CC BY
19A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Regi
Stavropol Region
= № 1(21)/1 Supplement, 2016
UDK 338.48
Marko D. Petrovic, Zeljko Bjeljac, Dunja Demirovic
TOURISM IMPACT ATTITUDE SCALE (77AS) AS A TOOL OF CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS IN AGRITOURISM
The paper deals with the examination of the attitude of residents in the village settlements in Vojvodina Province (Northern Serbia), which represent the most developed in terms of agritourism in Serbia. To achieve that, authors of the paper used Tourism Impact Attitude Scale (TIAS). Exploratory factor analysis is used for the analysis of the gathered data about interconnections of the sets of variables. Eventually, all 23 items of TIAS scale grouped into four factors which explain the total of 47.467 % of the variance. The factors are titled in the following way: Personal and community benefits; Negative impacts of tourism development; Concern/support for local tourism develop-
ment; and General opinion about tourist development. All the four factors defined in this paper have a theoretical, empiric and scientific background, and the grouped items have shown insignificant deviations from the prevailing scientific results and conclusions of the theorists who have tested the same scale. Thanks to the obtained results, the similarity and support to items grouped in factors obtained according to the original research results in this paper can clearly be noticed.
Key words: agritourism, TIAS scale, exploratory factor analysis, Vojvodina Province, Serbia.
Marko D. Petrovic* -
Research Assistant, Serbian Academy
of Sciences and Arts (SASA),
Geographical Institute «Jovan Cvijic»
Belgrade, Serbia
Tel.: +381 11 26 36 395
E-mail: m.petrovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Zeljko Bjeljac -
Senior Research Associate, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA), Geographical Institute «Jovan Cvijic», Belgrade, Serbia Tel.: +381 11 26 36 395 E-mail: z.bjeljac@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Dunja Demirovic -
Ph.D. Student of Tourism,
University of Novi Sad,
Faculty of Sciences, DGTH,
Novi Sad, Serbia
Tel.: +381 64 268 62 90
E-mail: demirovic.dunja2@gmail.com
1. Introduction
In modern research of tourism globally, agritourism is its very important and increasing segment of travel industry. Agritourism includes tourism activities on farms, which provide specific kind of agritourism products and services. Sznajder et al. (2009) suggest that agritourist activities involve the following: farm-stay, (whether it is private accommodation or camping), educational visits, recreational activities or selling agricultural and home-made products. On the other hand, Stojanovic (2007), states that agritourism is part of so-called alternative types of tourism, which appeared in 1980s as a consequence of the so-called 'green consumption' trend, as well as a consequence of the awareness of travelling in accordance with the environmental protection.
In his paper on agritourism, Nilsson (2002) and in Petrovic (2013; 2014) define this type of tourism as a basic segment of rural tourism. According to Nilsson, rural tourism is based on rural environment in general, while agritourism is based exclusively on farms and farmers. Clarke (1996) explains that there are certain spatial differences in agritourism. Namely, if the accommodation is not on the farm, then it is agritourism, while farm-stay means that the agricultural environment and its offer are included in the product
(e.g. being involved in agricultural work, riding a tractor, processing products, etc.). The problems in agricultural production have encouraged farmers and the creators of the agricultural policy to search for alternative activities, so agritourism being one of them (Illbery et al., 1998).
In 1994, American professors Lankford and Howard (1994) wrote a scientific paper with the title «Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale» according to results of their field research in the USA. Contrary to all the previous similar scales (Pizam, 1978; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Liu & Var, 1986; Ap, 1992), the authors' intention was to overcome the previous omissions by using a multidimensional or multivariate Likert Scale. Thus, in their work, they designed and presented a unique model for measuring tourism impact on the attitude of local population (most often in agritourism), called TIAS (Tourism Impact Attitude Scale). This scale was created on the basis of several important methodologies suggested by eminent theorists such as Likert (1967), Churchill (1979) and Parasuraman et al. (1988).
According to mentioned research, the aim of this study was to examine the attitude of residents in the 17 village settlements in Vojvodina Province (Northern Serbia) which are the most representative (the most ready) in terms of agritourism in Serbia. The selection of the village settlement has been done ac-
14 Quaez and ^ Agr^ulturaL
I T Journal iB.]MlHliio(8lavn|iolllcg)«i
cording to the recommended settlements within the project «Wealth of Diversity» of the Danube Tourism Cluster of Serbia «Istar 21», supported by the Government of Vojvodina Province (Map 1).
The data obtained by using a modified questionnaire made with the help of standardized TIAS scale for measuring the impact of tourism development on the attitudes of local population in the selected village settlements. The scale consists of 18 independent variables and 27 dependent variables grouped in four factors. The aim of the research was to describe the characteristics of the population sample and to examine the attitudes of local population towards tourism impact in the settlements they live in. The main problem issues of this work refer to the analysis of data of poll research which was conveyed several times during 2013 and 2014 among the most numerous target groups. The analysis should point to the significance of the impact of agritourist development on the life of local population in the selected village settlements in Vojvodina Province.
All the interested respondents in the researched villages participated in the poll. The condition was
that their domicile address was in the observed village. The examination of the target groups was done by personal poll, i.e. with the technique «face to face» or they were give some time to fill the questionnaire (not longer than two weeks). The research questionnaire (TIAS) direct polling of the population in the analyzed villages; of 300 distributed poll papers in total, 228 have been answered correctly, which represents the final number of the examinees who participated in the statistical analysis (N=228), i.e. 76 % of the response rate. According to the theorist Babbie (1986), the response rate among the examinees which is on the level of 70 % and above that share, is considered to be a good indicator of the measurement scale acceptance. Bagozzi (1981) states that the assessments using statistical methods will be good only when the sample comprises the minimum of 51 observed units. According to these statements, it can be noticed that the sample in all the presented researches is adequate for good statistical assessments (N>51).
Map 1. Geographical location of analyzed villages in Vojvodina Province (Northern Serbia)1
Ratio: 1cm = 15 km; Source: Made by authors in 2014
(The basis of the map was taken from: http://www.moto-berza.com/str/mapa-srbije/)
1 The villages which were chosen and which are analyzed in this work and listed in alphabetical order are the following: 1. Banostor. 2. Backi Monostor. 3. Bezdan. 4. Belo Blato. 5. Velebit. 6. Golubinci. 7. Gudurica. 8. Donji Tavankut. 9. Kovilj, 10. Krcedin. 11. Ruski Krstur. 12. Selenca. 13. Skorenovac. 14. Stapar. 15. Stari Slankamen. 16. Totovo Selo and. 17. Turija. These 17 village settlements are distributed in 13 Vojvodina Province municipalities: Beocin, Sombor, Zrenjanin, Kanjiza, Stara Pazova, Vrsac, Subotica, Novi Sad, Indija, Kula, Bac, Kovin and Srbobran.
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Région
2. Results and discussion
Exploratory factor analysis is used for the analysis of the gathered data about interconnections of the sets of variables. Lankford and Howard (1994), the creators of TIAS scale, got the items grouped in two factors in their results (research in the USA). Factor 1 was titled «concern for local tourism development» (18 items), while Factor 2 interprets «personal and community benefits from local tourism development» (nine items). However, in the same year (1994), Lankford et al. tested TIAS scale in rural areas of the island of Taiwan, where he got five factors in total, which were titled as: «positive promotion», «negative promotion», «tourism impacts», «public services» and «benefits from tourism» (p. 226). Three years later, theorist Rollins (1997) applied TIAS scale for his research and got a four-factor structure.
Besides the fact that the items were grouped in separate factors «community benefits from tourist development» and «personal benefits from tourist development», in Rollins's results also the factors titled «general opinion about tourist development» and «negative impacts of tourist development» were obtained. It turned out that results of factors grouped in this way showed statistical significance and that they could serve as an efficient modification of the original two-factor scale. Schneider et al. (1997) got different number of factors with the unchanged items, depending on the country where they conveyed their researches. So, in Indonesia and Japan they got a three-factor, and in china and Jordan a five-factor analysis. In all the researched countries, the scale results showed statistical significance and Cronbach's a coefficient - they got the largest one in China (0.90), and the smallest in Jordan (0.71).
