K.K.F. Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. J. Travel Res. 2015, 5, 1–15.
  50. Sharpley, R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 37–49.
  51. Cole, S. Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 629–644.
  52. Tosun, C. Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 493–504.
  53. Dabphet, S.; Scott, N.; Ruhanen, L. Applying diffusion theory to destination stakeholder understanding of sustainable tourism development: A case from Thailand. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 1107–1124.
  54. Zhu, H.; Liu, J.; Wei, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, L. Residents’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism development in a historical-cultural village: Influence of perceived impacts, sense of place and tourism development potential. Sustainability 2017, 9, 61.
  55. Jurowski, C.; Gursoy, D. Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 296–312.
  56. Wang, W.C. The effect of early-life outdoor experiences on residents’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism within an urban context. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 25, 1–9.
  57. McCool, S.F.; Moisey, R.N. (Eds.) Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment; CAB International: Oxon, UK, 2001.
  58. Huayhuaca, C.; Cottrell, S.; Raadik, J.; Gradl, S. Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Int. J. Tour. Policy 2010, 3, 125–141.
  59. Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Roemer, J.M. Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 8, 42–48.
  60. Asmelash, A.G.; Kumar, S. The structural relationship between tourist satisfaction and sustainable heritage tourism development in Tigrai, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2019, 5, E01335.
  61. Trišić, I.; Nechita, F.; Ristić, V.; Štetić, S.; Maksin, M.; Atudorei, I.A. Sustainable tourism in protected areas—The case of the Vršac Mountains Outstanding Natural Landscape, Vojvodina Province (Northern Serbia). Sustainability 2023, 15, 7760.
  62. Haid, M.; Albrecht, J.N.; Finkler, W. Sustainability implementation in destination management. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127718.
  63. Smith, M.K.S.; Smit, I.P.; Swemmer, L.K.; Mokhatla, M.M.; Freitag, S.; Roux, D.J.; Dziba, L. Sustainability of protected areas: Vulnerabilities and opportunities as revealed by COVID-19 in a national park management agency. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108985.
  64. Ramkissoon, H. Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 442–459.
  65. Fennell, D. Ecotourism; Routledge: London, UK, 1999.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback