Next Article in Journal
DMOs and Social Media Crisis Communication in Low-Responsibility Crisis: #VisitPortugal Response Strategies During COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
Ascertaining Restaurant Financial Sustainability by Analyzing Menu Performance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Tourism and Hospitality
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/tourhosp6010048
tourismhosp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Local Perspectives on Tourism Development in Western Serbia: Exploring the Potential for Community-Based Tourism

by
Tamara Surla
1,
Tatjana Pivac
1,* and
Marko D. Petrović
2,3
1
Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Department of Physical and Economic Geography, Faculty of Sciences, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, 010008 Astana, Kazakhstan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(1), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010048
Submission received: 17 January 2025 / Revised: 11 March 2025 / Accepted: 13 March 2025 / Published: 17 March 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the attitudes of local communities in Western Serbia toward tourism development, with a focus on the potential for implementing community-based tourism (CBT) as a sustainable model. CBT emphasizes local community involvement in tourism planning and benefits, fostering inclusivity and enhancing socio-economic well-being. By surveying 845 residents in Western Serbia, this research examines their perceptions of tourism’s social, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as their level of support for tourism growth and their sense of attachment to the community. Using statistical methods such as correlation, regression, and descriptive analysis with SPSS 23, this study identifies positive correlations between residents’ attitudes, support for tourism, and attachment to their communities. The findings reveal that local residents generally view tourism growth favorably, with a strong preference for economic benefits over social and environmental ones. Furthermore, community attachment plays a significant role in motivating residents to support future tourism initiatives. These insights suggest that aligning tourism development strategies with the residents’ priorities, particularly economic benefits and community attachment, is essential for promoting sustainable and harmonious tourism growth in Western Serbia. The research highlights the potential of CBT in fostering long-term socio-economic benefits for local communities while minimizing adverse impacts.

1. Introduction

A community is a collection of individuals with similar characteristics, acting as a place where people live, or as a concern that people share. Since residents are constantly bearing the majority of the sociocultural, economic, and environmental effects of the development of tourism, attitudes, and actions supporting or opposing tourism have an impact on it; however, this influence is sometimes insufficiently recognized, particularly in small regions experiencing rapid growth (Peters et al., 2018). Decision-makers in destinations must understand how supportive actions can be linked to the attitudes of the local residents, regardless of whether these attitudes are positive or negative. Also, it is suggested that measures foster negative attitudes and lead to negative actions as a consequence (Mariam et al., 2024). Along with the issue of the involvement of local communities in tourist development, scholars and practitioners in the field of tourism have focused more in recent decades on how residents perceive the effects of tourism (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014; Li et al., 2019; Vodeb et al., 2021). Many research initiatives and studies have focused on finding the various beneficial and adverse consequences of tourism that can affect locals’ perceptions of the tourism sector (Lepp, 2008; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Seyfi et al., 2013; Vargas-Sanchez et al., 2011).
Тhe concept of local residents’ attitudes has been thoroughly researched in the literature in recent decades (Peters et al., 2018); this explains why several theories have been put forth to determine and evaluate the views of residents (Hadinejad et al., 2019; Yayla et al., 2023). Recognizing the points of view of residents on the impacts of tourism should be taken as an important factor that will influence their participation in the planning phase of sustainable tourism development (Agarwal et al., 2023; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ni & Dong, 2022). Also, understanding attitudes towards tourism development minimizes negative impacts and maximizes support for tourism initiatives (Šegota et al., 2024). Thus, the involvement of the community in all stages of development is a necessary component of sustainable tourism planning (Lalicic & Önder, 2018; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Seyfi et al., 2013).
Research that takes a look at the correlations between factors, including residents’ attitudes, quality of life, community attachment, and perceptions of tourism development, has begun to appear in the literature on tourism (Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; T. H. Lee, 2013; Stylidis et al., 2014). To develop and implement management strategies that support the long-term sustainable development of tourism (e.g., Community Based Tourism—CBT) while considering residents’ needs and making the most efficient use of available resources, a deeper comprehension of the relationships between the variables presented is necessary (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014).
Western Serbia (Figure 1), which represents a case study, is one of Serbia’s four major tourist clusters, hosting 3 of the country’s 18 priority tourist destinations (Strategija razvoja turizma Republike Srbije od 2016. do 2025. godine, 2016). Located in the Mačva, Kolubara, and Zlatibor districts, they play a pivotal role in shaping the Republic of Serbia’s tourism landscape (Perić et al., 2020; Dimitrijević et al., 2022). A significant proportion of households in the region meet the strict requirements for providing catering services in rural tourism, making it a key priority for the area (Perić et al., 2020; Program razvoja turizma turističke regije Zapadna Srbije, 2021). Rural regions like Western Serbia, which have seen substantial tourism growth, play a crucial role in Serbia’s future economic development (Gašić & Ivanović, 2018). In 2021, Western Serbia and Šumadija attracted 40.8% of all visitors to the country, with 43.7% of these visitors staying overnight, highlighting the region’s significance in Serbia’s ongoing tourism expansion (Republički zavod za statistiku, 2022).
In order to investigate whether the local communities of Western Serbia can develop the concept of community-based tourism in their communities in the future, it is essential to delve into the perspectives of the local population, whose attitudes can significantly impact tourism development. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate residents’ perspectives regarding the growth of tourism in their communities. The level of support for tourist development, the degree of community attachment, and attitudes toward perceptions of the benefits of tourism (social, environmental, and economic benefits) will all be investigated. Furthermore, the research aims to investigate the correlation and interdependence of the factors, specifically focusing on their influence and interconnection. All these perspectives represent the basis for the development of CBT, which can be the backbone for the future sustainable development of communities in Western Serbia.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Given that the local community should represent the pillar and support of tourism development in every community, it is important to explore concepts that could ensure this, and one of them is certainly community-based Tourism tourism (CBT). CBT is a widely recognized approach that promotes sustainable tourism by positioning local communities as key stakeholders in tourism development. It empowers communities to actively participate in idea generation, planning, execution, and benefiting from tourism initiatives (Gutierrez, 2023). This model fosters inclusivity, enhances local well-being, and encourages positive interactions between visitors and residents, leading to socio-economic progress (Llupart, 2022). Success in CBT is measured by indicators such as community participation, economic growth, and environmental preservation (Arintoko et al., 2020), with local involvement in tourism operations ensuring that financial benefits remain within the community. By involving communities in overseeing tourism, CBT supports job creation, culture preservation, and environmental protection, making it an effective tool for supporting sustainable development (Abreu et al., 2024).
CBT is also seen as a powerful community development strategy, particularly for poverty alleviation and improving living standards (Habiba & Lina, 2023). It aligns with various forms of tourism, such as pro-poor, sustainable, and rural tourism, and aims to minimize economic leakage by ensuring that locals control tourism enterprises, sell local products, and maintain tourist facilities (Lapeyre, 2010). This approach ensures that the economic benefits of tourism remain within the community, promoting long-term sustainability (Trejos & Chiang, 2009). Previous studies highlighted the social and economic benefits of CBT, including the alignment of tourism with local interests, job creation, and the preservation of culture and the environment, all while fostering sustainable business practices (Gibson, 2015; López-Guzmán et al., 2011).
This theoretical framework is the basis of the study conducted, which deals with the topic of attitudes of local communities in Western Serbia in order to gain insight into whether it is possible to develop the concept of CBT in these communities in the future.

2.2. Formation of Research Hypotheses

Throughout the field of tourism studies, one of the most complex and deeply investigated topics is the attitude of the residents (Hadinejad et al., 2019). Although the “host–guest” relationship is the fundamental basis of tourism (Farkić & Gebbels, 2022; V. L. Smith, 1989), its characteristics can determine how satisfied tourists will be with their trip (Reisinger & Turner, 2002), and the industry’s success will depend on local attractions and the hospitality of the domicile residents (Gursoy et al., 2002). The topic is essential for the successful and long-term growth of the sustainable tourism industry. However, negative views held by residents could impede the growth of tourist destinations (Diedrich & García-Buades, 2009). Numerous studies have focused on the attitude of residents toward the development of tourism and relations with tourists (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Harrill, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; López et al., 2018).
In order to minimize negative effects and improve residents’ well-being, planners and decision-makers may adopt appropriate policies with an understanding of residents’ viewpoints on the benefits and disadvantages of tourism development (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Despite the frequent lack of direct participation in tourism-related decision-making, local communities could benefit greatly from tourism development. Certainly, the most significant benefit from the development of tourism is the economic benefit that the local community expects from tourist activities.
Previous studies show that residents believe that tourism helps the local economy (Prayag et al., 2013; Ritchie, 1988), brings about a general improvement in the living standards of the local community (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Var & Kim, 1989), and improves overall purchasing power (C. C. Lee et al., 1997). Also, tourism directly encourages the creation of new jobs (Erzsebet, 2024; C. C. Lee et al., 1997; Var & Kim, 1989), which can indirectly lead to a reduction in crime, since people will have jobs and will be less likely to be involved in delinquency and antisocial behavior (Alshboul, 2016). An indirect but very important contribution to the well-being of the local community includes the promotion and involvement of other sectors. Sectors such as agriculture, banking, transport, and many other activities benefit directly and indirectly from tourism. The variety of economic activity in a destination is enhanced by tourism (Sahli & Nowak, 2007). Economic activities in addition to those of large and small businesses benefit greatly from the increased consumption generated by tourism activities. One example is agriculture, whose products are used directly for tourism purposes. Wall (1996) states that destinations with developed tourist industries require investments in the development of certain infrastructure, showing how the improvement of transport, communication, and other facilities benefits the local community as a whole.
Future generations will derive benefits from environmental sustainability, and a community may gain many benefits from the development of sustainable tourism. Namely, the government, non-governmental organizations, and individuals work together to develop sustainable tourism opportunities that will help local economies minimize negative impacts on the environment and culture (UNWTO, 2014). In addition to protection for future generations, the natural appearance of the destination is in itself the most common reason for tourists to visit a certain destination (Pizam et al., 2002). As stated by Var and Kim (1989), tourism contributes to the creation of the image and awareness of the need to preserve the environment in its original form but also encourages infrastructural investments supporting the tourist affirmation of the natural and cultural assets of the local environment. The numerous social (sociological and cultural) impacts that tourism achieves should also be mentioned. Namely, tourism contributes to the creation of numerous cultural objects and events, such as theaters, concerts, cinemas, and thematic museums, but also to the arrangement of green areas, cycling, and walking paths that will enable sports and recreation.
The literature contains a wide range of scales for assessing whether tourism affects a community or how much it is supported by it (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; H. S. C. Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). Furthermore, a variety of research studies (Nunkoo & So, 2016; Stylidis et al., 2014) have demonstrated the existence of a positive relationship between residents’ support for tourist development and their perception of tourism. The impact of tourism benefits on support for tourism development is not constant, despite the fact that it is evident that the economic, sociocultural, and environmental benefits of tourism are positively correlated with support for tourism development (Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020). Namely, in a certain environment, economic benefits may have the strongest impact, and ecological benefits may have the weakest impact (Stylidis et al., 2014). On the other hand, residents of small communities are willing to support tourism based mainly on the perception of sociocultural and ecological benefits (Long & Kayat, 2011). Nevertheless, additional research indicates that little support was shown for the development of tourism when the effects of tourism were seen negatively (Gursoy et al., 2010; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012).
Reviewing the literature, the following hypotheses were formulated within this research:
H1. 
There is a positive correlation between the way residents perceive the benefits of tourism and their tendency to support its development.
This hypothesis was developed in light of the assumption that the perception of tourism benefits and the tendency of the local residents to support tourism development are positively related. In the results of the paper, the hypothesis will be confirmed or refuted by applying statistical correlation.
Three sub-hypotheses can be derived from this hypothesis:
H1a. 
Residents’ attitudes toward supporting tourism development are positively impacted by the social benefits of tourism development.
H1b. 
The benefits to the environment positive influence residents’ attitudes toward supporting the development of tourism.
H1c. 
The economic benefits have a positive effect on residents’ views on supporting the development of tourism.
Likewise, the concept of attachment to a place, more precisely attachment to a community, has become an important topic in tourism research (Eslami et al., 2019; Tsai, 2012). Interactions between residents and their surroundings are a part of attachment, and these relationships can manifest as mixed, positive, or adverse feelings. Thus, attachment may have a significant impact on how residents feel and think about the development of tourism in their community (Kil et al., 2012; Nicholas et al., 2009). Various perspectives regarding the connection between residents’ support for tourism development and their perception of community attachment can be found in the literature. For example, some authors do not find a noteworthy relationship between community attachment and support for tourism development (H. C. Choi & Murray, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2002). However, some research suggests that support for tourist development is directly and dramatically impacted by community attachment (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Nicholas et al., 2009). Thus, there was not agreement on this topic in earlier research.
In tourism studies, an important element that is often taken into account is a commitment to the community, i.e., the residents’ commitment to their community (Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Kil et al., 2012; Tsai, 2012). Many researchers have examined how residents’ opinions about the development of tourism are shaped by their feelings of belonging to a community (T. H. Lee, 2013; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015). Academics are divided regarding the relationship between support for or impact on tourism development and community attachment. Some studies have proven that the residents that are attached to the community perceive positively tourism, viewing it as especially beneficial for their local economy (T. H. Lee, 2013). In addition, residents with stronger ties to their community indicate support for the expansion of sustainable tourism (Adongo et al., 2017). In contrast, some studies point out that residents with a strong attachment to the community usually give less support to the development of tourism because these residents certainly perceive tourism as a threat to the place where they live (Draper et al., 2011).
The second and third hypotheses were developed based on the idea that a resident’s predisposition to support tourism development and to perceive benefits from it is positively correlated with their attachment to the community. The stated hypotheses will be confirmed or refuted by applying statistical correlation. Figure 2 presents a schematic illustration of the hypotheses.
H2. 
The tendency for supporting the development of tourism and community attachment is positively correlated.
H3. 
Perceived benefits of tourism and community attachment are positively correlated.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Instrument

A structured survey, designed to assess the views of residents about tourism development in their communities, was used to gather data. To measure the perception of the residents in this paper, the scales, used previously for the same purposes in the same research area (Serbia), were formulated. Namely, Demirović and her colleagues (Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020) investigated the perception of the residents who live in rural areas about the perceived benefits of tourism development; therefore, this scale represented an adequate and valid choice of measurement instrument. The scale was modified in accordance with the research objectives and compared to the original scale. The section examining broader economic benefits for the local community from tourism and the quality of life of the population was omitted, as the authors considered these aspects to be suitable for future research.
The very first part of the survey inquired about the residents’ opinions regarding the development of tourism in their communities. Ten items, two for the environment, three for the economy, and five for social benefits, represent the three segments of benefits that are represented on the scale. The authors Demirović Bajrami et al. (2020) formed the scales based on earlier research on this topic (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). The second parts of the questionnaire referred to the degree of attachment of the residents to the community, i.e., the perception of observing life in the community. Building on the findings of the earlier segment, the third part of the research examined the residents’ aspirations to encourage the development of tourism in their communities. For second and third part of the questionnaire, Demirović Bajrami et al. (2020) used 14 items taken from previous research based on attachment to the community (T. H. Lee, 2013) and support for tourism development (Nicholas et al., 2009; Woo et al., 2015).
A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the responses: 1 for disagree, 2 for slightly disagree, 3 for neutral, 4 for partially agree, and 5 for definitely agree. The data were processed in the software for social sciences SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science), version 23.0.

3.2. Case Study Area and Study Sample

Western Serbia occupies the western part of the Republic of Serbia, administratively including the Mačva, Kolubara, and Zlatibor administrative districts, with a total of 24 municipalities (Ивановић, 2013; Сурла, 2024). With an area of 11,882 km2, it makes up 13.43% of the Republic of Serbia’s total land area. As stated by the 2022 census, 692,794 people live on its territory, which is 10.35% of the total number of the country’s population. Although the research included 845 respondents from the territory of Western Serbia, when considering the ratio of the population to the number of respondents, it is estimated that only 0.1–0.2% of the population was surveyed. The primary focus of the survey was on the Zlatibor district, given that tourist arrivals are most dominant in the municipalities of this district. Of the total number of visitors in 2019, Zlatibor district was visited by 74.1% of tourists, Mačva district by 12.64%, and Kolubara district by 13.25%. Therefore, the sample was determined by assessing the proportion of tourist arrivals by district. Out of the total sample of 845 respondents, 113 (13.4%) respondents were from Mačva district, 148 (17.5%) were from Kolubara district, while the largest portion of respondents (584) were from Zlatibor district, making up 69.1% of the sample. Table 1 presents the detailed socio-demographic characteristics of the participants who took part in the study.
The research was conducted with a purposive approach and only included respondents who lived in the territory of Western Serbia (n = 845). While completing the questionnaire, respondents were required to state their place of residence, ensuring the existence of a control mechanism to ensure responses were collected from the appropriate sample. After data collection, the authors thoroughly reviewed all survey questionnaires to confirm that all respondents were residents of Western Serbia, which was the only condition for participation in the research.
Between July 2021 and July 2022, data were gathered via an online (Google Docs) and in-person (face-to-face) questionnaire that was sent via email or posted on social media networks like Facebook and Instagram. The survey questionnaire was anonymous, participation was voluntary, and the data were only utilized for scientific and research purposes. The respondents provided informed consent.
The sample has a nearly equal gender distribution, with slightly more women than men. Respondents range from 15 to 83 years old, with an average age of 40. Most participants reside in Zlatibor district, followed by Kolubara and Mačva. The majority are employed, while pensioners make up the smallest group. Most earn between EUR 301 and 700, with higher incomes being less common. Nearly half have completed high school or university, while only a small portion have exclusively primary education. Additionally, some respondents are involved in tourism development in their community.
The margin of error of all socio-demographic characteristic groups represents the percentage of uncertainty in the results, meaning that the actual percentages may vary within the given range. The smallest margin of error is observed for gender (±3%), while the largest is for the age group (±9%). This means that the margin of error indicates how precise the estimate is for each category, so when a percentage is stated, considering the error, it is clear that the actual results may be slightly higher or lower than the number shown in the table. Most socio-demographic characteristic groups have a margin of error below 5%, indicating that the data are quite accurate and suitable for further analysis.

3.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis represents one of the statistical techniques used in this research to illustrate residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, specifically their level of agreement for or disagreement with statements regarding the benefits of tourism, support for tourism development, and community attachment. During descriptive data analysis, standard means and standard deviations were used for those values.
Furthermore, statistical correlation methods (determining the Pearson correlation coefficient) were used to examine the correlation between the variables regarding community attachment, support for tourism development, and the development of slow tourism. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. It is given by
r = n ∑ x y − ( ∑ x ) ( ∑ y ) √ [ n ∑ x 2 − ( ∑ x ) 2 ] [ n ∑ y 2 − ( ∑ y ) 2 ]
where
  • n = number of data points;
  • ∑xy = sum of the product of paired scores;
  • ∑x = sum of x-values;
  • ∑y = sum of y-values;
  • ∑x2 = sum of the squares of the x-values;
  • ∑y2 = sum of the squares of the y-values.
Regression analysis was used to determine the impact of social, economic, and environmental benefits on supporting tourism development. In simple linear regression, the relationship between an independent variable x and a dependent variable y is modeled using the equation:
y = β0 + β1x + ϵ
where
  • y = dependent variable
  • x = independent variable
  • β0 = y-intercept (the value of y when x = 0)
  • β1 = slope (the rate of change of y for each unit change in x)
  • ϵ = error term (residual)
In order to calculate the coefficients β0 and β1, you can use the following formulas:
β 1 = n ( ∑ x y ) − ( ∑ x ) ( ∑ y ) n ( ∑ x 2 ) − ( ∑ x ) 2
β 0 = ∑ y − β 1 ( ∑ x ) n
In order to ensure the key assumptions for the validity and reliability of the regression results, additional examinations were conducted. The results of the regression analysis show that the key assumptions are generally met. The residuals plot suggests mild heteroscedasticity, but not to an extent that would significantly undermine the validity of the model. The normal P-P plot shows that the residuals are approximately normally distributed, with minor deviations in the middle range, which should not affect the reliability of the results. The standardized residuals are within the acceptable range (−2.96 to 2.91), without any extreme deviations. Given the maximum Cook’s distance (0.030), the maximum Mahalanobis distance (17.700) and the value of the central leverage (0.021), there is no evidence of influential points in the model that would significantly change its results.

4. Results

To examine the views of the residents who participated in the research on their perception of tourism’s benefits, their support for tourism development, as well as their attachment to the community, descriptive analysis was conducted. The results were interpreted based on the collected sample and represented the attitudes of the local population, which we considered in this paper as a representative sample at the level of Western Serbia. All mean values are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
As stated in the earlier part of the paper, the respondents expressed their views on a five-point Likert scale, evaluating them with grades from 1 to 5. It can be assumed from the descriptive analysis’s finding that the perception of the examined local residents about the benefits they receive from tourism is at a satisfactory level (all mean values exceed value 3). Observing the results obtained, it can be concluded that the respondents were most satisfied with the economic benefits (M = 3.51; SD = 1.07585). They were also satisfied with environmental benefits (M = 3.15; SD = 1.28393) and social benefits (M = 3.19; SD = 1.13293), and the result was positive.
When it came to supporting the development of tourism, the respondents agreed extremely strongly. They showed positive attitudes towards the following variables that best describe their attitude about support: “I would be supportive of my community’s tourism sector developing further” (M = 4.32; SD = 1.0096); “I am in supporting a development of tourism activities that benefit the community and are sustainable” (M = 4.19; SD = 1.0722); “I am convinced that the quality of life for everyone who lives in the community where I live will improve with the continued development of tourism” (M = 4.12; SD = 1.1310). The respondents showed that they are somewhat attached to their local community (Table 4). They showed it through the following statements: “I have a strong attachment to my place of residence” (M = 3.64; SD = 1.3109); “I feel a strong sense of belonging to the place where I live” (M = 3.57; SD = 1.3487); “I like that I live in this community” (M = 3.50; SD = 1.3557); “People I know favor our community and its tourism potential over other communities” (M = 3.21; SD = 1.3122). Also, respondents showed partial agreement with the following variables: “Living in my community makes many things easier and enables me” (M = 2.90; SD = 1.3026); “I believe that living in my community is preferable compared to living in other communities” (M = 2.85; SD = 1.2759). This means that the examined residents, although committed to the community, are aware that there are certain shortcomings that the community needs to eliminate.
Based on the high mean values and percentage agreement with the dimension, respondents generally view the tourism development in the West Serbia region as good a result. The economic benefits of tourism development are generally well received by respondents. However, the social and environmental benefits are met with a slightly lower degree of satisfaction. Also, the examined residents’ show very high agreement when it comes to supporting the development of tourism. Conversely, the examined residents, although attached to the community, are aware that there are certain shortcomings that the community needs to eliminate.

4.1. Analysis of Results Obtained Using Statistical Correlations

Statistical correlation shows the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. The relationship between the variables is expressed using the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (r), considering that these are continuous (interval) variables. According to Cohen (2013), the values of statistical correlations can be low (r = 0.10–0.29), medium (r = 0.30–0.49), and high (r = 0.50–1.00). Correlation analysis was applied to determine the association/relationship between variables related to the perception of benefits from tourism, support for tourism development, and commitment to the local community. Based on the results shown in Table 5, it can be seen that all correlations obtained between observed variables are positive and that all correlations shown are high.
Based on the research results and the high correlation values shown, observing the attitudes of the respondents, it can be concluded that the perception of the benefits of tourism, support for the development of tourism, and attachment to the community are strongly related. From the correlation matrix, it can be concluded that the positive correlation is very strong, at a significance level that is less than 0.01, among all three variables. This can be utilized to mean that respondents who are more involved in the community will perceive tourism development and its benefits more favorably, and that the benefits of tourism will also positively impact residents, encouraging them to support tourism development. Also, it is crucial to remember that attachment to the community shows a high positive correlation with the support that the community can give to the development of tourism. Figure 3 presents a schematic representation of the correlation results

4.2. Analysis of the Results Obtained Using Regression Analysis

To analyze the relationship between variables of supporting tourism development and the benefits (social, environmental, and economic) that the examined local community receives from tourism, regression analysis was carried out. Also, regression analysis was carried out to examine the impact of the residents’ attachment to the community on the perception of benefits of tourism, and further analysis assessed the influence of the same variable on the tendency to support the development of tourism. Regression analysis can investigate the causal relationship between the dependent and independent variables and the magnitude of the effect between the variables. Multiple regression describes how well a particular set of variables predicts a particular outcome (Pallant, 2020).
Regression analysis determines the probability value and standardized coefficient for each hypothesis using one statistical test. This means that the analysis will give two important values for each hypothesis, namely, the significance level and the prediction value. However, the hypothesis is only accepted if its probability (Sig.) is below p < 0.05; otherwise, the hypothesis is rejected. The analysis will give a standardized coefficient regardless of the probability values that must be specified to approve or disapprove of the hypothesis. Table 6 illustrates the findings of the analysis that was conducted.
Support for tourism development was the dependent variable, while the variables that were independent in the regression analysis were social, environmental, and economic benefits. The analysis conducted shows that all three benefits from tourism development can predict 39.1% of the criterion variable, i.e., support for the development of tourism (R2 = 0.391).
The predictor variable for Hypothesis 1a was social benefit, and the requirement variable was support for tourist development. The hypothesis stated that social benefits resulting from tourism development had a favorable effect on examined residents’ attitudes toward support for tourism development. Based on the standardized beta coefficient (β = 0.255, p = 0.00), we can say that in the case of the attitudes of the sample, surveyed social benefits predict support for the development of tourism in a positive direction, meaning that with the growth of social benefits, support for the development of tourism also increases. The obtained results indicate that H1a is confirmed.
In Hypothesis 1b, which reads ‘The benefits to the environment positively influence residents’ attitudes toward supporting the development of tourism’, no remarkable unique contribution exists for the dependent variable’s prediction (p = 0.080). Therefore, H1b is rejected, which means that respondents believe that environmental benefits do not have a significant effect on residents’ support for the development of tourism.
Hypothesis 1c points out that the economic benefits have a positive effect on residents’ views supporting the development of tourism. The data shown in Table 6 indicate that the standardized beta coefficient is positive ((β = 0.352, p = 0.00), which indicates that the greater the economic benefits from the development of tourism, the more the respondents will support the development of tourism. Thus, H1c is confirmed.
Additionally, the relationship between variables related to community commitment, perceptions of the benefits of tourism, and tendency to support tourism development was examined using regression analysis. The dependent variables that were included in the regression analysis were the perception of the benefits of tourism and support for the development of tourism, and the independent variable was an attachment to the community. The analysis conducted shows that commitment to the community can predict 48.8% of the model, that is (R2 = 0.488). Based on the standardized beta coefficient (β = 0.699, p = 0.00), we can say that commitment to the community has a favorable impact on perceptions of the benefits of tourism that the residents have. This would mean that the respondents, who are more committed to the community, will be more satisfied with the perception of the benefits of tourism. The findings reported are consistent with earlier studies (Adongo et al., 2017; Brida et al., 2014; Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; T. H. Lee, 2013). Also, the analysis shows that commitment to the community can predict 30.7% of the model (R2 = 0.307). According to the standardized beta coefficient (β = 0.554, p = 0.00), residents’ propensity to support tourism development can be positively influenced by their attachment to the community. This finding is consistent with previous research on the topic (Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Nicholas et al., 2009).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The examined residents of Western Serbia are satisfied with all the benefits that tourism provides, but it can be concluded that, to a certain extent, they are more satisfied with economic than social and environmental benefits. This makes sense since residents in developing countries typically place a high value on the expansion of tourism’s economic benefits (Adongo et al., 2017). Also, the results confirm previous research that showed that economic impacts can be more important (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014; Hanafiah et al., 2013; McGehee & Andereck, 2004) than social and environmental components. In addition to positive attitudes about the benefits of tourism development, the respondents in Western Serbia showed a high tendency to support the development of tourism in the future. As a result, the majority of the examined population favors sustainable and beneficial tourism initiatives. A significant percentage of the community thinks that as tourism develops, it will improve everyone’s quality of life in the surrounding areas. This could be seen as evidence that nearby destinations in need of economic growth welcome tourists with open arms (Ezeuduji & Rid, 2011; M. D. Smith & Krannich, 1998). Observing the degree of connection that the examined locals have to their localities, it can be concluded that the residents, although attached to the community, are aware that there are certain shortcomings that the community needs to eliminate. This indicates that the residents of Western Serbia are very attached to and experience a deep sense of inclusion in the places where they live. They are also aware of and favor the tourist potential of their place, but they state that they are aware that there is no greater quality of life in their communities than in others.
The tourism literature is starting to feature research studies that investigate the relationships between variables like support for tourism development, the perception of tourism development through perceived benefits, and attachment to the community, in addition to examining the attitudes of the residents toward tourism development (Abdollahzadeh & Sharifzadeh, 2014; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Stylidis et al., 2014; T. H. Lee, 2013; Nicholas et al., 2009). It was crucial to take a peek at the relationship between the variables provided as well as the impact of one variable on another, as the literature indicates that examining attitudes alone is insufficient. First, the relationship between the inclination to encourage additional tourism development and the perception of benefits from tourism was examined. The results demonstrated a favorable association between the community’s ability to support the development of tourism and the perception of benefits from tourism. This suggests that local authorities will be more willing to promote the growth of tourism the more content with and aware they are of the benefits they gain from it. While the primary objective of this paper was purely related to the beneficial impacts of tourism, it was demonstrated that a favorable understanding of the economic, social, and environmental advantages of tourism would encourage tourism development. The outcomes of this study align with the findings of other investigations conducted by Campón-Cerro et al. (2017), Davis and Morais (2004), Demirović Bajrami et al. (2020), Ko and Stewart (2002), McGehee and Andereck (2004), Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012), and Stylidis et al. (2014). This might be taken to mean that residents will be more willing to interact with visitors and support the growth of tourism if they are aware of how tourism is developing in their area and believe it has a positive influence (Brida et al., 2014). However, there is no support if the effects of tourism are thought to be negative (Gursoy et al., 2010; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012).
Determining whether the effects of the three types of perceived tourism benefits had the same influence on support for tourism was crucial during the research. It was expected that economic benefits would have the greatest influence on the residents’ decision to support the development of tourism, which was observed in the results of this work. The results are not surprising either, namely, that social benefits have a positive impact that is somewhat smaller than economic impacts, while on the other hand, environmental benefits do not have any significant impact on the attitude of residents towards encouraging the development of tourism. These findings come following a study from Kavala, Greece, (Stylidis et al., 2014) that showed the impact of environmental benefits was lowest and financial benefits were greatest. The results obtained can be explained by the need of the residents for the economic benefits of tourism as a driver and initiator of a better quality of life in the community. It is important to emphasize that the residents may not have enough knowledge about the environment and its protection and therefore do not think that the development of this segment can influence their decision to support the further development of tourism (Nyaupane & Thapa, 2006).
This paper also analyzes the correlation between the degree of residents’ attachment to their local community and the tendency to encourage both slow and rapid tourism development. It also looked at how attachment to the community and the belief in the benefits of tourism interacted. According to the findings, which are in line with earlier studies on the subject, residents’ propensity to support tourism development is positively impacted by their sense of community (Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Nicholas et al., 2009; Adongo et al., 2017). This could imply that Western Serbians, who tend to be closer to their community, will be more inclined to encourage the development of tourism in their territory. As a result, residents who are more committed to the community are more inclined to actively participate in decision-making or engage in other activities that will enhance and promote the growth of the community and tourism. It is possible to read the positively correlated relationship between support for tourism development and attachment to the community as meaning that those who are more connected to their surroundings will be more likely to support it. Additionally, prior studies have demonstrated that residents who are devoted to their community favor tourism development to maintain the originality of their location (Adeniran & Akinlabi, 2011; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015). Research also indicates, in contrast to the aforementioned opinions, that residents who are deeply committed to their community typically do not wish to encourage tourism development because they see it as a threat to their place of residency (Draper et al., 2011; Gursoy et al., 2002).
The results demonstrated that, in this particular case of the residents living in Western Serbia, a sense of belonging to the community positively influences the residents’ opinions of the benefits of tourism. This suggests that residents who have a strong sense of community are aware of the advantages that tourism may offer, and that attachment to the community can positively influence locals’ perceptions of these advantages. More dedicated residents will be more conscious of the effects of tourism and will give greater thought to how tourist development can improve their community. The significance of this positive correlation between the variables must be emphasized because it is helpful in fostering positive interactions between residents and visitors. In the end, tourists are more drawn to a welcoming local community (Eusébio et al., 2018). This paper’s findings align with the findings of much other research conducted on the same subject (Adongo et al., 2017; Brida et al., 2014; Campón-Cerro et al., 2017; Demirović Bajrami et al., 2020; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; T. H. Lee, 2013).
Based on all the results presented, it can be concluded that the local communities of Western Serbia, based on the views of the surveyed population, have the potential and desire for the further development of tourism in their communities, which will be in accordance with the principles of CBT. The high level of commitment to the community and the desire to support the development of tourism clearly imply the direction which the respondents would like the future development of tourism to be oriented towards. Therefore, it can be concluded that the development of CBT in the communities of Western Serbia is possible and supported.
This study had several limitations, which can be considered for future research. Within this research, the variable related to the quality of life of the local residents, which can be an indicator of the impact of tourism, was not taken into account. This variable could include material, emotional, and various other aspects, such as safety and the like. Also, it would be useful to investigate whether the attitudes of the residents in the direction of the development of tourism differ depending on whether the residents engage in tourism and in what way.
The contribution of this paper is extremely large because, in the literature so far, no research has been conducted that has covered such a wide area. The research covers three administrative districts that include 24 municipalities and cities in the territory of Western Serbia. The instrument developed for measurement can be utilized in the future to investigate the opinions of residents in the other three clusters that the Republic of Serbia’s tourist strategy has outlined, which will help Serbia’s tourism sector develop in the future. Therefore, it will be possible to compare the results for each cluster, which would allow us to see the views of the local population, based on which future tourism development strategies could be formulated.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S., T.P. and M.D.P.; methodology, T.S. and T.P.; software, T.S.; validation, T.P. and M.D.P.; formal analysis, T.S.; investigation, T.S.; resources, T.S.; data curation, T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.S.; writing—review and editing, T.S., T.P. and M.D.P.; visualization, T.S.; supervision, T.P. and M.D.P.; project administration, T.P. and M.D.P.; funding acquisition, T.S., T.P. and M.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the national Law on Personal Data Protection (The Official Gazzette of the Republic of Serbia, number 97/08; further: The Law). https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2008/97/1/reg (accessed on 14 March 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grants No. 451-03-137/2025-03/200125 & 451-03-136/2025-03/200125 and 451-03-136/2025-03/200172).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, G., & Sharifzadeh, A. (2014). Rural residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: A study from Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abreu, L. A. d., Walkowski, M. d. C., Perinotto, A. R. C., & Fonseca, J. F. d. (2024). Community-based tourism and best practices with the sustainable development goals. Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adeniran, A. J., & Akinlabi, F. J. (2011). Perceptions on cultural significance and heritage conservation: A case study of Sussan Wenger’s building, Osogbo, Nigeria. African Journal of History and Culture, 3(5), 73. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adongo, R., Choe, J. Y., & Han, H. (2017). Tourism in Hoi An, Vietnam: Impacts, perceived benefits, community attachment and support for tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 17(2), 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Agarwal, S., Isha, T., Irappa, T. V., Akaremsetty, S., & Shekhar, C. (2023). The impact of tourism on local communities: A literature review of socioeconomic factors. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 44(8), 1851–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alshboul, K. (2016). Assessing local community involvement in tourism development around a proposed world heritage site in Jerash, Jordan [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo]. [Google Scholar]
