**4. Results**

According to research data, there is almost no service infrastructure necessary for traveling tourists in Juknaiˇciai, Saugai, Usenai, regardless of the category of tourists ˙ (natural, recreational, etc.) they belong to. Unfortunately, in the studied areas (except for Rusne, Dreverna, and Kintai), rural tourism is sluggish, there is a lack of beaches, an ˙ underdeveloped network of respite, rest areas and campsites, and poorly equipped and marked cycling routes.

Assessment of the CES potential in the past, present, future. During the research (Figure 2), the respondents had to assess the potential of CES of the past (2014–2017), of the present day (2018–2019, because the research was conducted during this period), and of the future (2020–2030). When assessing the potential of CES respondents had the possibility to choose the priority services, as seen in Figure 2.

Analyzing the opinions of farmers, it was found that in all the studied periods the provision of CES recreation and recreation in nature dominated—change from 1.42 (2014–2017) to 1.4 points (2020–2030). Eldership employees (2014–2017) singled out the desire to preserve existing natural values (1.5 points), and in 2018–2019 and 2020–2030—the provision of recreation and recreation in nature, 1.6 and 1.7 points, respectively. Entrepreneurs named the cultural heritage of CES change from 3 to 3.6 points in all study periods.

The survey also analyzed the opinions of respondents (both farmers and entrepreneurs) about the measures of public authorities that can help to preserve the provided CES, such as educational activities on natural topics (1.33 points), maintenance, preservation of cultural heritage, etc. (1.5 points), installation of information stands (1.66 points), stocking of water bodies (3 points).

Views on the future potential of supply CES. Analyzing the potential of CES (2020–2030) (Figure 3), in the opinion of farmers, the most significant services are as follows: provision of recreation and relaxation in nature (1.4 points), cultural heritage (1.8 points), aesthetic significance (2.4 points) and the desire to preserve the existing natural values (1.56 points).

**Figure 2.** Respondents' assessment of the potential of CES of the past (2014–2017), of the present day (2018–2019), and of the future (2020–2030).

According to business representatives, the priorities are as follows: cultural heritage (3.6 points), provision of recreational fishing opportunities (4.5 points), preservation of the existing natural values and natural and ecological tourism, cognitive excursions, observation of wildlife, and provision of cognitive services (each 5 points).

According to the employees of the eldership, the main attention should be paid to the provision of recreation and relaxation in nature (1.7 points), the desire to preserve the existing natural values (1.8 points), and the services of aesthetic significance (2 points). Meanwhile, tourists gave priority to nature and ecological tourism, cognitive excursions, nature observation, cognitive services (1.1 points), recreation and relaxation in nature (1.3 points), cultural heritage (1.8 points), and the desire to preserve the existing natural values (2.1 points).

**Figure 3.** Respondents' views on the future (2020–2030) potential of supply CES, in score averages.

It was found that 52% of tourists visited protected areas (national and regional parks) for cognitive purposes. These data show a strong interest of tourists in learning about wildlife, biodiversity, natural landscapes and at the same time demonstrate good potential for more intensive use of these CES in the future, especially if (thanks to the study) the infrastructure of the study area for sustainable nature and ecological tourism, excursions and wildlife observation is improved. For example, wetlands were mentioned by as many as one-fifth of respondents (27%) as the most frequently visited habitats for nature cognition purposes. Undoubted results were obtained during the study due to the importance of the infrastructure adapted for visiting nature—75% of tourists said it is important for the infrastructure to be adapted to the visited areas (educational trails, towers, stands, etc.).

Summarising the data of the study, it can be observed that the provision of outdoor recreation services in the analyzed area could have a high potential for use if the use was stimulated by infrastructural means and combined with other CES. A quarter of tourists (25%) would and would like to go on recreational hikes in the natural environment, 45% would prefer to just relax, i.e., take a picnic or walk in the natural environment.

Potential CES future directions. The study found that entertainment and catering services are so far concentrated only in Rusne, Dreverna, and Kintai, near the roads ˙ that can reach tourist areas, etc. In the areas, such as Saugai, Usenai, and Juknaiˇ ˙ ciai, there are practically no centers of attraction, although the population is quite big and the unemployment rates (11.5%) are clearly higher than in the whole country. Locals prefer unemployment benefits instead. According to the representatives of business and elderships, the flows of tourists for the development of catering and accommodation services are too small and only seasonal; therefore, a variety of accommodation and catering services in the mentioned areas is small, whereas specialized services (by type of tourism) are minimal.

1

It can be noticed that agriculture in Lithuania has always been and will be the main economic activity of rural areas. People engaged in agriculture not only make a profit but also develop multifunctional agriculture, whose activities are not only focused on the production of raw food materials and fiber but may also have an impact on the employment, the landscape, the environment, biodiversity, and the preservation of traditions and heritage, ensuring the quality of food products, creating such services in the countryside that would become an attractive part of recreation for the residents of Lithuania and foreign visitors. These activities can support the vitality of rural areas by enabling farm owners to manage changes in the countryside. The research has revealed that rural tourism is not developed in Saugai, Usenai, and Juknaiˇ ˙ ciai, and farming is prioritized in these areas. Therefore, it was asked whether tourists would agree to live on a farmer's farm, not as in a rural tourism homestead. Twenty percent would like to live as observers (observing what farm work and how the farmer is doing), and 41% would like to test their skills in temporary farming. In conclusion, 61% of respondents would like to try the service; however, such a service is not currently provided. It can be observed that farmers' farms could provide specialized services by offering agritourism products such as cow milking, berry picking, weeding, and other rural works. Therefore, for farmers living in researched areas, it is worth considering that they could have financial income from both the farm and natural resources (milk, butter, cheese, mushrooms, berries, fish sales, and outdoor entertainment, etc.). It should be noted that the provision of CES (such as nature and ecological tourism, nature observation, etc.) could contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic climate in the region. Tourist packages could also be identified as rural development opportunities, by cooperating with the services of individual adjacent homesteads or other objects/entities, for example, one homestead provides accommodation services, another—catering, the third would be responsible for the leisure time of the tourist on vacation, etc. Unfortunately, tourist packages are not composed in the study area to increase the number of visitors.

After evaluating empirical research (questionnaire) results, Table 2 describes the predicted vectors for the use of selected potential CES and possible change.


**Table 2.** Forecasted vectors of the use of selected potential CES and of possible change.

↑↑—significant increase in the use of CES; ↑—increase in the use of CES; ↔—changes in the intensity of use of CES without a clear trend.

It should be pointed out, discussing the forecasted vectors, based on opinions of the eldership employees, the strongest future intensity is seen almost on all suggested types of supply services (except only the provision of recreational fishing opportunities and religious significance). Based on opinions of tourists, the strongest future intensity is found on five suggested types of supply services (except the provision of recreational fishing opportunities and religious significance, provision of material for research and cognition, and religious significance). Based on opinions of farmers and entrepreneurs, the strongest future intensity is seen only in two suggested types of supply services (provision of nature and ecological tourism, cognitive excursions, wildlife, observation, cognition service, and provision of recreation and nature recreation).

The studied forecasting of the Lithuanian CES began only a few years ago. So far, it is of a general overview in nature, extrapolating to the general trends taking place in the European Union. There is little systematic data at a national level, so this study would contribute to better decision-making in identifying which CES are missing and which CES provision is deteriorating. Improving the provision of these services would allow Lithuania to avoid economic losses in the future by planning various sustainable activities and seeking nature preservation. Furthermore, this research results in insights that would contribute to future CES development.

#### **5. Discussion and Recommendations**

It should be emphasized that the development of rural areas in different areas, due to different ecosystem structures, is often unequal. Differences are formed due to different natural and cultural resources, different infrastructural provision and services, different development of local socio-economic infrastructure. Therefore, in order to increase the tourist attraction, it is important to develop specific products by exploiting the advantages provided by local cultural resources, local socio-economic infrastructure, tourism infrastructure provision, and service development. These factors determine the need for new tourist products (creation of individual routes, trips to hard-to-reach regions, extreme trips) and the emergence of products (demand for culinary, historical, folklore, literary, etc. routes). New tourist routes should emphasize their authenticity and educational aspect, look for unused spaces for tourism, attracting local craftsmen, farmers and entrepreneurs, offering original products and services in line with local traditions [61,62]. The tourist of the 21st century is characterized by greater individualism, a desire to spend his or her free time in a different way, and to discover the pleasures provided by an authentic environment. It is noticeable that the "three S" (sun, sand, sea) alone is not enough for a modern tourist, he or she is looking for new challenges and new regions. This is called the search for the "three Es" (entertainment, excitement, education) [38]. It can be observed that, unlike other ecosystem functions such as regulation or supply, the impact of CES is usually intangible, difficult to measure, and quantify. As a result, CES is also treated differently by different people or by different organizations representing different sectors of activity, the so-called stakeholders, both natural and legal persons. For example, an environmentalist knows that it is important to preserve ecosystems, while the average person wants to make the most of the good that ecosystems provide. Therefore, the mass involvement of stakeholders, their participation, and the representation of different perspectives are very important in the process of assessing and preserving the potential of CES.

In different areas, the development of rural areas due to different ecosystem structures usually takes place differently. Differences are formed due to different natural and cultural resources, different infrastructural provision and services, different development of local socio-economic infrastructure. Therefore, in order to increase the tourist attraction, it is important to develop specific products using the advantages provided by local cultural resources, local socio-economic infrastructure, tourism infrastructure provision, and service development. The provision of CES (such as nature and eco-tourism, nature observation, etc.) could contribute to improving the socio-economic climate in the region. Tourist packages could also be identified as rural development opportunities, by cooperating

with the services of individual adjacent homesteads or other objects/entities, for example, one homestead provides accommodation services, another—catering, the third would be responsible for the leisure time of the tourist on vacation, etc. Unfortunately, tourist packages are not composed in the study area to increase the number of visitors.

It should be noted that not all people who leave the agricultural activity will set up rural tourism homesteads, so there is a need for certain action programs that would bring additional income to the population in a particular area, combining the existing infrastructure, cultural heritage, experience, history, etc. As one of the alternatives, it would be possible to recommend a cultural and cognitive path enabling and empowering local cooperation. A cultural path could connect these areas with a specific theme, which means that a story on the chosen theme could be told throughout the journey. The theme should be selected and developed by multi-sectoral expert groups from different localities, revealing the area's history and heritage in the field of cultural tourism and sustainable cultural development. Its specificity would be determined by the geographical, cultural, historical and natural environment features of the areas, the interrelated elements of tangible and intangible heritage. This should use the information on the living environment, interest groups, local resources, and key characters in the area. The cultural and cognitive route would include not only visits to famous places (of participating elderships) but also cultural services provided by forest, meadows, and river ecosystems (e.g., recreation, knowledge of nature, active or passive sports, observation of plants, birds and animals in their natural environment, admiration of natural beauty, sensory-cognitive education, etc.).

Combining or classifying all the above activities according to the age groups, physical fitness, or preferences of the visitors. The following key activities are recommended:

Active recreation in nature (including cycling in the warm season—cycling paths; water sports—kayaking, canoeing; extreme sports (such as hot air ballooning), horseback riding and hiking (active cognitive hiking, including visiting various cognitive sites, health trails), in winter—active skiing or sledding; organization of orienteering competitions).

Passive recreation in nature—cognitive recreation in nature (including recreation in rural tourism homesteads; visiting various nature objects; amateur fishing; observation of plants, birds, and animals—their calculation, description, identification; landscape observation; nature walks and enjoying spiritual experiences; berry picking, mushroom picking as well as various meditation and educational programs such as sound education— to single out, count the sounds heard in nature and to recognize and describe them; smell and color education—to collect a bouquet of forest or meadow plants and describe the colors and smells; forest tree therapy—choose a forest tree and create your own story about that tree; tasting and educational programs of the traditional culinary heritage of those areas, various nature camps, artists' residences, etc.).

Taking into account that one-day recreational cognitive tours are the most popular in Lithuania, it is proposed to combine these activities, i.e., to combine active recreation in nature with passive recreation in order to obtain the greatest possible physical satisfaction in regaining spiritual balance.

It should be emphasized that the organization of activities should include eldership communities and villagers. It is recommended to use certain incentives (depending on the funding requirements and funding period) for the implementation of these activities, such as support for rural development (support for economic start-ups in the rural areas, agri-environment and climate, organic farming), support for local projects, support for beekeeping, direct payments, projects funded by the Culture Support Fund (such as ethnic culture and cultural heritage, artists' residences, cultural education, balanced cultural development, etc.) and to use the aid in order to activate local tourism.

In order to promote the viability of the activities of elderships, it is necessary to keep in mind the more diverse ways of presenting the information. Information should be disseminated through tourism information centers, in cooperation with tourism information centers in the country and in other foreign countries, tour operators, and other entities. The following digital marketing for information dissemination should be used: Internet,

social networks, digital advertising, and mobile apps. It is necessary to create visually appealing websites with information about the services provided (a detailed description, photos, reviews), prices, maps, and links on how to ge<sup>t</sup> there and how to contact the service providers. Information should be provided not only in Lithuanian but also in foreign languages, such as English, German, French, Russian, Polish, etc. The information should be made publicly available to as wide a circle of individuals and organizations as possible. This requires the use of social networks such as F, videos on the Y channel. These social networks would provide direct access to consumers. As positive feedback on the services received and the sensations experienced has a very significant impact on attracting visitors, it is appropriate to broadcast these reviews using social media as widely as possible.

In summary, it should be noted that the potential of CES depends and will depend on different ecosystems and their condition. It is clear that the deterioration or even disappearance of those ecosystems will reduce their ability to provide these services. Even when it seems that something is gained with environmental degradation, it is important to keep in mind that even more will be lost. According to Chan et al. [63], the collective effort would help scholars and decision-makers incorporate relational values in their work and better understand how we can collectively and individually move towards more just and sustainable relationships involving nature. Only by understanding and assessing the real potential of the services provided by ecosystems will it be possible to make appropriate, environmentally friendly decisions.
