Exploring Attitudes on the Sustainable Balance Between Nature Conservation and Economic Development Through Ecotourism—Lessons from EU and Non-EU Countries

Abstract

This study examines attitudes toward achieving a sustainable balance in ecotourism using the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model, focusing on economic and environmental factors shaping sustainable practices. Data were collected from tourists, local residents, and managers in Serbia and Croatia, encompassing diverse perspectives on natural resource conservation, economic benefits, and community engagement. The results indicate that natural resource conservation significantly contributes to local participation, tourist awareness, and community engagement, with notable differences observed among respondent groups. Economic benefits also positively influence these mediating factors, emphasizing their role in achieving sustainability goals. The MGA revealed significant differences between respondent groups, highlighting that managers and local communities in Croatia demonstrated higher levels of awareness and participation compared to Serbia, while differences among tourists were less pronounced. This research contributes to the sustainable tourism literature by integrating perspectives from various stakeholder groups and emphasizing the importance of community involvement and environmental preservation. Practical implications include recommendations for policymakers and managers to develop strategies that encourage stakeholder participation and promote sustainable tourism development.

1. Introduction

Ecotourism is often presented as a key pathway to achieving sustainable tourism, aligning natural resource conservation with economic development. However, as Das and Chatterjee [1] point out, implementing this concept in practice faces significant challenges. Without careful management, the commercialization of ecotourism can undermine ecological goals, highlighting the importance of maintaining a sustainable balance in ecotourism development. This issue is particularly relevant for Serbia and Croatia, where natural resources are central to tourism offerings but are often subject to economic pressures. The inclusion of local communities in ecotourism initiatives has been recognized as critical for achieving sustainable outcomes. Stronza et al. [2] emphasize that communities directly benefiting from ecotourism play a crucial role in biodiversity conservation. Similarly, Cobbinah [3] notes that universal ecotourism models are not always applicable across different contexts, underscoring the need to adapt strategies to local conditions. These insights underline the necessity of considering specific factors that shape community perceptions and participation in sustainable practices, providing a framework for flexible and tailored strategies.

This study aims to bridge the gap by investigating the key determinants influencing the sustainable balance of ecotourism in the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Croatia. Particular emphasis is placed on economic sustainability, natural resource conservation, community participation, and tourist awareness. By integrating institutional capacities and participatory strategies, the research offers a comparative analysis of ecotourism within two distinct sociocultural and economic contexts. The differing political and economic conditions in EU and non-EU countries provide an intriguing perspective for analyzing ecotourism practices. Croatia, as an EU member state, operates within a structured regulatory framework for sustainability, while Serbia, as a transitional country aspiring to EU membership, faces unique economic and political challenges that hinder the implementation of sustainable practices. While ecotourism research in EU countries is relatively extensive, the dynamics of this concept in non-EU contexts, such as Serbia, remain underexplored.

The findings of this study contribute to global knowledge by offering adaptable sustainable development models that can inform policies and practices in regions facing similar challenges. Moreover, the research enriches the existing literature with empirical insights from transitional economies, advancing both theoretical understanding and practical applications in the field of sustainable tourism.

2. Literature Review

The challenge of achieving a balance between natural resource conservation and economic development occupies a central position in contemporary research on sustainable tourism, with a particular emphasis on the theoretical and practical dimensions of ecotourism. Ulanowicz [4] explores the concept of sustainable balance in ecotourism, defining it as a delicate equilibrium between economic development, natural resource conservation, and active community engagement. This framework serves as a foundation for examining how various interests can be aligned in sustainable tourism practices. However, achieving this balance is often fraught with practical challenges. Takhumova and Ibragimov [5] extend this discussion by highlighting the complex relationship between economic growth and environmental protection. They point out that while both goals are essential for long-term sustainability, their inherent tensions can become obstacles without clearly defined strategies to overcome them. This underscores the importance of strategic planning that goes beyond theoretical frameworks and focuses on practical implementation. Hansen [6] offers a similar perspective, emphasizing that the success of sustainable tourism initiatives depends on integrating ecological, economic, and social dimensions into a unified and coherent approach. His analysis raises important questions about ensuring the equitable distribution of the benefits from ecotourism while preserving natural resources, particularly in the agritourism sector. Ozcan et al. [7] stress that sustainable approaches must simultaneously ensure ecosystem protection and economic benefits. Their research highlights the complexity of such models, where achieving a balance between nature conservation and meeting the economic needs of local communities is imperative.

Patil and Pattanshetti [8] emphasize that the successful development of ecotourism relies on the effective management and active involvement of local communities. While their findings are significant, the question of universal applicability in diverse geographic and cultural contexts arises, which is highly relevant to this study on sustainable balance in Serbia and Croatia. Anup [9] highlights that ecotourism supports the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity while contributing to poverty reduction by creating economic opportunities for local communities. His work underscores ecotourism’s potential to promote social equity through direct employment and support for local initiatives. However, the challenge remains in ensuring the long-term sustainability of these effects and measuring them across various communities. Kiper [10] points to the importance of ecotourism in rural areas, particularly in alleviating poverty caused by depopulation. Nonetheless, balancing economic development with natural resource conservation in such regions remains a critical challenge. Reimer and Walter [11] advocate for a participatory approach in planning and implementing ecotourism practices, especially in rural regions like Cambodia. Their study underscores the necessity of community inclusion while raising concerns about conflicts of interest among stakeholders.

Stone and Nyaupane [12] focus on the role of wildlife and protected areas as primary attractions of ecotourism but stress the need for sustainable management of these resources in the face of growing mass tourism pressures. This perspective aligns with the findings of Khanra et al. [13] whose bibliometric analysis highlights increasing interest in ecotourism as a tool for addressing sustainability challenges. Xu et al. [14] further emphasize the importance of careful resource management and active community participation in achieving long-term sustainable development. Eddyono et al. [15] introduce an innovative model of e-ecotourism, leveraging digital technologies to enhance sustainability and align ecological and economic goals. While this approach underscores the significance of technology in sustainable development, the challenge lies in ensuring technological accessibility in rural destinations and bridging the digital divide.

Kalaitan et al. [16] highlight the potential of ecotourism in post-Soviet states, particularly Ukraine, to stimulate rural development, while Gajić et al. [17] emphasize the integration of cultural and ecological values through biocultural ethics. Although promising, their findings raise questions about aligning these values with the dynamics of local communities and economic pressures. Machnik [18] points to the dual benefits of ecotourism: reducing tourism’s ecological footprint and providing economic advantages for local communities. Similarly, Baloch et al. [19] propose a framework for sustainable ecotourism development that underscores planning but warns of persistent tensions between conservation and commercialization. While theoretically valuable, the framework faces challenges in practical implementation across diverse regions. Fennell and de Grosbois [20] analyze the role of eco-lodges in promoting sustainable practices, emphasizing the importance of transparency in communication with tourists, which builds trust. Salman et al. [21] synthesize the broader impacts of ecotourism, noting that its proper implementation can preserve ecosystems and improve community quality of life. On the other hand, Nigar [22], focusing on Gilgit-Baltistan, illustrates how ecotourism can foster economic growth in resource-rich but underdeveloped areas. Singgalen et al. [23] stress strategic planning that integrates natural resource protection with respect for local communities, showing long-term benefits of proper planning. D’Souza et al. [24] underline the importance of strengthening local community capacities to ensure ecological and social sustainability while addressing challenges in equitable benefit distribution. Thompson et al. [25] explore tensions between ecological and economic goals in Malaysia, highlighting compromises when profitability overshadows conservation. Similarly, Hatma Indra Jaya et al. [26] in Indonesia emphasize the critical role of local communities in sustainable tourism development but warn of systemic barriers such as resource shortages and stakeholder conflicts. Stone [27] points to the significance of partnerships between local communities and external actors but cautions against marginalizing local voices in complex governance systems. Mbaiwa [28] offers a long-term perspective on sustainable ecotourism models in Botswana, demonstrating how community participation can reduce poverty and conserve natural resources, though questions of model applicability across contexts remain. Turobovich et al. [29] stress the importance of marketing in both attracting tourists and raising awareness about nature conservation, while Boley and Green [30] emphasize the responsible use of resources for long-term sustainability. Conversely, Zacarias and Loyola [31] highlight challenges of inadequate regulation, which can lead to negative social and ecological consequences. Gale and Hill [32] complement this discussion by emphasizing the role of destination management in ensuring sustainable benefits for communities. Nasrilloyevich and Suyun o’g’li [33] broaden the scope by analyzing ecotourism’s impact on the overall tourism sector, showcasing its potential for economic diversification and resource protection but questioning the scalability of these effects and conditions for successful implementation.

Das and Chatterjee [1] state that Woodworth (1929) proposed the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model as an extension of Pavlov’s (2010) classical stimulus–response theory. This model was originally used to analyze consumer behavior in decision-making but later found broad applications in tourism where it helps us understand how economic and environmental factors shape the perceptions and behaviors of tourists and local communities. In the context of ecotourism, the S-O-R model enables the analysis of the impact of various stimuli, such as sustainable tourism policies and ecological initiatives, on the perceptions and reactions of tourists, managers, and local residents.

The SOR model provides a structured framework for connecting key themes from the literature review, enabling an analysis of the interrelationships between the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of ecotourism. The application of the SOR model (Stimulus-Organism-Response) allows for a deeper understanding of how stimuli, such as economic and ecological factors, shape the perceptions and behaviors of actors (organism) and lead to corresponding responses. The study by Ren et al. [34] emphasizes the role of ecotourism in fostering ecological behaviors among local residents. The authors identify key stimuli, such as ecosystem conservation, which positively influence community perceptions and highlight the importance of responsible behavior as a critical factor for achieving sustainability. Critically, their findings suggest the need for further analysis to better understand how social contexts shape ecological responses, which can be more comprehensively addressed through the SOR model. Based on theoretical insights, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1a: 

Natural resource conservation positively influences community participation (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H1b: 

Natural resource conservation positively contributes to increased tourist awareness (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H1c: 

Natural resource conservation significantly impacts community engagement (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

Guo [35] investigates the economic benefits of ecotourism from an ecological perspective, identifying both direct and indirect links between nature conservation and economic growth. This study provides evidence on how stimuli, such as investments in natural resource conservation, can generate positive economic impacts. However, it does not sufficiently address the perceptions of local communities and tourists, which are key components within the SOR model.

From a broader theoretical perspective, Riaz et al. [36], through bibliometric analysis, highlight the connection between ecotourism and economic growth, emphasizing the importance of systematically assessing the impacts of ecotourism on sustainability. Their work demonstrates how stimuli, such as nature conservation and social participation, can be integrated with community and tourist perceptions to achieve a sustainable balance. Based on these theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a: 

Economic benefits of ecotourism positively influence community participation (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H2b: 

Economic benefits of ecotourism significantly contribute to increased tourist awareness (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H2c: 

Economic benefits of ecotourism positively impact community engagement (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

Ndhlovu and Dube [37] focus on global research trends and key challenges. Their work provides a context for understanding how social norms and perceptions, as well as internal reactions (organism), shape the sustainable behavior of local communities in practice. While offering valuable insights into the mechanisms of adopting sustainable practices, their analysis also highlights the lack of an integrated understanding of the interaction between economic and ecological dimensions, which is critical for sustainable agritourism development. This contribution further underscores the importance of socio-ecological interactions in shaping sustainable tourism practices. Huang and Wang [38] explore the application of virtual reality (VR) technology in promoting ecotourism and its connection to regional economies and culture. Although their study offers innovative methods to enhance tourist perceptions, it does not fully integrate the social aspects of local communities, which could enrich the analysis through the SOR model. To investigate the mechanisms linking stimuli, such as natural resource conservation (CNR), with sustainable balance (SB), this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H3a: 

The impact of natural resource conservation on sustainable balance is mediated by community participation (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H3b: 

The impact of natural resource conservation on sustainable balance is mediated by tourist awareness (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H3c: 

The impact of natural resource conservation on sustainable balance is mediated by community engagement (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

Jiang [39] models influential factors in ecotourism management, considering economic fluctuations and their potential impact on sustainable development. While it provides important insights into the role of forecasting economic factors, the study does not sufficiently address the perceptions and engagement of actors, which are essential elements of response within the SOR model. Conversely, Abuhay et al. [40] focus on the perceptions of local communities in Ethiopia, examining how ecotourism can have dual effects—providing economic benefits and triggering conflicts in resource conservation. Their analysis emphasizes the importance of economic initiatives as stimuli while suggesting that the perceptions of tourists and managers must be integrated to ensure a sustainable balance. Based on these theoretical foundations, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4a: 

The impact of economic benefits of ecotourism on sustainable balance is mediated by community participation (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H4b: 

The impact of economic benefits of ecotourism on sustainable balance is mediated by tourist awareness (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

H4c: 

The impact of economic benefits of ecotourism on sustainable balance is mediated by community engagement (samples: tourists, local residents, and managers).

Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework of the study, illustrating the application of the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model in the context of ecotourism sustainability. The model outlines how external stimuli, such as natural resource conservation (CNR) and economic benefits of ecotourism (EBE), influence internal perceptions and behaviors (organism) among key stakeholders—local participation (LP), tourist awareness (TA), and community engagement (CE). These intermediary factors then contribute to the overall sustainable balance (SB) between nature conservation and economic development. The diagram visually demonstrates the relationships between these variables and the hypothesized pathways tested in the research.

3. Methods for This Study

3.1. Questionnaire Design

In this study, we apply the SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) model to examine the influence of various factors on the perceptions and behaviors of actors in ecotourism, with a specific focus on Serbia and Croatia. The first component of the model, external stimuli (Stimulus), includes the conservation of natural resources (CNR) and economic benefits of ecotourism (EBE). These factors highlight ecotourism’s contributions to nature conservation, pollution reduction, and the economic development of local communities. This dimension draws upon findings by Oviedo-García et al. [41] who explore the perceived value of ecotourism destinations and its impact on tourist satisfaction, and Das and Chatterjee [1], who analyze how ecotourism contributes to balancing nature conservation with economic development. These factors are further tailored to the specificities of destinations in Serbia and Croatia. Internal reactions (Organism) are reflected through three key constructs: local participation (LP), tourist awareness (TA), and community engagement (CE) [42]. These factors encompass the active involvement of local communities in planning and implementing ecotourism initiatives, raising tourists’ awareness of sustainable practices and their responsibility towards nature and fostering community social engagement. Yu et al. [43] emphasize the crucial role of local communities in achieving sustainable tourism, while Kim, Bonn, and Hall [44] highlight how local residents’ perceptions influence the success of ecotourism initiatives. Similarly, Zhang et al. [45] underscore the importance of educating tourists about sustainable practices, while Phung and Trun [46] point out that tourists’ perceptions of a destination’s value play a key role in shaping their responses and engagement with ecotourism. The ultimate response (Response) is represented by sustainable balance (SB), which measures the achieved balance between natural resource conservation and economic development. This concept is based on the work of Hewei and Youngsook [47], who highlight the necessity of integrating economic and ecological goals, and Dabija et al. [48], who analyze the tensions between development and natural resource protection.

The application of this model provides a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships among the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of ecotourism, offering guidance for the further development of sustainable practices in Serbia and Croatia (Figure 1). A five-point Likert scale was employed to quantify attitudes (1—strongly disagree, 5—strongly agree), enabling precise data collection.

Table 1. Items and abbreviations.

Sample	Factor	Items	Abbreviation
Local community	Economy and benefits of ecotourism (EBE)	Ecotourism improves the economic opportunities in the community.	EBE1
		Ecotourism activities bring additional income to the community.	EBE2
		Sustainable practices in ecotourism encourage economic growth.	EBE3
		Ecotourism preserves traditional economic activities.	EBE4
	Conservation of natural resources (CNR)	Ecotourism is crucial for the conservation of natural resources.	CNR1
		Ecotourism reduces environmental impact.	CNR2
		Sustainable practices enable long-term environmental protection.	CNR3
		Ecotourism reduces environmental problems.	CNR4
	Sustainable balance (SB)	Ecotourism contributes to nature conservation and economic growth.	SB1
		Ecotourism balances nature protection and development.	SB2
		Sustainable practices preserve natural resources.	SB3
		Ecotourism maintains the balance between people and nature.	SB4
	Local participation (LP)	The community is involved in ecotourism planning.	LP1
		Local initiatives are important for ecotourism development.	LP2
		The community directly benefits from ecotourism activities.	LP3
		Ecotourism strengthens social relationships within the community.	LP4
Tourists	Economy and benefits of ecotourism (EBE)	Ecotourism helps the sustainable development of communities.	EBE5
		My contribution through ecotourism helps the local economy.	EBE6
		The economic impact of ecotourism is positive for the community.	EBE7
		Ecotourism preserves local economic practices.	EBE8
	Conservation of natural resources (CNR)	As a tourist, I support ecotourism for resource conservation.	CNR5
		Ecotourism positively impacts nature in destinations.	CNR6
		My activities as an ecotourist are sustainable.	CNR7
		Ecotourism reduces environmental problems in destinations.	CNR8
	Sustainable balance (SB)	Ecotourism enables tourists to contribute to nature conservation.	SB5
		My activities as a tourist are responsible and sustainable.	SB6
		Ecotourism reduces the negative impact of human activities on nature.	SB7
		Ecotourism balances development and nature protection.	SB8
	Tourist awareness (TA)	I believe ecotourism raises awareness of nature conservation.	TA1
		Ecotourism educates tourists about sustainable practices.	TA2
		Tourists feel responsible for conserving natural resources.	TA3
		Ecotourism encourages tourists to contribute to the local community.	TA4
Managers	Economy and benefits of ecotourism (EBE)	Ecotourism improves the financial stability of destinations.	EBE9
		Ecotourism increases revenue through sustainable initiatives.	EBE10
		Investing in ecotourism promotes long-term growth.	EBE11
		Sustainable initiatives support the local economy and culture.	EBE12
	Conservation of natural resources (CNR)	Ecotourism helps conserve biodiversity.	CNR9
		Ecotourism initiatives protect natural resources.	CNR10
		Ecotourism enables long-term protection of natural resources.	CNR11
		Ecotourism reduces the ecological footprint of destinations.	CNR12
	Sustainable balance (SB)	Ecotourism contributes to long-term nature conservation.	SB9
		Our initiatives balance human activities and nature conservation.	SB10
		Sustainable ecotourism preserves biodiversity without hindering development.	SB11
		Ecotourism enables a balance between nature conservation and economic gain.	SB12
	Community engagement (CE)	Destination management involves the local community in ecotourism.	CE1
		Local management participate in ecotourism planning.	CE2
		Ecotourism brings direct economic benefits to local communities.	CE3
		Sustainable ecotourism improves relationships between managers and communities.	CE4

provides an overview of the ecotourism-related statements, categorized by respondent groups: local community, tourists, and managers. To facilitate further analysis, each statement is labeled with corresponding abbreviations.

3.2. Procedure and Sample

The research was conducted in key tourist destinations of Serbia and Croatia, including Kopaonik, Tara, Zlatibor, Fruška Gora, and the Đerdap National Park in Serbia, as well as Belgrade, Plitvice Lakes National Park, Dubrovnik, Split, Hvar, Zadar, Kornati National Park, and Krka National Park in Croatia (Figure 2). The red dots on the map represent the key ecotourism locations analyzed in the study. These include protected areas, national parks, and significant tourist destinations in both Serbia and Croatia. The distribution of these points highlights the geographical scope of the research, focusing on areas with ecological and economic relevance to sustainable tourism development.

These locations were selected due to their significance for regional tourism and their potential for implementing sustainable tourism practices, with a particular focus on natural resources and cultural heritage. Data were collected from June to August 2024, encompassing a representative sample of tourists, local residents, and managers from the hospitality sector.

Using stratified random sampling ensured adequate representation of key demographic categories, such as age, gender, education, and income. This method allowed for a precise sample distribution, minimizing potential sources of bias and ensuring the validity of the results [49]. The data collection was conducted using the TAPI (Tablet-Assisted Personal Interviewing) method, which ensured high accuracy and efficiency in gathering information directly in the field [50]. Before the main research, the questionnaire was tested on a pilot sample of 50 respondents to ensure the validity and clarity of the questions. The questionnaires were available in Serbian and Croatian, catering to the preferences of the respondents. The total sample size of 1200 respondents exceeded the minimum statistical requirements for reliable analysis, calculated using Cochran’s formula with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error [51] (

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.

Characteristic	T Serbia 410	%	T Croatia 390	%	LP Serbia160	%	LP Croatia 140	%	M Serbia 55	%	M Croatia 45	%
Gender
Male	225	54.9	208	53.1	81	49.7	64	46.4	36	63.2	29	64.4
Female	185	45.1	184	46.9	82	50.3	74	53.6	21	36.8	16	35.6
Age
18–29 years	127	31.0	116	29.6	44	27.0	36	26.1	16	28.1	11	24.4
30–44 years	169	41.2	163	41.6	66	40.5	61	44.2	26	45.6	21	46.7
45–60 years	94	22.9	92	23.5	38	23.3	34	24.6	12	21.1	9	20.0
60+ years	20	4.9	21	5.4	15	9.2	7	5.1	3	5.2	4	8.9
Education
High School	135	32.9	138	35.2	52	31.9	54	39.1	17	29.8	11	24.4
Faculty	210	51.2	183	46.7	77	47.2	53	38.4	23	40.4	26	57.8
MSc, PhD	65	15.9	71	18.1	34	20.9	31	22.5	17	29.8	8	17.8
Income
<$1000	110	26.8	116	29.6	50	30.7	43	31.2	12	21.1	7	15.6
$1000–$2000	217	52.9	198	50.5	89	54.6	67	48.6	28	49.1	19	42.2
>$2000	83	20.2	78	19.9	24	14.7	28	20.3	17	29.8	19	42.2

Note: T—tourists, LP—local population, M—managers.

). Stratified sampling further ensured that the sample reflected the demographic characteristics of the population, providing representativeness and reliability in the obtained results [52]. The study was conducted following all ethical guidelines, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and assurances that managers’ responses would not affect their professional evaluations. Particular attention was given to avoiding moral hazard among managers by emphasizing that their responses would not be linked to business or evaluative consequences. This approach ensured a high level of ethical integrity in the study, as well as the validity and reliability of the collected data.

When comparing groups, tourists in Serbia and Croatia exhibited similar demographic structures. However, Croatian tourists had a slightly higher proportion of those with a university education (46.7%) compared to Serbian tourists (51.2%). Local populations in both countries showed similar patterns, with a higher percentage of high-income earners (>€2000) in Croatia (20.3%) compared to Serbia (14.7%). Serbian managers had a significantly higher proportion of men (63.2%) compared to their Croatian counterparts (64.4%), while differences in education and income slightly favored Croatian managers, who had a higher proportion of university-educated individuals and higher income levels (Table 2).

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 26.00 and SmartPLS version 3.0. Initial descriptive statistics included means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for all items, while data normality was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p > 0.05) [53]. Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with the scales showing satisfactory values: 0.888 for the Serbian sample and 0.908 for the Croatian sample. The normality of the data distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which showed p > 0.05 for all factors, indicating satisfactory normality of the distribution [54]. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.85 for Serbia and 0.876 for Croatia, indicating high adequacy of the sample for factor analysis [55]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant for both samples (Serbia: χ² (120) = 745.65, p < 0.001; Croatia: χ² (136) = 819.24, p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of using factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to assess latent constructs, with the factors explaining a significant percentage of variance in both samples. The values of composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) demonstrated high reliability and convergent validity [56]. CR values exceeded 0.7, indicating good internal consistency for all factors, while AVE values surpassed 0.5, confirming that the explained variance was greater than the error variance, which indicates convergent validity of the constructs in both samples. Multi-group analysis (MGA) was conducted to process the data and identify differences in responses among the respondent groups—tourists, local communities, and managers—in Serbia and Croatia. The parameters obtained were utilized within the PLS-SEM framework and were also used for path analysis and the examination of the relationships between key constructs in the model [56].

3.4. Measurement Model

The results indicate high reliability and satisfactory convergent validity for all constructs in the study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability (CR) values were generally high, confirming strong internal consistency. For the Serbian sample, alpha coefficients ranged from 0.870 to 0.892 (Cronbach’s α = 0.888; CR = 0.903), with CR values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7. Similarly, for the Croatian sample, slightly higher alpha coefficients were observed, ranging from 0.880 to 0.908 (Cronbach’s α = 0.908; CR = 0.915). The average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the threshold of 0.5 for most constructs, confirming good convergent validity. For the Serbian sample, the average AVE values were 0.643 (AVE = 0.643), while for Croatia, they were 0.658 (AVE = 0.658). Minor differences were observed in rho_A values, where constructs in the Croatian sample showed slightly lower values (rho_A Serbia = 0.854; rho_A Croatia = 0.841), potentially indicating weaker structural validity among the local population. Results from the HTMT (Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio) analysis showed acceptable values, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity between constructs. Most construct pairs had values below the recommended threshold of 0.85 [57] (HTMT Serbia = 0.742; HTMT Croatia = 0.769), confirming that constructs were not overly correlated and measured distinct concepts. Differences between the Serbian and Croatian groups suggest specific patterns of ecotourism perceptions among local residents, tourists, and managers. The reported VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) values indicated satisfactory control of multicollinearity within the model across all analyzed groups, including local residents, tourists, and managers in Serbia and Croatia. All VIF values were below the threshold of 5 [58] (VIF Serbia = 3.45; VIF Croatia = 3.32), confirming the absence of significant interdependence issues among predictors. Model fit indicators demonstrated satisfactory values across all groups, with metrics indicating adequate model adjustment and high validity. Standardized errors and fit indices confirmed alignment between the model and the data for both the Serbian and Croatian samples.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Descriptive, EFA, and Correlation Analysis

Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity test.

Sample		Sample from Serbia				Sample from Croatia
	Items	m	sd	α	λ	m	sd	α	λ
Local community	EBE1	4.21	0.612	0.893	0.735	3.55	0.920	0.878	0.754
	EBE2	3.99	0.589	0.890	0.748	2.98	1.012	0.872	0.740
	EBE3	3.28	1.477	0.898	0.713	4.15	0.845	0.880	0.772
	EBE4	3.85	1.632	0.880	0.702	3.35	1.101	0.868	0.728
	CNR1	4.30	1.503	0.880	0.754	3.90	0.503	0.880	0.754
	CNR2	4.02	1.549	0.884	0.768	4.22	0.940	0.885	0.782
	CNR3	4.25	0.610	0.870	0.799	3.75	0.765	0.880	0.758
	CNR4	4.05	0.689	0.892	0.730	2.85	1.012	0.870	0.746
	SB1	4.10	1.585	0.872	0.745	4.05	0.821	0.876	0.779
	SB2	3.00	0.655	0.877	0.760	3.58	1.025	0.880	0.768
	SB3	3.18	1.611	0.874	0.782	3.90	0.958	0.874	0.782
	SB4	4.12	1.497	0.874	0.739	4.25	0.903	0.869	0.750
	LP1	3.98	1.625	0.865	0.710	3.22	1.105	0.865	0.745
	LP2	4.04	1.553	0.878	0.765	4.05	0.875	0.878	0.762
	LP3	4.18	1.582	0.876	0.742	3.60	0.296	0.874	0.755
	LP4	2.42	0.540	0.885	0.728	3.75	0.185	0.880	0.730
Tourists	EBE5	4.35	0.488	0.873	0.744	4.12	0.795	0.870	0.748
	EBE6	3.22	0.622	0.879	0.732	3.88	1.028	0.873	0.735
	EBE7	3.10	1.712	0.878	0.708	3.65	1.110	0.878	0.720
	EBE8	4.36	0.551	0.882	0.729	2.95	0.857	0.880	0.740
	CNR5	3.25	0.498	0.869	0.746	3.85	0.722	0.876	0.758
	CNR6	4.12	0.528	0.880	0.778	4.10	0.952	0.877	0.779
	CNR7	4.30	0.497	0.875	0.789	4.05	0.810	0.872	0.784
	CNR8	4.08	0.509	0.884	0.725	2.90	0.198	0.880	0.752
	SB5	4.68	0.578	0.877	0.762	4.22	1.125	0.874	0.780
	SB6	4.12	0.639	0.873	0.780	3.75	0.785	0.877	0.768
	SB7	3.05	1.512	0.869	0.741	3.48	0.899	0.870	0.755
	SB8	3.72	0.543	0.875	0.765	4.35	0.931	0.878	0.765
	TA1	4.50	0.497	0.870	0.765	4.18	0.795	0.870	0.748
	TA2	2.88	0.610	0.872	0.780	4.05	1.028	0.873	0.735
	TA3	3.22	1.592	0.877	0.755	3.90	1.110	0.878	0.720
	TA4	3.35	0.478	0.879	0.762	3.78	0.157	0.880	0.740
Managers	EBE9	4.13	0.460	0.870	0.748	4.35	0.985	0.869	0.762
	EBE10	4.25	0.542	0.872	0.772	4.22	0.743	0.872	0.780
	EBE11	4.22	0.555	0.875	0.735	3.65	1.010	0.875	0.740
	EBE12	4.28	0.501	0.878	0.720	4.00	0.832	0.878	0.720
	CNR9	4.01	0.610	0.869	0.780	3.95	1.010	0.868	0.775
	CNR10	4.45	0.511	0.868	0.794	3.60	0.812	0.870	0.794
	CNR11	4.37	0.587	0.873	0.755	4.12	0.189	0.873	0.752
	CNR12	4.15	0.749	0.871	0.741	4.10	1.112	0.871	0.741
	SB9	4.25	0.987	0.874	0.784	3.55	0.940	0.875	0.765
	SB10	4.65	1.865	0.878	0.765	2.98	1.020	0.878	0.784
	SB11	4.38	0.478	0.879	0.751	4.15	0.965	0.879	0.775
	SB12	4.12	1.612	0.881	0.770	3.35	1.045	0.880	0.762
	CE2	4.40	1.520	0.873	0.758	3.90	0.985	0.869	0.762
	CE2	4.45	1.470	0.874	0.780	4.22	0.143	0.872	0.780
	CE3	4.38	0.512	0.876	0.765	3.75	1.010	0.875	0.740
	CE4	4.32	1.895	0.875	0.746	2.85	0.132	0.878	0.720

Note: EBE—Economy and benefits of ecotourism, CNR—Conservation of natural resources, SB—Sustainable balance, LP—Local participation, TA—Tourist awareness, CE—Community engagement, m—arithmetic mean, sd—standard deviation, α—Cronbach’s alpha, λ—factor loading.

presents the descriptive values for the statements within different factors, comparing the samples from Serbia and Croatia. The arithmetic means (m), standard deviations (sd), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α), and factor loadings (λ) for each statement are shown. Differences in mean values indicate varying perceptions between the two samples, revealing how local residents, tourists, and managers assess the economic, ecological, and social impact of ecotourism. The results show that respondents from Croatia, on average, provide slightly lower ratings on economic and ecological benefits, with greater variation in responses (sd). On the other hand, the sample from Serbia shows greater consistency and slightly higher mean scores in categories such as community participation and sustainable balance. Cronbach’s alpha values, ranging from 0.865 to 0.898, indicate good internal consistency within the factors for both samples, while the factor loadings (λ) demonstrate the strength of the relationship between each statement and its corresponding factor.

The results show a high level of reliability in both samples, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.87 for all factors, indicating high internal consistency of the statements within each factor (

Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity test for the factors.

Sample from Serbia
Sample	Factor	m	sd	α	IE	% Variance	Cumulative %	CR	AVE
Local community	EBE	3.14	1.575	0.892	4.150	16.601	16.601	0.910	0.710
	CNR	4.21	1.506	0.880	3.275	13.100	29.701	0.935	0.685
	SB	4.62	0.144	0.874	2.590	10.360	40.061	0.890	0.652
	LP	3.16	0.173	0.876	1.910	7.641	47.702	0.895	0.679
Tourists	EBE	4.23	0.528	0.873	4.320	17.120	17.120	0.902	0.702
	CNR	4.22	0.507	0.880	3.210	12.840	29.960	0.898	0.683
	SB	4.18	0.559	0.877	2.460	9.840	39.800	0.896	0.675
	TA	4.31	0.520	0.872	1.740	6.960	46.760	0.901	0.689
Managers	EBE	4.36	0.502	0.870	4.500	17.900	17.900	0.897	0.671
	CNR	4.40	0.529	0.869	3.360	13.440	31.340	0.895	0.680
	SB	4.32	0.556	0.874	2.600	10.400	41.740	0.892	0.772
	CE	4.39	0.536	0.873	1.670	6.680	48.420	0.900	0.691
Sample from Croatia
Sample	Factor	m	sd	α	IE	% Variance	Cumulative %	CR	AVE
Local community	EBE	3.95	1.150	0.895	4.330	17.320	17.320	0.920	0.736
	CNR	4.08	1.030	0.885	3.425	13.700	31.020	0.902	0.695
	SB	4.12	0.990	0.880	2.730	10.920	41.940	0.910	0.675
	LP	4.20	1.012	0.880	2.025	8.100	50.040	0.919	0.677
Tourists	EBE	4.05	0.921	0.880	4.480	17.920	17.920	0.965	0.720
	CNR	4.10	1.110	0.885	3.400	13.600	31.520	0.933	0.699
	SB	4.02	0.810	0.880	2.550	10.200	41.720	0.905	0.680
	TA	4.18	1.050	0.878	1.880	7.520	49.240	0.912	0.710
Managers	EBE	4.22	1.050	0.875	4.620	18.480	18.480	0.945	0.725
	CNR	4.35	1.200	0.880	3.470	13.880	32.360	0.920	0.700
	SB	4.15	0.860	0.882	2.670	10.680	43.040	0.928	0.780
	CE	4.28	1.045	0.878	1.950	7.r	50.840	0.915	0.715

Note: EBE—Economy and benefits of ecotourism, CNR—Conservation of natural resources, SB—Sustainable balance, LP—Local participation, TA—Tourist awareness, CE—Community engagement, m—arithmetic mean, sd—standard deviation, α—c=Cronbach’s alpha, CR—composite reliability, AVE—average variance extracted.

). Composite reliability (CR) values are above 0.89, further confirming the reliability of the factors. AVE values are above 0.65 for all factors, indicating good convergent validity, as more than 50% of the factor variance is explained by the statements themselves. Differences between the samples from Serbia and Croatia are noticeable in the perception of various aspects of ecotourism. In the Croatian sample, mean values (m) for factors such as economic benefits and natural resource conservation are generally higher compared to the Serbian sample, while standard deviations (sd) show greater variation in responses, suggesting a wider range of opinions and perceptions among respondents in Croatia. On the other hand, the Serbian sample exhibits greater response stability, with lower sd values and slightly higher ratings for factors such as local participation and sustainable balance. The cumulative percentages of variance indicate how much explained variance each factor contributed to the overall model, with the factors of economic benefits of ecotourism and natural resource conservation having the largest share in both samples, highlighting their key role in the perception of ecotourism.

Table 5. Correlations among variables.

Construct	EBE	CNR	LP	SB	TA	CE
EBE	0.852
CNR	0.610	0.870
LP	0.590	0.628	0.835
SB	0.512	0.578	0.645	0.860
TA	0.478	0.520	0.600	0.710	0.860
CE	0.450	0.495	0.540	0.630	0.590	0.842

Note: The diagonal is the AVE square root of each construct.

shows the correlations among constructs, indicating that the square roots of the AVE values (displayed on the diagonal) exceed all inter-construct correlations, confirming satisfactory discriminant validity. For the EBE construct, the square root of the AVE is 0.852, which is higher than all its correlations with other constructs (the highest being with CNR, 0.610). The inter-construct correlations are within acceptable limits, indicating that the constructs measure different aspects of the phenomenon. The strongest inter-construct correlation was observed between LP and SB (0.645), suggesting a strong connection between local community participation and sustainable balance. The weakest correlation was between EBE and CE (0.450), indicating a lower level of association between the economic benefits of ecotourism and community engagement. These results further confirm that each construct measures a specific concept without overlap among constructs.

4.2. Results of SEM Analysis

The results of the model fit statistics indicate satisfactory values for the samples from Serbia and Croatia. The χ²/df values are close to the optimal range, with 1.875 for Serbia and 1.914 for Croatia, suggesting an adequate model fit to the data. The RMSEA values are identical for both samples (0.06), further confirming good model fit [59]. Fit indices such as CFI and NFI demonstrate a high level of model-data alignment [60]. For the Serbian sample, the CFI is 0.94, while for Croatia, it is slightly lower at 0.93. A similar trend is observed with NFI values, which are 0.993 for Serbia and 0.992 for Croatia. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) remains within acceptable limits, with values of 0.087 for Serbia and 0.080 for Croatia [61]. The coefficients of determination (R²) show that the model explains a significant proportion of the variance in dependent constructs in both countries [59]. For local residents, R² is 0.512 in Serbia and 0.541 in Croatia, while the values for tourists are 0.579 in Serbia and 0.608 in Croatia. Managers have the highest R² values, with 0.685 in Serbia and 0.639 in Croatia (

Table 6. Results of the models’ goodness of fit statistics.

Statistic	Serbia	Croatia
χ2/df	1.875	1.914
RMSEA	0.06	0.06
CFI	0.94	0.93
SRMR	0.087	0.080
NFI	0.993	0.992
R2 (Local community)	0.512	0.541
R2 (Tourists)	0.579	0.608
R2 (Managers)	0.685	0.639

).

Table 7. Analysis of effects and explained variance for SB (sustainable balance).

	Serbia
Construct	R2	Q2	f2	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect
SB (Local community)	0.512	0.280	0.310	0.450	0.275	0.725
SB (Tourists)	0.579	0.286	0.315	0.510	0.310	0.820
SB (Managers)	0.685	0.320	0.347	0.530	0.330	0.860
	Croatia
Construct	R2	Q2	f2	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect
SB (Local community)	0.541	0.300	0.330	0.460	0.280	0.740
SB (Tourists)	0.608	0.310	0.325	0.520	0.320	0.840
SB (Managers)	0.639	0.340	0.360	0.540	0.350	0.890

presents the key metrics for assessing the structural model, including explained variance (R²), predictive relevance (Q²), effect size (f²), as well as the direct, indirect, and total effects on the dependent variable SB for the three respondent groups. The results confirm the significance and predictive power of the model in explaining SB, providing insights into the contributions of the independent constructs [60].

The analysis results confirm significant relationships between the key constructs in the model, supporting all proposed hypotheses. Direct effects show that natural resources (CNR) positively influence local participation (LP), tourist awareness (TA), and community engagement (CE) across all respondent groups (H1a, H1b, H1c). Managers in Serbia stand out, with the strongest effect observed for CNR → CE (β = 0.692, t = 9.231, p < 0.001). In Croatia, the impact on TA is more pronounced among tourists, reflecting successfully implemented conservation and education policies (H1b: β = 0.686, t = 6.098, p < 0.001). Similarly, the economic benefits of ecotourism (EBE) have a significant direct impact on all mediating constructs (LP, TA, and CE) for all respondent groups (H2a, H2b, H2c). Among local residents in Serbia, EBE → LP shows β = 0.431 (t = 9.587, p = 0.003), while in Croatia, the impact on CE is particularly strong for managers (H2c: β = 0.580, t = 10.320, p < 0.001). Indirect effects further confirm the mediating role of LP, TA, and CE in transmitting the influence of CNR and EBE on sustainable balance (SB). For instance, the indirect effects CNR → LP → SB show β = 0.287 for tourists in Serbia (t = 9.102, p < 0.001) and β = 0.341 for tourists in Croatia (t = 8.013, p < 0.001), supporting H3a. Similarly, the effects EBE → TA → SB highlight the importance of tourist education in Croatia, where β = 0.400 (t = 9.450, p < 0.001), confirming H4b. The strongest indirect effect was identified among managers in Serbia, where EBE → CE → SB has β = 0.350 (t = 9.500, p < 0.001), with a similar pattern observed among tourists in Croatia (H4c: β = 0.410, t = 9.300, p < 0.001). These results underscore the critical role of collective engagement in achieving sustainable tourism practices. The findings also reveal regional differences between Serbia and Croatia. While local participation and community contribution dominate in Serbia (CNR → LP, EBE → CE), tourist awareness and education are emphasized in Croatia (CNR → TA, EBE → TA) (

Table 8. Path analysis and hypothesis testing.

H	Path	Serbia					Croatia					Confirmation
		Tourists					Tourists
		β	m	sd	t	p	Β	m	sd	t	p
H1a	CNR → LP	0.371	0.582	0.099	14.636	0.001	0.409	0.441	0.063	6.000	0.000	supported
H1b	CNR → TA	0.321	0.407	0.068	13.759	0.002	0.686	0.528	0.099	6.098	0.001	supported
H1c	CNR → CE	0.633	0.467	0.052	5.285	0.000	0.582	0.585	0.066	10.317	0.000	supported
H2a	EBE → LP	0.441	0.426	0.093	10.837	0.003	0.566	0.538	0.092	12.839	0.002	supported
H2b	EBE → TA	0.606	0.479	0.065	5.329	0.001	0.396	0.414	0.095	11.462	0.000	supported
H2c	EBE → CE	0.530	0.500	0.070	9.120	0.001	0.475	0.460	0.064	8.890	0.000	supported
H3a	CNR → LP → SB	0.287	0.472	0.053	9.102	0.001	0.341	0.454	0.061	8.013	0.000	supported
H3b	CNR → TA → SB	0.312	0.465	0.054	8.450	0.001	0.365	0.478	0.060	9.001	0.000	supported
H3c	CNR → CE → SB	0.299	0.470	0.055	8.800	0.001	0.320	0.480	0.059	8.970	0.000	supported
H4a	EBE → LP → SB	0.321	0.459	0.056	8.394	0.001	0.389	0.472	0.062	9.124	0.000	supported
H4b	EBE → TA → SB	0.333	0.465	0.057	8.780	0.001	0.400	0.490	0.061	9.450	0.000	supported
H4c	EBE → CE → SB	0.345	0.475	0.058	9.110	0.001	0.410	0.485	0.060	9.300	0.000	supported
	Path	Local community					Local community
		β	m	sd	t	p	Β	m	sd	t	p
H1a	CNR → LP	0.457	0.471	0.091	12.601	0.001	0.501	0.462	0.072	7.003	0.000	supported
H1b	CNR → TA	0.342	0.498	0.067	11.908	0.002	0.601	0.534	0.078	8.001	0.001	supported
H1c	CNR → CE	0.592	0.472	0.056	6.234	0.000	0.643	0.514	0.062	9.236	0.000	supported
H2a	EBE → LP	0.431	0.489	0.081	9.587	0.003	0.472	0.461	0.089	10.412	0.002	supported
H2b	EBE → TA	0.512	0.481	0.064	8.129	0.001	0.498	0.504	0.076	9.345	0.000	supported
H2c	EBE → CE	0.495	0.478	0.068	9.014	0.001	0.520	0.485	0.070	9.700	0.000	supported
H3a	CNR → LP → SB	0.319	0.478	0.052	9.210	0.001	0.350	0.463	0.059	8.410	0.000	supported
H3b	CNR → TA → SB	0.325	0.480	0.055	8.560	0.001	0.370	0.490	0.062	9.300	0.000	supported
H3c	CNR → CE → SB	0.310	0.475	0.054	8.702	0.001	0.345	0.468	0.058	8.900	0.000	supported
H4a	EBE → LP → SB	0.328	0.471	0.058	9.050	0.001	0.395	0.483	0.061	9.214	0.000	supported
H4b	EBE → TA → SB	0.333	0.465	0.057	8.900	0.001	0.400	0.490	0.060	9.345	0.000	supported
H4c	EBE → CE → SB	0.340	0.478	0.056	9.320	0.001	0.410	0.485	0.059	9.500	0.000	supported
	Path	Managers					Managers
		β	m	sd	t	p	Β	m	sd	t	p
H1a	CNR → LP	0.601	0.513	0.083	13.781	0.001	0.672	0.512	0.074	7.004	0.000	supported
H1b	CNR → TA	0.512	0.524	0.074	12.891	0.002	0.573	0.563	0.069	8.356	0.001	supported
H1c	CNR → CE	0.692	0.561	0.066	9.231	0.000	0.734	0.593	0.061	9.702	0.000	supported
H2a	EBE → LP	0.489	0.542	0.091	10.231	0.003	0.523	0.504	0.081	11.562	0.002	supported
H2b	EBE → TA	0.553	0.571	0.068	11.512	0.001	0.612	0.589	0.079	12.005	0.000	supported
H2c	EBE → CE	0.540	0.550	0.072	9.800	0.001	0.580	0.563	0.065	10.320	0.000	supported
H3a	CNR → LP → SB	0.300	0.485	0.051	9.410	0.001	0.362	0.470	0.057	8.890	0.000	supported
H3b	CNR → TA → SB	0.325	0.490	0.054	8.780	0.001	0.375	0.495	0.061	9.520	0.000	supported
H3c	CNR → CE → SB	0.310	0.475	0.053	8.610	0.001	0.350	0.468	0.058	8.970	0.000	supported
H4a	EBE → LP → SB	0.333	0.480	0.057	8.780	0.001	0.400	0.490	0.060	9.450	0.000	supported
H4b	EBE → TA → SB	0.345	0.475	0.058	9.120	0.001	0.410	0.485	0.059	9.300	0.000	supported
H4c	EBE → CE → SB	0.350	0.482	0.059	9.500	0.001	0.420	0.492	0.058	9.700	0.000	supported

Note: β—effect size and direction, m—arithmetic mean, sd—standard deviation, t—t value, p—statistical significance.

).

After conducting the path analysis, which was used to examine the detailed relationships between constructs and validate the proposed hypotheses, a concise version of the multi-group analysis (MGA) was performed (

Table 9. Multi-group analysis of path coefficients and effect sizes for SRB and CRO.

Group	SRB (β)	CRO (β)	Δβ	Δt	Δp	Significance	Q2 SRB	Q2 CRO	f2 SRB	f2 CRO
Tourists	0.400	0.440	−0.040	2.10	0.021	**	0.210	0.240	0.310	0.340
Local community	0.360	0.410	−0.050	2.30	0.017	**	0.200	0.230	0.270	0.320
Managers	0.420	0.480	−0.060	2.75	0.008	***	0.220	0.250	0.330	0.350

Note: SRB—Serbia, CRO—Croatia. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.

). The MGA provided a comparative perspective, allowing for a deeper understanding of variations in perceptions and contextual factors influencing sustainable ecotourism practices. Specifically, the multi-group analysis (MGA) was conducted to investigate and compare differences in path coefficients and effect sizes among the respondent groups: tourists, local communities, and managers, in Serbia (SRB) and Croatia (CRO). Before the analysis, all necessary conditions, including measurement invariance, were satisfied, ensuring the comparability of constructs across groups. The results suggest that the development of sustainable ecotourism is strongly influenced by institutional frameworks, economic priorities, and the level of awareness among tourists and local stakeholders. The most significant differences were observed among managers, where the effects of sustainable practices were more pronounced in Croatia (β = 0.480) compared to Serbia (β = 0.420), indicating a stronger institutional framework and better integration within the EU context. Among local communities, notable differences were also evident (CRO: β = 0.410, SRB: β = 0.360), suggesting that local actor participation in Croatia is better structured and supported. For tourists, although the differences in coefficients were less pronounced (CRO: β = 0.440, SRB: β = 0.400), the analysis indicates higher awareness and engagement among tourists in Croatia. The statistical significance of these differences was confirmed by Δt and Δp values, which highlighted significant variations between groups, particularly for local communities and managers. These findings underscore the importance of local specificities in developing sustainable tourism strategies. Furthermore, the effect sizes (f²) and the predictive relevance of the model (Q²) confirm the validity of the model in both countries, with slightly higher values in Croatia, indicating better predictive strength and integration of sustainable practices.

5. Discussion

The comparative analysis of ecotourism in Serbia and Croatia provides significant insights into different approaches to sustainable tourism, considering the specific political, cultural, and geographical characteristics of each country [4,5,62,63,64,65]. The results of this research indicate notable differences in the perception of ecotourism by tourists, local residents, and managers in Serbia and Croatia. In Serbia, where ecotourism is still developing, respondents demonstrated high awareness of the importance of natural resource conservation. These findings align with Han et al. [66] who emphasize the importance of responsible visitor decision-making within the norm activation process. Additionally, Gössling et al. [67] highlight changes in consumer behavior driven by climate change, underscoring the significance of environmental awareness in fostering responsible tourist behavior. The results of this study confirm that ecological awareness contributes to the sustainability of tourist destinations by positively shaping visitor behavior. The importance of local community participation in ecotourism initiatives is particularly evident in Croatia, where local communities actively participate in the planning and implementation of tourism activities. These findings align with previous research emphasizing the role of community-based approaches in strengthening ecotourism sustainability [19,26,29]. Chan et al. [68] point out that such participation enhances responsible tourism practices, while Waluyo et al. [69] further emphasize the harmonization of economic, cultural, and ecological goals as the key to the long-term success of ecotourism. The findings of this study indicate that natural resource conservation is essential for achieving sustainable balance, consistent with the findings of Sobhani et al. [70] who highlight the importance of active local community involvement in the sustainable development of protected areas. Specific local circumstances in Serbia and Croatia play a crucial role in shaping sustainable ecotourism practices. In Croatia, institutional support and a long-term strategy for ecotourism development have resulted in a higher level of awareness and engagement of the local population in ecological initiatives. On the other hand, in Serbia, ecotourism is still developing, with key challenges related to aligning national policies with international standards and strengthening the participation of local stakeholders. These insights highlight the need for tailored strategies that consider the socio-economic and institutional differences between the two countries. Similar conclusions are drawn by Lasso and Dahles [71] who emphasize the importance of a local approach in ecotourism development, as exemplified by Komodo National Park. Ecotourism has proven to be a platform for developing sustainable practices through the integration of local knowledge and education. By incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, community-driven tourism initiatives enhance both environmental conservation and socio-economic benefits. Education plays a crucial role in equipping local communities with the necessary skills to manage ecotourism operations effectively, ensuring long-term sustainability. Furthermore, participatory approaches enable knowledge-sharing between tourists and host communities, fostering mutual understanding and reinforcing sustainable tourism behaviors. These findings align with previous research emphasizing the importance of local knowledge, community participation, and education in achieving ecotourism sustainability [10,11,26,30,31]. Tauro et al. [72] identify biocultural ethics as a key element in education for sustainable development, while Zainal et al. [73] stress the importance of local knowledge in protecting natural resources and ensuring sustainable community development. Additionally, Imppola [74] and Khan [75] point out the opportunities and challenges globalization brings to ecotourism, particularly in balancing economic benefits with natural resource conservation. Our findings further confirm the necessity of this balance, as respondents recognize and value both the conservation of nature and the economic benefits of ecotourism [76,77,78,79,80]. In the context of environmentally sustainable growth, it is important to consider the existing policies and values of sustainable development in the tourism sector of Serbia and Croatia. Croatia, as an EU member state, already implements regulations that promote ecological sustainability, while Serbia, as a transitional country, is still developing its policies in accordance with international standards. The adoption of effective sustainable development strategies and the implementation of European Union guidelines could contribute to accelerating the adaptation process of ecotourism in Serbia. Further research could focus on specific regulatory barriers and opportunities for improving sustainable tourism practices in the region.

This study underscores the critical role of institutional frameworks in the successful implementation of sustainable practices, making a significant contribution to the global understanding of the importance of policy and governance in ecotourism. The findings are relevant for academics focused on sustainable development and tourism, as well as researchers exploring institutional and participatory models. Moreover, the results are applicable to other regions with transitional economies and industries dependent on sustainable practices, such as agriculture and hospitality. This work is significant as it enhances understanding of sustainable development in regions facing unique challenges, offering clear guidelines for practical application in diverse contexts. Additionally, the study provides practical and theoretical insights useful for educational programs and research projects, making it a valuable resource for the academic community, practitioners, and policymakers.

6. Concluding Remarks on Implications and Directions for Future Research

Although ecotourism is at different stages of development in the countries analyzed, the results indicate similar challenges in achieving a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The application of the SOR model enabled a systematic analysis of factors influencing sustainability in ecotourism. This model integrates ecological, economic, and social dimensions, providing a comprehensive framework for interpreting the findings. The results confirm that stimuli, such as natural resource conservation and economic benefits, significantly shape stakeholder perceptions, while local participation and community engagement play a crucial role in achieving sustainable balance. While both countries acknowledge the importance of natural resource conservation, respondents in Serbia emphasized the role of ecotourism in preserving biodiversity, whereas in Croatia, the economic benefits of ecotourism were more strongly perceived. These findings suggest that while the overarching principles of sustainability are shared, the relative importance of different factors varies based on institutional and economic contexts. In Serbia, ecotourism is increasingly recognized as a means of preserving natural resources, while in Croatia, it serves as a key driver of economic benefits for local communities. Active participation of local stakeholders in the planning and implementation of ecotourism activities has proven essential for long-term sustainability. Meanwhile, tourists in both countries have shown growing awareness of ecological practices, highlighting the need for further education and promotion of sustainable practices. This comparative analysis provides valuable guidelines for improving ecotourism, particularly by adapting sustainable strategies to local contexts. The results of this study not only highlight the differences in the perception of sustainable ecotourism between Serbia and Croatia but also identify concrete opportunities for improving practices in both countries. The implementation of policies that promote local community involvement and tourist education can contribute to the sustainable development of ecotourism. The study’s findings can serve as a foundation for decision-making in the tourism sector, pointing to specific strategies that could enhance environmental awareness and the economic benefits of ecotourism.

This research emphasizes the importance of tailoring ecotourism strategies to the specific institutional frameworks of EU and non-EU countries. The observed differences between Serbia, a country in transition, and Croatia, an EU member, underscore the significance of institutional support in shaping sustainable practices. Croatia benefits from European policies that integrate ecotourism, whereas Serbia faces challenges in aligning with international standards, pointing to the need for further research on the role of institutions in non-EU countries. The participation of local communities and tourists’ perceptions of sustainable practices further enrich the theory of sustainable tourism development, particularly regarding economic benefits and resource conservation. The findings open pathways for future theoretical developments on the role of innovation and digitalization in enhancing ecotourism in transitional countries. Further investigation should focus on how digital tools can enhance stakeholder engagement, improve visitor experiences, and support real-time environmental monitoring, particularly in countries undergoing policy transitions toward sustainability. This study underscores the need for new theoretical models that consider specific institutional capacities, focusing on how non-EU countries can align ecotourism practices with global sustainability standards, addressing gaps in this area. The use of the SOR model in this research contributes to theory by integrating ecological, economic, and social dimensions into the analysis of sustainable practices. The model identifies key factors and their interrelationships, providing a theoretical framework applicable to various destinations and industries.

The findings provide actionable guidelines for the development of ecotourism in countries with varying institutional capacities, such as Serbia and Croatia. For Serbia, the results highlight the need to strengthen institutional support and implement sustainable development policies. Ecotourism can serve as a tool for preserving natural resources and fostering economic growth in local communities. Croatia, already benefiting from European policies, can further enhance its ecotourism practices by focusing on innovation and digitalization to improve the efficiency and sustainability of tourism activities. It is crucial to continue fostering local community participation in planning and implementing ecotourism initiatives, as the results show that local residents play a pivotal role in long-term sustainability. For policymakers and tourism managers, the study offers practical recommendations on involving local stakeholders in tourism projects, ensuring the equitable distribution of economic benefits and the preservation of natural resources. Additionally, the findings underline the importance of continuously educating tourists on sustainable practices, which could mitigate the negative environmental impacts of tourism. Implementing awareness programs for tourists about ecological practices should be a priority in both countries. The practical implications also include the necessity of investing in innovation and digital tools, especially in Serbia, where technology implementation could accelerate the development of sustainable ecotourism and increase global competitiveness.

Future research should examine the adaptability of ecotourism models to different regulatory environments, comparing how institutional structures influence policy implementation and stakeholder engagement. Additionally, longitudinal studies assessing the long-term impact of sustainability initiatives on local economies and ecosystems would provide deeper insights into the effectiveness of current approaches. Moreover, further studies could investigate the impact of digital technologies and innovations on improving sustainable practices, particularly in developing countries like Serbia. Researching the perceptions of tourists and local communities toward new technologies and their contributions to ecotourism could provide valuable insights for future development strategies.

Limitations

The study has several important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. The sample of respondents was restricted to specific tourist destinations in Serbia and Croatia, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader regions with varying ecotourism characteristics. Although key destinations were included, a wider geographical scope could provide deeper insights into the diversity of ecotourism practices in each country.

One significant limitation relates to the institutional and legal frameworks governing ecotourism. Croatia, as an EU member state, benefits from alignment with European regulations and policies on environmental protection and sustainable tourism. In contrast, Serbia faces challenges in developing and implementing legislation in ecotourism. Serbia’s underdeveloped institutional framework may hinder the adoption of ecotourism standards and policies that align with international environmental norms, posing a significant barrier to the sustainable development of ecotourism. Additionally, the study relies on subjective assessments by respondents regarding sustainable practices, which may introduce potential biases and variability in their knowledge of ecotourism. This limitation is particularly relevant for Serbia, where awareness of ecotourism and ecological practices is less developed compared to Croatia, potentially affecting differing perceptions and interpretations of ecotourism practices. While the results highlight the importance of digitalization and innovation for the sustainability of ecotourism, the study did not deeply investigate specific technological tools and strategies that could enhance ecotourism practices. This is especially relevant in Serbia, where technology could play a pivotal role in accelerating the development of ecotourism offerings. Further research is required to better understand the role of innovation in advancing ecotourism.

Although the SOR model provided a valuable framework for analysis, its application was limited to specific ecotourism factors in Serbia and Croatia. Future research could expand the model to include additional dimensions, such as technological innovations or cultural differences, to capture more complex aspects of sustainability. Longitudinal studies could also provide deeper insights into the long-term effects of the factors identified in this research. Applying the model to other regions or industries would allow further testing of its adaptability and validity.

The findings of this study hold significant value for researchers focused on sustainable tourism, policymakers involved in legislative development, and managers in the tourism sector. This study offers concrete recommendations for improving practices across different regions and industries, contributing to the broader understanding of sustainable tourism development.