  7. Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Arintoko, A., Ahmad, A. A., Gunawan, D. S., & Supadi, S. (2020). Community-based tourism village development strategies: A case of Borobudur tourism village area, Indonesia. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, 29(2), 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brida, J. G., Disegna, M., & Scuderi, R. (2014). The visitors’ perception of authenticity at the museums: Archaeology versus modern art. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(6), 518–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Campón-Cerro, A. M., Folgado-Fernández, J. A., & Hernández-Mogollón, J. M. (2017). Rural destination development based on olive oil tourism: The impact of residents’ community attachment and quality of life on their support for tourism development. Sustainability, 9(9), 1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Choi, H. S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Сурла, Т. (2024). Концепт спорог туризма—студија случаја западна Србија: монографија (p. V, 136 стр.). Природно-математички факултет, Департман за географију, туризам и хотелијерство. [The concept of slow tourism-case study Western Serbia: Monograph (p. V, 136 p.). Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management]. Available online: https://opac.bisis.rs/sr-Cyrl/book/pmfdgt/676294bd550b625939310c47 (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  15. Davis, J. S., & Morais, D. B. (2004). Factions and enclaves: Small towns and socially unsustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Demirović Bajrami, D., Radosavac, A., Cimbaljević, M., Tretiakova, T. N., & Syromiatnikova, Y. A. (2020). Determinants of residents’ support for sustainable tourism development: Implications for rural communities. Sustainability, 12(22), 9438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Diedrich, A., & García-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30(4), 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dimitrijević, M., Ristić, L., & Bošković, N. (2022). Rural tourism as a driver of the economic and rural development in the Republic of Serbia. Менаџмент у Хотелијерству и Туризму, 10(1), 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Draper, J., Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2011). Tourism use history: Exploring a new framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Erzsebet, I. (2024). Examining the contribution of tourism to employment in the European Union. Journal of Tourism Theory and Research, 10(2), 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eslami, S., Khalifah, Z., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., & Han, H. (2019). Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1061–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eusébio, C., Vieira, A. L., & Lima, S. (2018). Place attachment, host–tourist interactions, and residents’ attitudes towards tourism development: The case of Boa Vista Island in Cape Verde. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(6), 890–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ezeuduji, I., & Rid, W. (2011). Rural tourism offer and local community participation in The Gambia. Tourismos, 6(2), 187–211. [Google Scholar]
  24. Farkić, J., & Gebbels, M. (2022). Hospitality in Adventure Tourism. In The adventure tourist: Being, knowing, becoming (The tourist experience) (pp. 49–65). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gašić, M., & Ivanović, V. (2018). Rural tourism in Serbia and impact on economic and social development, 3rd international thematic monograph-thematic proceedings: Modern management tools and economy of tourism sector in present era. Available online: https://www.udekom.org.rs/tmt20181.html (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  26. Gibson, D. (2015). Community-based tourism in Fiji: A case study of Wayalailai Ecohaven Resort, Yasawa island group. In Tourism in pacific islands (pp. 118–133). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Locals’ attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gutierrez, E. L. M. (2023). Re-examining the participation and empowerment nexus: Applications to community-based tourism. World Development Perspectives, 31, 100518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Habiba, M., & Lina, F. Y. (2023). Community-based tourism (CBT): A community development tool. European Journal of Business and Management, 15(17), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hadinejad, A., D. Moyle, B., Scott, N., Kralj, A., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A review. Tourism Review, 74(2), 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanafiah, M. H., Jamaluddin, M. R., & Zulkifly, M. I. (2013). Local community attitude and support towards tourism development in Tioman Island, Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 792–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ивановић, М. (2013). Стање и могућности развоја културног туризма у Западној Србији. Универзитет у Новом Саду. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kil, N., Holland, S. M., Stein, T. V., & Ko, Y. J. (2012). Place attachment as a mediator of the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 603–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lalicic, L., & Önder, I. (2018). Residents’ involvement in urban tourism planning: Opportunities from a smart city perspective. Sustainability, 10(6), 1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally? The Tsiseb Conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, C. C., Backman, K., & Backman, S. (1997, June 15–18). Understanding antecedents of repeat visitation and tourists’ loyalty to a resort destination. 1997 Travel and Tourism Research Association Annual Conference, TTRA, Boulder, CO, USA. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community with no prior tourism experience: The case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, R., Peng, L., & Deng, W. (2019). Resident perceptions toward tourism development at a large scale. Sustainability, 11(18), 5074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Llupart, M. R. N. (2022). Theoretical model for the analysis of community-based tourism: Contribution to sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(17), 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Long, P., & Kayat, K. (2011). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact and their support for tourism development: The case study of Cuc Phuong National Park, Ninh Binh province, Vietnam. European Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2), 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. López, M. F. B., Virto, N. R., Manzano, J. A., & Miranda, J. G. M. (2018). Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: The case of Trujillo. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. López-Guzmán, T., Borges, O., & Castillo-Canalejo, A. M. (2011). Community-based tourism in Cape Verde-a case study. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 17(1), 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mariam, K., Singh, M., Yaja, M., & Kumar, A. (2024). Negative perception of the local community towards tourism development. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 30(1), 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ni, X., & Dong, H. (2022). A study on residents’ perception of ecotourism impact in Wangshan community of Suzhou. In 2022 6th international seminar on education, management and social sciences (ISEMSS 2022) (pp. 1540–1548). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site: The pitons management area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 390–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nunkoo, R., & So, K. K. F. (2016). Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research, 55(7), 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nyaupane, G. P., & Thapa, B. (2006). Perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism: A case study at ACAP, Nepal. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(1), 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  58. Perić, G., Dramićanin, S., & Gašić, M. (2020). Impact of service quality on satisfaction and loyalty of tourists in rural tourism of Šumadija and Western Serbia. Економика пољопривреде, 67(4), 1071–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Peters, M., Chan, C. S., & Legerer, A. (2018). Local perception of impact-attitudes-actions towards tourism development in the Urlaubsregion Murtal in Austria. Sustainability, 10(7), 2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pizam, A., Fleischer, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (2002). Tourism and social change: The case of Israeli ecotourists visiting Jordan. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2), 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Nunkoo, R., & Alders, T. (2013). London residents’ support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The mediating effect of overall attitude. Tourism Management, 36, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Program razvoja turizma turističke regije Zapadna Srbije. (2021). Program razvoja turizma turističke regije Zapadna Srbija od 2020. do 2025. godine [Program for the Development of Tourism in the Western Tourist Region Serbia from 2020 to 2025], Službeni list grada Užica, br. 29. Available online: https://uzice.rs/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/7-1-Program-Turizam.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  63. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002). Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Republički zavod za statistiku. (2022). Statistički godišnja, beograd. Available online: https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2022/pdf/G20222055.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  66. Ritchie, J. B. (1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident views via survey research. Tourism Management, 9(3), 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sahli, M., & Nowak, J. J. (2007). Does inbound tourism benefit developing countries? A trade theoretic approach. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Šegota, T., Mihalič, T., & Perdue, R. R. (2024). Resident perceptions and responses to tourism: Individual vs community level impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(2), 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Seyfi, S., Nikjoo, A., Rezaei, O., & Siyamian, A. (2013). Attitudes of local residents toward the development of tourism in a developing society: The case of Torqabeh, Iran. Tourismos, 8(2), 289–299. [Google Scholar]
