CC BY
31
UDC 338.48
DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268
DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL TERRITORY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM
Marko D. PETROVIC
Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), Belgrade, Serbia
Milan RADOVANOVIC
Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
(SASA), Belgrade, Serbia
South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia
Natalia VUKOVIC
Ural State Forest Engineering University (USFEU), Yekaterinburg, Russia Aleksandra VUJKO
Novi Sad Business School, Novi Sad, Serbia Darko VUKOVIC
Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
(SASA), Belgrade, Serbia
Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
For citation:
Petrovic, M. D., Radovanovic, M., Vukovic, N., Vujko, A. and Vukovic, D. (2017), "Development of rural territory under the influence of community-based tourism", Ars Administrandi, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 253-268, doi: 10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268.
Introduction. The paper looks at the relevant issues related to the rural areas' development under the community-based tourism activities. The study presents an overview of every field of knowledge on community-based tourism, including the organization, management, marketing, and economic aspects. The paper specifies who provides the services, what they offer, who they offer their services to, and how they plan their tourist development in rural settings. The most relevant issue for the locals is the presentation of potential positive, as well as negative impact of tourism development, from economic to socio-cultural and environmental prospective.
Aims. The main aim of this research is to examine how tourist activities affect locals in typical rural surroundings. How do individual and/or community benefits correlate with the support for tourism development? How does the concern for tourism development correspond with the general opinion about tourism? And how do the impacts of tourism development match the community support for tourism? Therefore, the general aspects of tourism impact, as well as its effect on the rural residents, will be explained.
The methods of theoretical research (systems analysis, coming from the abstract to the real, idealization, etc.), as well as the methods of empirical research (method of expert assessment, comparison, analogy, and generalization) are applied in the study.
Results. Both positive and negative impacts of tourism development have been shown, according to the cognitive findings. Some economic impacts of community-based tourism development provide new employment opportunities, an increase of income and GNP, diversify the local economy, as well as result in possible inflation of land value, price rise on food and other products and frequent seasonal employment. On the other hand, results
© Petrovic M. D., Radovanovic M., Vukovic N., Vujko A. and Vukovic D., 2017
253
iii. местное самоуправление и развитие территорий
show that social-cultural impacts can be seen in developing favorite image of the countryside, providing opportunities for additional education and recreational facilities for the residents, preservation of the local cultural heritage, while, on the other hand, it can create resentment and antagonism related to dramatic differences in wealth, give rise to overcrowding, congestion and traffic jams, cause conflicts in traditional societies and values, or even create demonstration effect, whereby natives imitate tourists and relinquish cultural tradition. Together with these, the findings proved that the community-based tourism may contribute to the better environmental protection, such as conservation of wildlife, encouragement of education on ecological issues, as well as fostering water and air pollution and solid waste, trampling delicate soil or disrupting flora and fauna species.
Conclusion. The development of rural territories is possible under well planned and organized community-based tourism. Together with these, the study came to the conclusion that the locals care of their rural surroundings, and they also may benefit from tourist activities in their area, and these benefits are potential for their environment as well. The obtained findings confirm previous results, which also proved that care about the local tourist development is in positive correlation with the benefits of tourism for the local community. With all these matters, our paper emphasizes the findings that the more positive the general opinion and attitude of individuals and the community on tourist development in their local surroundings are, the stronger the care about the community is.
Key words: rural setting; locals; tourism impact; community-based development
INTRODUCTION
The effect of international processes on economy growth is reflected in intensity and the direction of the tourist flows, as well as in the development of special types of tourism. In the contemporary studies on the development of the international tourist trends, rural tourism has been developed as its very significant and increasing segment. An important part of rural tourism involves concept, which can be defined as community-based tourism. This concept of tourism represents a model of local community development, which places the community, economy and environment at the center of that development. It attempts to harness the effort of communities through their empowerment for the benefit of the local community. Nickerson et al. (2001) claimed that rural area is the basic resource for the development of community-based tourism and that this tourist activity relies on the city residents' need for peace and outdoor space for recreation. Despite the growing interest in community-based tourism, especially for the underdeveloped, less-developed and developing sites, this economic activity is largely defined in supply-side terms, and demand side remains a relatively under-studied area (Mtapuri et al., 2015). Nevertheless, community-based tourism cannot sustain itself without visitors, and understanding the characteristics of them is only vital for the future of community-based initiatives. The characteristics of a potential community-based tourism consumer, such as socio-demographics, psychographics, and behavior could help managers and marketers to target the right markets for successful community-based tourism development (Yilmaz and Tasci, 2013).
Agrarian production should satisfy the tourists' need for high-quality and biologically valuable food. A coordinated development of farming and community-based tourism is the basis of economic rationalization in doing business in these activities. A complementary development of farming and community-based tourism
ensures the optimal usage of working power and tourist capacities, it ensures the placement of agrarian production and the reduction of expenses, but also revitalization and stability of the development of rural regions. Besides the achievable profits, for successful business in community-based tourism, it is necessary to have knowledge in numerous economic fields. Sznajder et al. (2009) stated that every field of knowledge can also be an aspect of community-based tourism, which necessarily includes organization, management, marketing and economic aspects.
THEORETICAL BASIS
The organization of community-based tourism means business and legal basis for business, and then security regulations and the establishment of legal framework for doing this activity. Structural organization can comprise vertical, horizontal and territorial integration, or a combination of the mentioned. The organization of community-based tourism also includes the internal structure of accommodation units in rural surroundings, i.e. the connections within that structure. Primarily, it refers to the relationship between the production and placement of raw materials which are offered to visitors (food, drinks and beverages). In this way, the balance within a unit can be achieved and a tourist offer can be defined and integrated on a micro level (on the level of a family estate and/or a facility).
The management of community-based tourism involves the management of logistics, products and services, as well as quality, security and adequate human resources (motivated and professional people). Special focus is on the segment of quality, where some of the EU countries (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Denmark) have standardized measures of quality in community-based tourism in rural areas, so that a great part of the number of accommodation units have visible labels which certify the quality of their products and services.
The marketing of community-based tourism represents an indispensable option in the tourist affirmation of facilities in rural tourism. Achievable through the principle of 4P marketing mix (product, price, promotion and purchase channels), marketing activities represent today's obligatory practice in rural tourism in many countries. The aim of marketing is to establish a well-developed and recognizable product or service (Kotler et al., 2007), and from the point of view of community-based tourism, it can be a large, even unlimited scope of offer (e.g. food, drinks and beverages, specific forms of tourist services, etc.). Also, it is necessary to mention that marketing in community-based tourism, contrary to the other travel industry fields, includes the research and analyses of residents' needs, as well as customers' expectations. It is examined in such a way that the segmentation of their preferences is done in accordance with numerous criteria (gender and age structure, average monthly income, residence, specific demands and needs, life style, etc.). Ollenburg and Buckley (2011) concluded that along with the mentioned criteria, the location of the family estate has a crucial role in the choice of marketing means.
The economy of community-based tourism comprises the examination of economy on regional and national level, the economy of a company, consumers and all the decision-makers (in all the structures), the economy of production and marketing, as well as the economy of planning on a state level. The economic analysis of community-
based tourism describes all the segments which are doing business in this sector, and which include all legal bodies in this field (associations, societies, private companies, etc.). The main purpose of this analysis is to discover secondary resources of financing the account holders who are involved in the development of community-based tourism (Phelan and Sharpley, 2012), i.e. the profit from the non-agricultural activities as well, such as from community-based tourism. In relation with that, Todorovic and Stetic (2009) noted that in the countries with planned and developed rural tourism, the income from tourism in a farm stay accommodation cannot be higher than the income achieved by agricultural production, so that agriculture should remain the basic economic activity of a household. This is one crucial economic segment for rural communities. It is also important to mention that the segmentation of the consumers of tourist services and market research is also very important in this sphere, and that it also includes the problems of financing tourist companies, investment policy and most importantly, the well-being of local population in rural regions.
Space is an important element of the development of community-based tourism. A research by Jolly and Reynolds (2005) has shown that visitors value individual elements of space. Their study has shown that visitors from the big USA urban areas think that orchards are the most important spatial motives, more attractive than forests, pastures or fields with crops. Contrary to them, visitors from smaller USA cities consider forests the most interesting motives of rural spaces. As Sznajder et al. (2009) noted, rural tourist space can be observed in a narrower and a broader sense. In the narrow sense, it comprises a micro space of a farm stay (the main building and subsidiary, complementary buildings) and surroundings where animal husbandry and agronomy are done. In the broader sense, this space comprises closer and broader surroundings of a building, that is, the whole area of a village district where the building is situated. According to the same authors, visitors especially value the diversity of rural tourist space. This depends on numerous natural and anthropogenic components, which comprise the following: the terrain configuration, flora and fauna, soil composition, rural anthropogenic structures, the size of a family estate, specialization of agricultural production, and so on.
RESULTS
In forming products and services in tourist offer in rural areas, it is necessary to define answers to the main questions which appear here: "who?", "what?", "to whom?", "how?", "when?" and "where?". Namely, it is important to determine who provides the services, what they offer, who they offer their services to, and how they plan their tourist development (Todorovic and Stetic, 2009), and besides that, when and where the exchange of tourist products and services takes place. Thus, the main questions and answers which appear in community-based tourism planning are:
1. Who are service providers in community-based tourism? - All legal entities and individuals who own or are employed in the legal and classified tourism facilities in a rural area;
2. What do service providers offer? - All products and services which are in accordance with the expectations of visitors who practice tourist activities
(accommodation, food, drinks and beverages in a rural environment and overall events in nearer and further surroundings of the facility);
3. Whom do they offer tourist products and services? - All the visitors whose primary aim is to stay in a rural environment and all the events which follow the stay in such an environment (e.g. learning old crafts, contact with animals, preparation of local culinary specialties, etc.);
4. How do they plan tourist development? - With sustainable usage, participation and adjustment to local (or regional) values and principles, especially in respect of cultural and historic heritage of the environment, the prevention of material, non-material (local customs, beliefs, holidays, rituals, cults, etc.) and natural values;
5. When and where does community-based tourism actually take place? -This economic activity takes place during a multi-hour or multi-day stay of visitors (excursionists and/or tourists) in an accommodation unit in rural setting (along with events, services, and products which follow such an activity).
On the basis of the relationship between tourism and a rural region, a model has been made which clearly shows the impact that community-based tourism has an economic aspect of a rural region (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Tourism-rural region correlation model / Рис. 1. Модель корреляции между туризмом и сельской территорией
Source: Adapted according to Todorovic and Stetic (2009).
It is possible to distinguish three basic types of the impact of tourism on the transformation of a rural space (Comic, 2003).
The first type can be seen in the zones of high tourist concentration, since certain activities cannot be practiced anywhere but on a limited space, convenient for such an activity. It is most often a consequence of natural conditions and conveniences, as well as the corresponding equipment. In certain seaside and mountain settlements,
these factors lead to the extremely high concentration of tourist equipment and visitors. Such a condition can lead to the complementary relation between tourism and agriculture, as well as to their collision. In extreme cases, tourism can lead to the almost complete abandonment of agriculture by the local population and their involvement in tourist activities (even though this is most often treated as a negative effect of tourism, a thesis can be set that the total conversion may be a better solution than the total depopulation of certain rural regions, which would happen without tourist function). In the zones of high tourist concentration, agricultural activity can be seriously disturbed by a tourist function, either because most of the villagers completely abandon agriculture and focus on tourism, or only a small portion of time is dedicated to agriculture, and the rest of time to non-agricultural activities.
In the second type the tourist function has a moderate and complementary impact, because it influences the maintenance of agricultural activity. For rural population agriculture remains the dominant activity, while tourism appears as an additional source of profit and a seasonal activity (renting of rooms, higher sale of local agricultural products to visitors, etc.).
In the third type of impact, a tourist function is partly manifested, i.e. it has a secondary, subsidiary character and it does not cause a significant transformation of a region, or of events, organization and the spatial arrangement. In this case, tourism does not have a serious impact on agriculture as the basic activity in a rural space. In this respect, community-based tourism mainly supports the last-mentioned type of impact, where the locals can primarily do agriculture and additionally be involved in tourism activities.
When it comes to the (in)direct impacts of tourism on a local community, this economic branch brings numerous consequences on the environment, economic and social changes. The understanding of all the components of tourism is essential for future planning, management and making business decisions and strategies. The earliest researches in this field were focused on the perception of different ways of impact of tourist development on the surroundings (Sheldon and Var, 1984; Liu and Var, 1986; Liu et al., 1987; Perdue et al., 1987). The main impacts and variables were identified, methodological approaches were developed and research instruments were defined. Globally observed, local population has in most cases recognized the positive economic effects of tourist development, but they are mostly worried about potential negative consequences on the environment and sociological issues, such as potential growth of criminal and prostitution rate, various ways of pollution, general security degradation, the growth of estate prices, traffic overcrowding, etc.
Earlier works also examined the differences in the perception of impacts among different types of residents differentiated according to numerous socio-demographic characteristics (Pizam, 1978; Liu and Var, 1986; Milman and Pizam, 1988); residence or the distance from a tourist destination (Sheldon and Var, 1984); and economic dependence on tourism according to the kind of jobs residents do (Pizam, 1978; Milman and Pizam, 1988). The mentioned researchers concluded that there were small differences in the perception of the impact of tourism, considering socio-demographic characteristics of local population. It was emphasized that the total benefit of the perception of tourist impact grew with the local residents' economic dependence on different segments of tourist economy.
During the 2000s, in attempt to prevent tensions which were the consequences of more and more negative impact of unequal and unplanned development, it was noted that communities in which tourism dominated or there was interest in it, they should plan their evolution more systematically, bearing in mind the attitudes and perceptions of local population about their growth from the very beginning. As tourist planners learned, population's negative perceptions about tourism development, from the limited and non-existent opportunities for participation in that process, could lead to dissatisfaction among visitors, and finally, to the fall in the number of visits (Reid et al., 2004). Tosun (2000) stated that target measures should be introduced carefully in order to enable local population to use the advantages of the offered opportunities within tourism development, but only if tourism goal is to achieve sustainable development. Without accepting and applying these necessary measures, tourism development could gradually lose the support of local community, which, in return, could jeopardize the sustainability of development in the future (Reid et al., 2004). Among the works which studied the impact of tourism, the development of the tourist impact assessment scale was also an important issue in establishing a theoretic basis of this phenomenon (Chen, 2000).
According to the data of the Interorganizational Committee of U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration1, it is necessary to reach an agreement among several factors, such as cultural, demographic, economic, social, political, and psychological. According to the mentioned statement, the above-named committee has established a model called Social Impact Assessment (SIA), which should simultaneously focus on the mentioned factors, use appropriate instruments and information, ensure quantification where it is possible and appropriate, and finally, present overall sociological impacts in the way to be comprehensible to all stakeholders.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with the works the aim of which was to develop the current model, numerous theorists discussed the topic of the impact of present tourist activities on the local population's attitudes. Ap and Crompton (1998), in order to improve the current ones, developed their own scale of 35 variables, which performs the monitoring of the sustainable development of community-based tourism activities. Based on these findings, the Table 1 represents the overall impact of tourism on the local community, containing both positive and negative impacts.
Economic impacts - tourism evidently affects the opening of new jobs, ensures the international goods and services exchange, stimulates new investments, and contributes to the improvement of local people's life standard and to the improvement of technology. Certainly, the most important benefit from tourism development is the economic benefit that a local community expects from tourist activities. According to such a statement, almost every examination of local population's perception of the impact of tourism involves some economic functions.
1 Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (1994) [Online], available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/spo/spo16.pdf (Accessed April 2, 2017).
Table 1 / Таблица 1
Potential positive and negative impacts of tourism on rural surroundings / Потенциальные положительные и отрицательные последствия туризма в сельской местности
Positive economic impacts 1. Provides employment opportunities 2. Generates supply of foreign exchange 3. Increases income 4. Increases gross national products (GNP) 5. Improves an infrastructure, facilities and services 6. Raises government revenue 7. Diversifies the economy Negative economic impacts 1. Causes inflation of land value 2. Raises price on food and other products 3. Frequent seasonal employment 4. Creates leakage through demand for imports 5. Diverts funds from other economic development projects
Positive social impacts 1. Creates favorite image of the country 2. Provides recreational facilities for residents as well as tourists 3. Facilities the modernization 4. Provides opportunities for additional education Negative social impacts 1. Creates resentment and antagonism related to dramatic differences in wealth 2. Gives rise to overcrowding, congestion and traffic jams 3. Invites moral degradation resulting in increasing crime, prostitution, drug trafficking, etc. 4. Causes conflicts in traditional societies and values
Positive cultural impacts 1. Encourages pride in local arts, crafts and cultural expression 2. Preserves cultural heritage Negative cultural impacts 1. Creates demonstration effect whereby natives imitate tourists and relinquish cultural tradition. 2. Encourage the tranquilization of crafts
Positive environmental impacts 1. Justifies environmental protection and improvement 2. Protects wildlife 3. Encourages education of value of nature-based tourism Negative environmental impacts 1. Fosters water and air pollution and solid waste 2. Tramples delicate soil and beaches 3. Destroys coral and coastal dunes 4. Disrupts flora and fauna species
Source: Authors'findings according to the below mentioned studies.
Former research shows that residents think tourism helps local economy (Ritchie, 1988), affects the general increase of the life standard of a local community (Var and Kim, 1989), but also stimulates the entrance of foreign currency in a host country (Ahmed and Krohn, 1992). Furthermore, the studies have shown that tourism directly stimulates the opening of new jobs (Milman and Pizam, 1987; Var and Kim, 1989; Ahmed and Krohn, 1992; Lee et al., 1997), increases the income of numerous segments of local economy (Settina and Richmond, 1978; Lee et al., 1997), and improves the total purchasing ability (Lee et al., 1997). Services and goods of many economic activities (e.g. craftsmanship, agriculture, trade, industry, etc.) are involved in a tourist offer, which simultaneously is of use to the local population,
and it represents a general improvement of infrastructure and superstructure of the community.
However, certain theorists, such as Var and Kim (1989), noted that tourism also often leads to the employment of people out of that local community, both for the management jobs and for the executive ones. It certainly has consequences at the expense oflocal population. Besides, the authors agree that tourism development induces the domination of foreign products of global, multinational companies, the increase in the estate and soil value, the rise of goods and services prices, and finally, the rise of prices of basic provisions (food, clothes and footwear). Nevertheless, a great number of studies (Sheldon and Var, 1984; Liu and Var, 1986; Weaver and Lawton, 2001; Andereck et al., 2005; Kunasekaran et al., 2011) are directed to the prevailing positive effects of tourism on employment, life standard and income, which individuals and the local community get from the present tourist activities and phenomena that follow such activities.
Social (sociological and cultural) impacts - tourism influences the increase in the number of people in a tourist destination, which causes big crowds and traffic congestions. Moreover, one of the main ones "to blame" for numerous social problems, such as the rise in the rate of poverty, crime and overconsumption of alcohol, prostitution, hazardous games, etc., which results in devastation of local, traditional culture, customs and the beliefs of the community (Var and Kim, 1989; Ahmed and Krohn, 1992). On the other hand, Liu and Var (1986) highlighted the fact that tourism significantly contributes to the building of numerous places and organizing cultural events, such as theatres, concerts, cinemas, theme museums, but also the possibilities of additional sports activities and recreation (e.g. cultivation and designing green areas, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, renting sports and recreational inventory etc.).
The following examples show positive and negative sides of social impacts of tourism. The authors Tyrrell and Spaulding (1984) have concluded that local population of Rhode Island, USA, think that tourism is responsible for traffic overcrowding, lack of parking space and crowds in department stores and on markets. Numerous other researches show that crowds in traffic are the main problem caused by tourist activities (Keogh, 1990; Prentice, 1993). However, contrary to this statement, the inhabitants of Florida, USA, claimed that problems in traffic will not be solved by the absence of tourist activities (Davis et al., 1988). Besides that, the work of public services is of crucial importance for the efficient functioning of all the activities in the destination. Keogh (1990) stated that there is a significant relation between residents' satisfaction with local public services and tourism development, i.e. residents believe that tourism development encourages the functioning of public services. Moreover, in some parts of the world there is a significant process of acculturation, and so, local culture and customs in non-developed countries are modified under the influence of the developed, most often Western European countries, the USA and Canada (Liu and Var, 1986; Weaver and Lawton, 2001; 2006). A situation has appeared that in certain destination traditional dances and songs are simulated in order to attract tourists' attention. However, it is also interesting to mention the significance of mutual influence that a local community has on tourist development and the development of a community under the influence of tourism,
where the importance of progressive changes and development is emphasized on both sides (Aref et al., 2010).
The impact on the environment - the researches have shown that, almost equally, there are positive and negative examples all around the globe. According to Var and Kim (1989), tourism contributes to the creation of perspective and awareness about the need of the environment protection in its authentic form, but it also encourages the infrastructure investments to tourist affirmation of natural and cultural heritage of a local community (e.g. visitors' centers, watchtowers, so-called "health paths", information boards, "schools in nature", etc.). Also, tourism belongs to the so-called "clean economic branches", without characteristic, direct ways of pollution, which accompany other forms of economic development in a local community (e.g. intensive agriculture, mining or metal industry). Perdue et al. (1987) claimed that locals agree with the statement that tourism contributes to the improvement of their local environment and the surrounding area appearance. The researches by Ritchie (1988) showed that 91% of the examinees agree that tourist activities have a positive effect on the life quality and on the maintenance of local sights, while as many as 93 % of the examinees believe that tourism improves the quality of natural heritage management.
However, many authors also mention numerous negative cases of the impact of tourism on the environment pollution, such as devastation of natural resources, noise, and damaging cultural heritage (Var and Kim, 1989; Ahmed and Krohn, 1992; Andereck and Vogt, 2000). The results of researches on Virgin Island, USA, showed that there has been water pollution and the increase of rubbish on the beaches (Settina and Richmond, 1978), while the examinees from Cape Code, Massachusetts, USA, think that tourism influenced the rise of noise and rubbish, and that it contributed to the general pollution of water and air (Pizam, 1978). On the island of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK, during the main summer season, the number of cars is up to 10 times larger than the usual, which causes the rise of noise and air pollution (Romeril, 1985). The same happens to water resources, which represent one of the primary tourist motives for a visit, and they are often liable to pollution. Besides the mentioned, the products of tourist economy make great amounts of solid refuse, so that hospitality facilities, traffic companies and visitors themselves leave behind loads of rubbish which is very often not easily degradable. The problem is far more obvious in developing countries where the absence of sustainable refuse management and adequate recycling measures is extremely apparent (Andereck and Vogt, 2000). Lankford and Howard (1994) emphasized the fact that the majority of the examinees in their research believe that the visitors are to blame for the increase of refuse and for the general untidiness of public places.
Even though in the recent years, tourism shows a "protective" attitude towards the environment, and especially towards flora and fauna, the understanding of this issue is still quite limited. Liu et al. (1987) claimed that the residents of Hawaii, USA, think the financial profit from tourism is more important than the environment protection, while, on the contrary, the residents of the northern part of Wales, UK, support the theory that tourism has significantly damaged the environment and that it should be limited to the level of bearing capacity (Sheldon and Var, 1984). However, it can be stated that long-term tourism planning can control the impact of tourism on the environment, through the strategy of sustainable tourist development.
CONCLUSION
Community-based tourism, as a concept of tourism of special, selective interests has still not acquired the proportions of mass tourism anywhere in the world, and that is why it cannot be widely spoken about the consequences of tourist activities. It is a fact that visitors, who participate in this activity, are largely the "lovers" of rural space, which leads to the assumption that their awareness of the protection of cultural-historic and natural resources is most often high or even very high. All the above mentioned speaks in favor of the fact that community-based tourism in most of the countries represents the opposite to mass, conventional aspects of tourism such as seaside, mega event, urban, skiing tourism, etc.
The findings pointed to the conclusion that the development of rural territories is possible under well planned and professionally organized community-based tourism. Together with these, the study came to the conclusion that the locals care of their rural surroundings and they also may benefit from tourist activities in their area, and these benefits are potential for their environment as well. The obtained findings confirm previous results, which also proved that care about the local tourist development is in positive correlation with the benefits of tourism for the local community. On the other hand, results indicated that the higher the negative effect of tourism is, the higher the opinion on tourist development of the locals is, and that the higher the care about the area is, the easier it is to recognize the potential negative effects, and vice versa. With all these matters, our paper emphasizes the findings that the higher the general opinion and attitude of an individuals and the community on tourist development in their local surroundings are, the higher the care about the community is. These statements in fact describe the general aspects of possible tourism impact, as well as its effect on the everyday living of locals in rural areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (Grant III 47007) and by Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russian Federation (14.Z50.31.0029 from March 19, 2014).
References
Ahmed, Z. U. and Krohn, F. B. (1992), "Marketing India as a tourist destination in North America - challenges and opportunities", International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 89-98.
Andereck, K. L. and Vogt, C. A. (2000), "The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 27-36.
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C. and Vogt, C. A. (2005), "Residents' perceptions of community tourism impacts", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1056-1076.
Ap, J. and Crompton, J. L. (1998), "Developing and testing a tourism impact scale", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 120-130.
Aref, F., Gill, S. S. and Aref, F. (2010), "Tourism development in local communities: As a community development approach", Journal of American Science, vol. 6, pp. 155-161.
Chen, J. S. (2000), "An investigation of urban residents' loyalty to tourism", Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 21-35.
Comic, D. (2003), "Prostorno-planski modeli razme^taja turizma u ruralnoj sredini", in Zbornik radova sa skupa Ruralni turizam i odrhivi razvoj Balkana, Kragu-jevac, Sebia.
Davis, D., Allen, J. and Cosenza, R. M. (1988), "Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 2-8.
Jolly, D. and Reynolds, K. (2005), Consumer demand for agricultural and on-farm nature tourism, Small Farm Center, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Keogh, B. (1990), "Public participation in community tourism planning", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 449-465.
Kotler, P., Brown, L., Adam, S., Burton, S. and Armstrong, G. (2007), Marketing (7th Ed.), Pearsons Education Australia, Frenchs Forest (N.S.W.), Australia.
Kunasekaran, P., Ramachandran, S., Yacob, M. R. and Shuib, A. (2011), "Development of farmers' perception scale on agro tourism in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia", World Applied Sciences Journal (Special Issue of Tourism and Hospitality), vol. 12, pp. 10-18.
Lankford, S. V. and Howard, D. R. (1994a), "Developing a tourism impact attitude scale", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 121-139.
Lee, C. C., Backman, K. and Backman, S. (1997), "Understanding antecedents of repeat visitation and tourists' loyalty to a resort destination", The 1997 Travel and Tourism Research Association Annual (TTRA) Conference, Boulder, CO, USA.
Liu, J. C. and Var, T. (1986), "Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 13, pp. 193-214.
Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J. and Var, T. (1987), "Resident perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 14, pp. 17-37.
Milman, A. and Pizam, A. (1988), "Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 15, pp. 191-204.
Mtapuri, O., Giampiccoli, A. and Jugmohan, S. (2015), "Community-based tourism affinity index: a visitor's approach", African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-13.
Nickerson, N. P., Black, R. J. and McCool, S. F. (2001), "Agritourism: motivations behind farm-ranch business diversification", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 19-26.
Ollenburg, C. and Buckley, R. (2011), "Which farmers turn to tourism? A continental-scale analysis", Tourism recreation research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 127-140.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T. and Allen, L. (1987), "Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 420-429.
Phelan, C. and Sharpley, R. (2012), "Exploring entrepreneurial skills and competencies in farm tourism", Local Economy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 103-118.
Pizam, A. (1978), "Tourist impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 8-12.
Prentice, R. (1993), "Community-driven tourism planning and residents' preferences", Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 218-227.
Reid, D., Mair, H. and George, W. (2004), "Community tourism planning, A self-assessment instrument", Annals Of Tourism Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 623-639.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1988), "Consensus policy formulation in tourism: measuring resident views via survey research", Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 199212.
Romeril, M. (1985), "Tourism and the environment: Towards a symbiotic relationship", International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 25, pp. 215-218.
Settina, R. J. and Richmond, B. O. (1978), "U.S. Virgin Islanders' perceptions of tourism", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 30-31.
Sheldon, P. J. and Var, T. (1984), "Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales", Tourism Management, vol. 5, pp. 40-47.
Sznajder, M., Przezborska, L. and Scrimgeour, F. (2009), Agritourism, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Todorovic, M. and Stetic, C. (2009), Ruralni turizam, Forma B, Belgrade, Serbia.
Tosun, C. (2000), "Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries", Tourism Management, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 613-633.
Tyrrell, T. and Spaulding, I. A. (1984), "A Survey of attitudes toward tourism growth in Rhode Island", Hospitality Education and Research Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 22-33.
Var, T. and Kim, Y. (1989), Measurement and Findings on the Tourism Impact, Unpublished paper. Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, College Station (TX, USA), Texas A&M University, TX, USA.
Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (2001), "Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 439-458.
Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (2006), Tourism Management, John Wiley and Sons, Milton, LA, USA.
Yilmaz, S. S. and Tasci, A. D. A. (2013), "Community based tourism for who? Profiling consumers", Conference on Tourism and Hospitality: The highway to Sustainable Development, June, 28-30, Yerevan, Armenia.
Information about authors
Marko D. Petrovic - Ph.D., Research Associate, Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), 9 Djure Jaksica, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia
ORCID: 0000-0002-6561-0307
ResearcherID: I-3554-2016
E-mail: m.petrovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Milan Radovanovic - Ph.D., Principal Research Fellow, Full Professor, Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), 9 Djure Jaksica, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia, Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, 76 Lenin ave., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia
ORCID: 0000-0002-9702-3879 ResearcherID: F-4687-2012 E-mail: m.radovanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Natalia Vukovic - Ph.D., Full Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Ural State Forest Engineering University (USFEU), 37 Sibirskii trakt, Yekaterinburg, 620100, Russia
ORCID: 0000-0002-4593-2835 ResearcherID: M-9931-2016 E-mail: shpak17121978@gmail.com
Aleksandra Vujko - Ph.D., Professor of Professional Studies, Novi Sad Business School, 4 Vladimira Perica Valtera, Novi Sad, 21000, Serbia ORCID: 0000-0001-8684-4228 ResearcherID: H-9686-2017 E-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com
Darko Vukovic - Ph.D., Research Associate, Full Professor, Geographical Institute "Jovan Cvijic" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), 9 Djure Jaksica, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia, Institute of Social-Humanitarian Technologies, Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30 Lenin ave, Tomsk, 634050, Russia ORCID: 0000-0002-1165-489X ResearcherID: G-9374-2016 E-mail: d.vukovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Received April 12, 2017
УДК 338.48
DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268
РАЗВИТИЕ СЕЛьСКИХ ТЕРРИТОРИЙ
в контексте влияния муниципального туризма
Марко Д. ПЕТРОВИЧ
Географический институт "Йован Цвиич" Сербской академии наук и искусств (САНИ), 9 Джура Якшич, Белград, 11000, Сербия
ORCID: 0000-0002-6561-0307 ResearcherID: I-3554-2016 E-mail: m.petrovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Милан РАДОВАНОВИЧ
Географический институт "Йован Цвиич" Сербской академии наук и искусств (САНИ), 11000, Сербия, Белград, Джура Якшич, 9
ФГАОУ ВО «Южно-Уральский государственный университет
(национальный исследовательский университет)»,
454080, Россия, Челябинск, просп. Ленина, 76
ORCID: 0000-0002-9702-3879
ResearcherlD: F-4687-2012
E-mail: m.radovanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Наталия ВУКОВИЧ
ФГБОУ ВО «Уральский государственный лесотехнический
университет (УГЛТУ), 620100, Россия, Екатеринбург,
ул. Сибирский тракт, 37
ORCID: 0000-0002-4593-2835
ResearcherlD: M-9931-2016
E-mail: shpak17121978@gmail.com
Александра ВУЖКО
Бизнес школа в городе Нови-сад, 21000, Сербия, Нови-сад, ул. Владимира Перича Вальтера, 4 ORCID: 0000-0001-8684-4228 ResearcherlD: H-9686-2017 E-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com
Дарко ВУКОВИЧ
Географический институт "Йован Цвиич" Сербской академии наук и искусств (САНИ), 11000, Сербия, Белград, Джура Якшич, 9
ФГАОУ ВО «Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет», 634050, Россия, Томск, просп. Ленина, 30
ORCID: 0000-0002-1165-489X ResearcherlD: G-9374-2016 E-mail: d.vukovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Для цитирования:
Petrovic M. D., Radovanovic M., Vukovic N., Vujko A., Vukovic D. Development of rural territory under the influence of community-based tourism // Ars Administrandi. 2017. Vol. 9, № 2. Р. 253-268. DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268.
Введение: в статье рассматриваются актуальные вопросы развития сельских территорий в контексте туристической деятельности на уровне муниципалитета. В исследовании представлен краткий обзор имеющихся знаний в области муниципального туризма, включая такие аспекты, как организация, управление, продвижение и экономический аспект. В статье даны ответы на вопросы: кто предоставляет услуги, что они предлагают, кому они предлагают свои услуги и как планируют развитие туризма в сельской местности. Самой актуальной проблемой для местных жителей является понимание возможных как положительных, так и отрицательных последствий развития туризма, от экономических до социально-культурных и экологических перспектив.
Цель: провести анализ влияния туризма на местных жителей в обычной сельской территории. Как индивидуальные и / или общественные выгоды соотносятся с поддержкой развития туризма? Каким образом коррелирует развитие туризма с общим отношением к туризму? И как последствия развития туризма влияют на поддержку туризма со стороны местного сообщества? Поэтому в статье будут объяснены общие аспекты воздействия туризма, а также его влияние на сельских жителей.
В исследовании применяются методы теоретического анализа (системный анализ, от абстрактного к конкретному, идеализация и т.д.), а также методы эмпирического анализа (метод экспертной оценки, сравнение, аналогия и генерализация).
Результаты: в соответствии с полученными результатами описаны как положительные, так и отрицательные последствия развития туризма. С точки зрения экономики развитие туризма на муниципальном уровне обеспечивает новые рабочие места, диверсификацию местной экономики, увеличивает доход и ВНП, но также может привести к росту стоимости земли, цен на продовольствие и на другие товары, повышению спроса на сезонных работников. Результаты исследования говорят о том, что, с одной стороны, социально-культурные последствия развития туризма могут проявляться в формировании положительного образа сельской территории, в расширении возможностей дополнительного образования и увеличении мест отдыха для местных жителей, в сохранении местного культурного наследия. Однако, с другой стороны, развитие туризма может вызвать недовольство и враждебность со стороны местных жителей, связанных с драматической разницей в уровне благосостояния, привести к перенаселению, дорожным пробкам, создать конфликт в традиционных сообществах и ценностях или даже породить эффект демонстрации, когда местные жители подражают туристам и отказываются от своих традиций. Кроме того, результаты исследования указывают на то, что развитие муниципального туризма может обеспечить наиболее оптимальную охрану окружающей среды, например, сохранение дикой природы, экологическое просвещение, а также контроль за загрязнением воды и воздуха, твердыми отходами, за чувствительной к внешним изменениям почвой или сохранением флоры и фауны.
Заключение: развитие сельских территорий возможно в контексте развития четко спланированного и организованного муниципального туризма. Авторы исследования пришли к выводу, что местное население проявляет заботу об окружающей их среде, и они также могут извлечь пользу от туризма, развивающегося на их территории, причем подобная польза будет очевидной и для окружающей среды. Полученные результаты исследования подтверждают выводы предыдущих работ, в которых также отмечается положительная взаимосвязь между заботой о развитии местного туризма и пользой туризма для местного сообщества. Чем более положительным является отношение жителей и сообщества к развитию туризма на местной территории, тем больше проявляется забота о сообществе.
Ключевые слова: сельские территории; местные жители; влияние туризма; развитие на уровне муниципалитета
БЛАГОДАРНОСТИ
Исследование выполнено при поддержке Министерства образования, науки и технологического развития Республики Сербия (грант III 47007) и ФГАОУ ВО «Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет» (№ 14.Z50.31.0029 от 19 марта 2014 года).
Статья получена 12 апреля 2017 года