Theorists Harrill and Potts (2003), in their results on the territory of South Carolina (USA), got three factors: «negative impacts», «economic benefit» and «cultural benefit» (p. 239), and excluded eight original items, because of the low coefficient values of factor difficulties (19 items were accepted, which were previously used in the reference Lankford et al., 1995). The first factor shows 22.38 % of explanatory variance in the attitudes towards tourist development, the second one shows 17.63 %, and the third one 17.59 %. As Wang et al. (2006) claim, TIAS two-factor scale has proved to be a very useful model for measuring attitudes of the population in rural areas of North Carolina (USA), where they left out seven items because of low coefficient values of factor burden. Their results show that «gender», «age» and «residents' participation in tourist development» do not show great statistical significance in both of the factors, while «education level» and «personal benefits from tourist development» show high significance. The research was repeated two years later by the first two co-authors (Wang & Pfister, 2008), leaning greatly on Factor 2 of TIAS scale, i.e. on the segment concerning «personal benefits from tourist development». More precisely, the authors wanted to find out what the correlation was between the attitude towards tourism and personal benefits of individuals from tourism and confirmed the expected hypothesis
that the more individuals have benefits from tourism, the more positive the attitude towards it is. At the same time, it should be emphasized that those benefits are not only of financial nature, but they are also cultural, social and psychological benefits. It is interesting to point out that Woosnam (2012) used a two-factor TIAS scale with the total of 16 original variables taken and which showed high factor burden. He titled the factors: «support to tourist development» (nine grouped items) and «tourist contribution to the local community» (seven grouped items) (p. 322). The titled factors are counterparts to original titles in the factor analysis results by Lankford and Howard. For such a decision an explanation was provided: the taken items showed significance in previous scientific researches (Wang et al., 2006; Wang & Pfister, 2008), and the other ten items which proved to be inappropriate for the selected target examines were left out. Finally, the items with the lowest values in the original research (Lankford & Howard, 1994) were also left out.
According to the presented previous findings, for the needs of the main components analysis in this work, all the 27 original questions were taken. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure value was 0.741 which exceeds the recommended value of 0.60 (Kaiser, 1974). Also, Bartlett's test of sphericity has achieved the needed statistical significance (p=0.000) which confirms the justification of the application of exploratory factor analysis.
The main components analysis has discovered the presence of four components with characteristic values above 1 (one), which is explained by 17.175 % (F1), 11.582 % (F2), 9.698 % (F3) and 9.012 % (F4) of the variance. After the forming of factors, the rotation was done by using the method of Varimax rotation. The aim of the rotation is that each variable has to be representative with as few factors as possible and with as good as possible spatial arrangement.
The reliability of the measurement instrument was checked by using Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient. This measurement instrument is among the most commonly used indicators of closeness whit items which the scale consists of (Pallant, 2011). In an ideal case, Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient should be above 0.7 (DeVellis, 2003), but the values of this instrument are very sensitive to the number of items on the scale. As Pallant (2011) states, short scales (fewer than 10 items) usually have quite small Cronbach's coefficient (below 0.5) so in that case it is more appropriate to calculate the mean inter-item correlation. In this case, the recommended values are from 0.20 to 0.40 as optimal scope of interitem correlation (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). Even though the reliability coefficients are below 0.70 are generally considered unacceptable, sometimes the coefficients above 0.60 are accepted. According to Lehman et al. (2005), the ideal value of internal consistency value is in the interval from 0.80 to 0.90.
The coefficient value for the first, third and fourth factor exceeds the recommended (ideal) value of 0.700, (F1=0.885, F3=0.709, F4=0.710), while the value of the second factor is close to the recommended value (F2=0.693). Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole scale of 23 items is F1-F4=0.863. The presented data point to the fact
16 QUTal and Practice Ag^U"^^
Journal XK, Bnllctln of Stavrapal Région
that the set model is reliable (Nunnally, 1978) and the obtained results are scientifically supportable.
After the conveyed factor analysis, the pure factor structure has been obtained with high coefficients. Four items have been excluded from the model due to their low values of factor burden coefficients (below 0.40) and they are: «As a priority, the province should develop tourism according to a plan» (0.37), «Benefits from tourism exceeds the negative impacts» (0.31), «Long-term planning of municipal authorities could control the pressure of tourism on the environment» (0.00) and «It is necessary to execute the tax payment for the tourism development» (0.00).
Thus, a model with 23 items grouped into four factors which explain the total of 47.467 % of the variance has been obtained and the factors are titled in the following way:
Factor 1 (F1) - Personal and community benefits,
Factor 2 (F2) - Negative impacts of tourism development,
Factor 3 (F3) - Concern/support for local tourism development,
Factor 4 (F4) - General opinion about tourist development.
Factors Items (Variables) Factor loading Characteristic values Explained variance Cronbach's coefficient a
F1 F1a - My village has better roads and pavements thanks to tourism development. .729 6.130 17.175 .885
F1b - The quality of public services (health care, cleanness, water supply, protection from fire...) in my place has been improved thanks to tourism development. .772
F1c - I have more money thanks to tourism. .850*
F1d - Tourism has an impact on the improvement of my life standard. .816
F1e - I have more possibilities for recreation (new sports fields, playground for children, swimming pools.) since tourism developed in my place. .725
F1f - The jobs provided by tourism are very attractive. .540
F1g - In my place the number of shops has risen as a result of tourism development. .723
F1h - Tourism will have a leading economic role in my place in the future. .558
F2 F2a - Settlements in this municipality should not initiate the attraction of a great number of visitors. .603 2.719 11.582 .693
F2b - Tourism has a negative impact on the environment preservation. .549
F2c - The noise from the existing tourist activities has a negative impact on the life in my place. .605
F2d - In my place the amount of rubbish has risen due to a larger number of visitors. .513
F2e - Tourism reduces the possibilities for the recreation outdoors in my place. .418
F2f - Tourism has influenced the rise of crime rate in my place. .637*
F2g - Visitors have a positive impact in my place. .612
F3 F3a - In my place, tourism development should be actively supported. .689* 2.248 9.698 .709
F3b - My place has resources to become an attractive tourist destination. .649
F3c - Tourism should become the main economic branch in my place. .471
F3d - Tourism development in my place will provide more opportunities for employment of local population. .590
F3e - I am against building of tourist facilities which will attract a large number of visitors to my place. .633
F4 F4a - The community should stimulate a more intensive building of tourist facilities. .792 1.719 9.012 .710
F4b - Tourism plays and important role in the economy of the community. .677
F4c - Municipal authorities are right if they support tourism development. .798*
*The marked figures represent the values with the highest burden within this factor. Source: Created by the authors according to the data in SPSS 18.0
Table 1 - Exploratory factor analysis for F1-4
1 gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
3. Conclusions
On the other hand, the research results from the island of Taiwan (Lankford et al., 1994) have also grouped the items (seven) into the factor of the same name, and by comparing them with the obtained results in this work, it can be noticed that six items are identical and with similar factor burden. The greatest difference of 0.28 is noticed with item F1f, which can be explained by the fact that the jobs which are provided by tourism in the analyzed villages of Taiwan are more attractive than the jobs which are present in the observed villages of Vojvodina Province. It leads to the conclusion that in rural areas of this east-Asian island agritourism is more developed and that the local population considers the jobs provided via tourist development very attractive, which is present on a much lower level in the analyzed villages of Vojvodina Province. The only left-out factor in the case of this research it is F3d, which has been set in the factor Concern for local tourist development in this paper. This statement is explainable by the fact that local population in Vojvodina Province, having the opinion that tourism will affect a large number of the employees in their settlement, at the same time has concerns about the general well-being and the development of their community, which can be considered as a justifying result.
Factor 2 includes the total of seven items. The factor burdens range from 0.418 (the lowest burden) for the statement that tourism reduces possibilities for recreation outdoors, to 0.637 (the highest burden) for the statement that tourism has contributed to the increase of crime rate in the local area. Even though in the original research of TIAS scale (Lankford & Howard, 1994) this factor was not defined, in this work Factor 2 has been titled according to the later works by Rollins 81997), Schneider et al. (1997, in the cases of Indonesia and Jordan) and Harrill and Potts (2003). Even though Rollins got Ave items within this factor (not including the two which have been obtained in this work: F2a and F2g), all the items are identical with the items grouped in this factor and with similar factor burden (e.g. the greatest difference of 0.25 has been noticed in the case of F2d). This difference can be explained with the fact that the increase in the amount of rubbish is still not a big problem in the observed villages in Vojvodina Province, due to the absence of mass participation in agritourism and the profile of visitors to such tourist destination (so-called alternative types of tourists).
Like their predecessors, Harrill and Potts also got Ave items in this factor. However, item F3e which, in this work, is within the factor Concern for local tourism development (the same as in the original research by Lankford and Howard), in the case of these authors, it was comprised in Negative impacts of tourism. Such a phenomenon is not worrying, since in Rollins this item is in the factor General opinion about tourist development, so it can be interpreted in several ways. In the case of this work, the objection to building tourist facilities which will attract a large number of visitors to the rural areas
of Vojvodina Province can certainly be considered a concern for local tourism development by local population. Generally, agritourism, according to its characteristics, does not include mass building of facilities or great tourist migrations, which is more often the characteristic of destinations with swimming tourism on shores of oceans, seas, lakes or with mountainous, skiing tourism.
Factor 3 comprises five items in which the factor burdens range from 0.471 (for the statement that tourism should become the main economic branch in the observed settlement) to 0.689 (for the statement that tourism development should be actively stimulated in the settlement). Concern for local tourism development is the title of this factor, which originates from the title of the same name in the original study of TIAS scale (Lankford & Howard, 1994) and in several other scientific references (Wang et al., 2006; Wang & Pfister, 2008; Woosnam, 2012). Even though in the original research 18 items were grouped in this factor, in this work all the five items are identical with those in the mentioned research and with relatively similar factor burdens. The greatest difference in the burdens is noticed in the variable F3c (0.288), which can be explained with the fact that a large share of the number of examinees in Vojvodina Province think that tourism should become the main economic branch, but together with agriculture, as a traditional, vital and dominant economic activity in the analyzed settlements.
Like their predecessors, Wang et al. (2006) and Wang and Pfister (2008) have also got a great number of items grouped within this factor (12 in total). From the five items within Factor 3 in this work, four match the research of the listed authors, since they eliminated item F3d because of the low factor burden. All the other items have similar factor burdens, and the largest difference of 0.173 is noticed in F3a. This can also be explained with the conclusion that the residents in rural areas of Vojvodina Province may not have completely understood the meaning of the statement that in their settlement tourism development should be actively stimulated, and that is why the greatest difference in burdens has been noticed between the obtained results of the two observed works.
In his work, Woosnam (2012) got nine items in total within this factor. Contrary to previous comparisons, the defined F3d in the work belonged to the second factor in Woosnam's research («Tourist contribution to the local community»), while the remaining four showed similar factor burdens as in this research. The largest difference in burdens of 0.229 is also noticed here in F3a, which leads to the same conclusion which has been presented in the previous paragraph.
Factor 4 groups the smallest number of items on the scale, three in total. The title of the factor General opinion about tourist development is formed according to the work by Rollins (1997), who defined the total of four factors in his results. Within this factor, the author has interpreted the grouped 18 items. All the three obtained items in the results of the work completely match Rollins's findings, as well as factor
i« TsTsCh and Practice
Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Region
burdens where the differences are small. The largest difference of 0.140 is noticed in F4a, which leads to the conclusion that the examinees in both of the rural areas (the Island of Vancouver and Vojvodina Province), in a relatively similar amount, think that their communities should stimulate an intensive building of tourist facilities in their local areas, with the aim of a more successful tourist development.
According to the presented facts, it can be noticed that all the four factors defined in this work are justifying, i.e. they have a theoretic and empiric scientific background. All the four factor titles have been explained and the grouped items have shown insignificant deviations from the prevailing
REFERENCES
1. Ap John. «Residents' perception on tourism impacts» // Annals of Tourism Research. 1992. № 19 (4). P. 665-690.
2. Babbie E. R. The Practice of Social Research. 4th Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1986.
3. Bagozzi R. P. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment // Journal of Marketing Research. 1981. № 18. P. 375-381.
4. Briggs S. R., Cheek J. M. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales // Journal of Personality. 1986. № 54. P. 106-148.
5. Churchill G. A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs // Journal of Marketing Research. 1979. № 16. P. 64-73.
6. Clarke J. Farm accommodation and the communication mix // Tourism Management. 1996. № 17 (8). P. 611-620.
7. DeVellis R.F. Scale development: Theory and application. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2003. 171 p.
8. Harrill R., Potts T. D. Tourism Planning in Historic Districts: Attitudes toward Tourism Development in Charleston // Journal of the American Planning Association. 2003. № 69 (3). P. 233-244.
9. Illbery B., Bowler I., Clark G., Crockett A., Shaw A. Farm-based tourism as an alternative farm enterprise: A case study from the Northern Pennines, England // Regional Studies. 1998. № 32 (4). P. 355-364.
10. Kaiser F. Henry. An Index of Factorial Simplicity // Psychometrika. 1974. № 39. P. 31-36.
11. Lankford S. V., Howard D. R., Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale // Annals of Tourism Research. 1994. № 21 (1). P. 121-139.
12. Lankford S. V., Chen J. S. Y., Chen W. Tourism's impacts in the Penghu National Scenic Area, Taiwan // Tourism Management. 1994. № 15 (3). P. 222-227.
scientific results and conclusions of the theorists who have tested the same scale. Thanks to the obtained results, the similarity and support to items grouped in factors obtained according to the original research results in this paper can clearly be noticed. According to everything said, it can be concluded that agritourism in Vojvodina Province is becoming one of the strategic and most efficient ways of scientific research and future development of rural areas in this part of Europe.
Acknowledgment: The paper is supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (Grant III 47007).
13. Lankford S. V., Buxton B. P., Hetzler R., Little J. R. Response Bias and Wave Analysis of Mailed Questionnaires in Tourism Impact Assessments // Journal of Travel Research. 1995. № 33(4). P. 8-13.
14. Likert R. The Method of Constructing an Attitude Scale // Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967. P. 90-95.
15. Liu J. C., Var T. Resident Attitudes Toward Tourism Impacts in Hawaii // Annals of Tourism Research. 1986. № 13. P. 193-214.
16. Milman A., Pizam A. Social Impacts of Tourism on Central Florida // Annals of Tourism Research. 1988. № 15. P. 191-204.
17. Nilsson P. A. Staying on farms - an ideological background // Annals of Tourism Research. 2002. № 29 (1). P. 7-24.
18. Nunnally J. C. Psyhometric Theory. 2th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1978.
19. Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 18. 4th Edition. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 2011.
20. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml A. V., Bern L. L. Servqual: Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality // Journal of Retailing. 1988. № 64. P. 12-40.
21. Petrovic M. D. Agritourism in contemporary scientific literature (In Serbian) // Agroekono-mika Journal. 2013. № 59-60. P. 94-113.
22. Petrovic M. D. Quality of agritourism in Vojvodina and its impact on residents' attitudes (In Serbian) : doctoral dissertation University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management. 2014. [Digital resource]. URL: http://cris.uns. ac.rs/searchDissertations.jsf
23. Pizam A. Tourist Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Perceived by its Residents // Journal of Travel Research. 1978. № 16 (4). P. 8-12.
24. Rollins R. Validation of TIAS as a Tourism Impact Management Tool // Annals of Tourism Research. 1997. № 24 (3). P. 740-745.
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
25. Schneider I. E., Lankford S. V., Oguchi T. The 29. Cross-Cultural Equivalency of the TIAS: Summary Results // Annals of Tourism Research.
1997. № 24 (4). P. 994-998.
26. Stojanovic V. Sustainable Tourism and En- 30. vironemntal Development (In Serbian). Novi
Sad (Serbia). Novi Sad : University of Novi Sad,2007.
27. Sznajder M., Przezborska L., Scrimgeour F. 31. Agritourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. 2009.
28. Wang A., Pfister R., Morais D. Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A case study of Washington, NC // Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium : Collection of Papers. 2006. P. 411-418.
Wang A. Y., Pfister R. E. Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism and Perceived Personal Benefits in a Rural Community // Journal of Travel Research. 2008. №3. P. 1-10. Woosnam K. M. Using Emotional Solidarity to explain residents' attitudes about tourism and tourism development // Journal of Travel Research. 2012. № 51 (3). P. 315-327. Moto Berza. URL: http://www.moto-ber-za.com/str/mapa-srbije/ (download time: 12.04.2014).