  70. Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (1998). Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 783–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Smith, V. L. (1989). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  72. Strategija razvoja turizma Republike Srbije od 2016. do 2025. Godine. (2016). Strategija razvoja turizma Republike Srbije za period od 2016. до 2025. godine [Tourism strategy of the Republic of Serbia from 2016 to 2025], Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, br. бр. 98. Available online: https://mto.gov.rs/extfile/sr/207/strategija.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  73. Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management, 45, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Trejos, B., & Chiang, L. H. N. (2009). Local economic linkages to community-based tourism in rural Costa Rica. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30(3), 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tsai, S. P. (2012). Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international tourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. UNWTO. (2014). Tourism highlights. World Tourism Organization. Available online: https://tourlib.net/wto/WTO_highlights_2014.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  77. Var, T., & Kim, Y. (1989). Measurement and findings on the tourism impact [Unpublished Paper]. College Station (TX, USA), Texas A&M University, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  78. Vargas-Sanchez, A., Porras-Bueno, N., & de los Ángeles Plaza-Mejía, M. (2011). Explaining residents’ attitudes to tourism: Is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 460–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vodeb, K., Fabjan, D., & Krstinić Nižić, M. (2021). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and support for tourism development. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 27(1), 143–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wall, G. (1996). Ecotourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts. Bulletin Series: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 99, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  81. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yayla, Ö., Koç, B., & Dimanche, F. (2023). Residents’ support for tourism development: Investigating quality-of-life, community commitment, and communication. European Journal of Tourism Research, 33, 3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g001
Figure 1. The position of case study (Western Serbia). Sources: dr Tamara Lukić, Adobe Illustrator 2023.
Figure 1. The position of case study (Western Serbia). Sources: dr Tamara Lukić, Adobe Illustrator 2023.
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g001
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g002
Figure 2. Research framework.
Figure 2. Research framework.
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g002
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g003
Figure 3. Graphic representation of the results of the correlation analysis (H1, H2 and H3). Note: ** correlations are significant at the r < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 3. Graphic representation of the results of the correlation analysis (H1, H2 and H3). Note: ** correlations are significant at the r < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Tourismhosp 06 00048 g003
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 845).
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 845).
CharacteristicsPercentage (%)Margin of Error (%) Percentage (%)Margin of Error (%)
Gender ±3%Permanent residence±5%
Male46.7 Mačva district13.4
Female53.3 Kolubara district17.5
Zlatibor district69.1
Occupation±4% Education±5%
Student10.8 Primary school1.9
Employed72.8 High School33.5
Unemployed10.3 Faculty49.8
Pensioner6.2 Master’s/doctoral studies14.8
Age±9% Monthly income (€)±8%
15–2411 <30027
25–3428 301–500 31.8
35–4428.2 501–700 24.1
45–5418.3 701–900 9.7
55–649.8 >901 7.3
65–743.6
75–841.1
Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Table 2. Residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism.
Table 2. Residents’ perceptions of the benefits of tourism.
Perception of Tourism BenefitsMean (M)Standard Deviation (SD)
Social benefit3.191.13293
Tourism affects the increase in the standard of living.3.121.2874
Local culture is more preserved and respected thanks to tourism.3.361.2974
Thanks to tourism, opportunities for participation in local activities (concerts, fairs, exhibitions…) have increased.3.541.3250
Tourism has the effect of increasing the sense of belonging to the local community.3.021.3087
Opportunities for training/education have increased due to tourism.2.921.3155
Environmental benefits3.151.28393
Tourism encourages environmental protection.3.121.3710
Thanks to tourism, more (natural) areas are protected.3.171.3932
Economic benefits3.511.07585
The development of tourism increases the value of local real estate.3.911.1794
Tourism influences the increase of investments in tourism infrastructure.3.621.2908
Tourism influences the increase of investments in local infrastructure.3.401.3340
The community I live in is rich in amenities and beautifully landscaped.3.101.2655
Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Table 3. Residents’ attitudes regarding their support for the development of tourism.
Table 3. Residents’ attitudes regarding their support for the development of tourism.
Support for Tourism DevelopmentMean (M)Standard Deviation (SD)
I would like to participate in the promotion of environmental education and conservation initiatives in my community.3.931.1724
I would like to actively participate in the creation of plans and strategies related to tourism.3.751.2522
I would be happy to get in touch with tourists from other cultures.4.101.0802
I would support the further development of tourism in my community.4.321.0096
I support the development of tourism initiatives that are sustainable and good for my community.4.191.0722
I believe that the further development of tourism will have a positive effect on the quality of life of all residents of the place where I live.4.121.1310
Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Table 4. Attitudes of residents about commitment to the community.
Table 4. Attitudes of residents about commitment to the community.
Attachment to CommunityMean (M)Standard Deviation (SD)
I am very attached to the place where I live.3.641.3109
I feel a strong sense of belonging to the place where I live.3.571.3487
I love that I live in this community.3.501.3557
Life in my community reflects my way of life.3.101.3187
Living in my community makes many things easier and possible for me.2.901.3026
I believe that life in my community is better than in other communities.2.851.2759
People I know favor our community and its tourism potential over other communities.3.211.3122
Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Table 5. Correlation analysis—association between variables.
Table 5. Correlation analysis—association between variables.
Perception of Tourism BenefitsSupport for Tourism DevelopmentAttachment to Community
Perception of tourism benefits1
Support for tourism development0.62 **1
Attachment to community0.69 **0.55 **1
** correlations are significant at the r < 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Table 6. Regression analysis—tourism benefits and support for the development of tourism.
Table 6. Regression analysis—tourism benefits and support for the development of tourism.
Independent VariablesβSignificance (p Value)
Social benefit0.2550.000
Environmental benefit0.0680.080
Economic benefit0.3520.000
Source: created by the authors based on data analysis in SPSS 23.0.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Surla, T.; Pivac, T.; Petrović, M.D. Local Perspectives on Tourism Development in Western Serbia: Exploring the Potential for Community-Based Tourism. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010048

AMA Style

Surla T, Pivac T, Petrović MD. Local Perspectives on Tourism Development in Western Serbia: Exploring the Potential for Community-Based Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(1):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Surla, Tamara, Tatjana Pivac, and Marko D. Petrović. 2025. "Local Perspectives on Tourism Development in Western Serbia: Exploring the Potential for Community-Based Tourism" Tourism and Hospitality 6, no. 1: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010048

APA Style

Surla, T., Pivac, T., & Petrović, M. D. (2025). Local Perspectives on Tourism Development in Western Serbia: Exploring the Potential for Community-Based Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010048

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop