FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Economics and Organization Vol. 12, N o 2, 2015, pp. 143 - 155 ATTITUDES OF SERBIAN URBAN RESIDENTS TOWARD TOURISM DEVELOPMENT  UDC 338.48(497.11 Kragujevac) Darko Dimitrovski 1 , Veljko Marinković 2 , Vladimir Senić 1 1 Faculty of Hotel Management and Tourism, University of Kragujevac, Serbia 2 Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac, Serbia Abstract. Tourism is one of the main driving forces of economic development in modern era, offering new opportunities for employment, increase in living standard and improvement of quality of life in the cities. Over time, tourism has had influence on urban environment and its inhabitants, through reshaping their initial attitudes regarding benefits and deficiencies of its further development. Urban population is not homogeneous and as such is not uniform in perception related to tourism development, but some general conclusions can be drawn. This study aims to understand perception of residents about tourism development in city of Kragujevac, given that city authorities are keen to extend number of tourist visits and overnight stays within their tourism campaign efforts. The objective is to identify key factors related to the significance of tourism development based on attitudes of inhabitants of Kragujevac, as well as to determine whether there are differences in attitudes based on age and place of birth of the respondents. Through factor analysis seven factors surfaced, including: economic development, healthy and clean environment, development of local communities, sport and entertainment, preservation of environment, culture and real-estate. Results suggest that there is statistical difference in attitudes among respondents’ in terms of their age and place of birth. Key words: Attitudes, tourism development, urban residents, city of Kragujevac. INTRODUCTION Tourism in Serbia is still in its infancy and as such it is profiled and adapted to tourists and their demands. The largest cities in Serbia represent the nation’s most frequently visited tourist destination which is particularly pronounced in the number of overnight stays by foreign tourists. Given this, it is rather necessary to examine urban residents’ attitudes towards tourism development and various ways in which it impacts Received March 1, 2015 / Accepted October 5, 2015 Corresponding author: Darko Dimitrovski Faculty of Hotel Management and Tourism, University of Kragujevac, Vojvođanska 5a, 36210 Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia E-mail: darko.dimitrovski@kg.ac.rs 144 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ their local communities. The city of Kragujevac was traditionally attractive to tourists. Yet, in the past several years the city has experienced full affirmation, with the number of tourists staying in the city steadily increasing. One of the main reasons for increased number of visitors is related to FIAT’s heavy investment into the car production facilities located in the city. This resulted in increased demands on behalf of tourists, which reflected both on adjusting overall city’s tourist products and on socio-economic changes among local inhabitants. Table 1 Changes in the number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays between domestic and foreign tourists from 2007 to 2014 in the city of Kragujevac Source: Tourist organization of the city of Kragujevac Table 1 shows a noticeable increase in the number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays in both categories, especially when it comes to foreign tourists. In the first phase, the attitude of urban population to more intensive growth in tourist arrivals will be extremely positive, expecting certain benefits, especially in the aspects of future employment, improvement of the standard of living and the opportunity to start small and family businesses. In the period after the initial euphoria, it is expected that urban population over time with a more pronounced increase in the number of arrivals and overnight stays of foreign tourists, will reach a certain saturation among locals and even possibly irritation. Therefore, these kind of studies are justified, because tourism development and its future development depend on the attitude and the support of the urban population. 1. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.1 Attitudes of urban population A “perceived” impact represents a personal view of such impact (Ap, Crompton, 1998). Using this method of observing the attitudes, researchers have found that residents’ attitudes towards tourism are not only the reflections of their perceptions of tourism impact, but also the result of interaction between residents’ attitudes and factors that have an influence on them (Lankford et al., 1994). Cities themselves are very attractive for tourist visitors because of their specific historical and cultural contents. As tourism in urban environments is developing, both the significant economic effect and socio-cultural liaison between local residents and tourists of different religions, nationalities and interests are created. On the other hand, urban and Domestic tourists Foreign tourists tourist arrivals overnight stays tourist arrivals Overnight stays 2007 12.830 28.938 7.543 16.165 2008 15.710 40.952 7.795 18.905 2009 14.590 31.068 9.007 22.825 2010 16.599 32.464 10.449 23.231 2011 16.778 39.828 13.895 44.819 2012 15.515 34.417 20.846 83.052 2013 16.670 32.528 15.956 50.911 2014 17.833 32.236 15.660 33.761 Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 145 rural residents do not have the same attitude towards tourism. There is also a significant difference in urban and rural infrastructure because urban infrastructures have better conditions, with larger hotel capacity, enabling them to accommodate larger number of visitors. Yet, there are only a few studies related to urban communities that investigate mentioned issues (Schofield, 2010; Chen, 2000; Iroegbu, Chen 2002; Andriotis, Vaughan 2003). Snaith and Haley (1995) focused their research on the relationship between resident attitudes and support for tourism development in an urban area. They claim that it is necessary to understand urban residents’ needs and desires, and to find the way to direct tourism development in order to accomplish general welfare of the local community. The best solution is to find out more about the urban residents’ attitudes towards tourism development, recognize them and certainly use them as the foundation for developing sustainable tourism strategies. For successful development of tourism industry, effective planning should be undertaken aiming to identify tourists’ demands. Studies on host communities have identified factors that influence residents’ attitudes towards tourism and its future development (Fredline, Faulkner 2000; Upchurch, Teivane 2000; Weaver, Lawton 2001; Williams, Lawson 2001; Besculides et al., 2002; Tеye et al., 2002). 1.2 Attitudes toward tourism Support of local residents plays the essential role for regional destinations where tourism is not on a high level of development, which is the case of Serbia, because that kind of support improves chances of long-term success. Indeed, several studies report that it is not possible to sustain tourism on a destination that lacks support of the local community (Ahn, Lee, Shafer, 2002; Twinning-Ward, Butler 2002; McCool, Moisey, Nickerson, 2001). Variety of studies have shown a connection between tourists’ attitudes and their behavioral intentions (Lee, Graefe, Burns, 2004; Yu, Littrell 2005). According to Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) tourism enhances the overall life satisfaction of residents in a community. It would be of a great importance for the tourism industry, especially for regional tourism development projects, to understand urban residents’ attitudes and perceptions in order to evaluate how they affect the future prospects of tourism development in that area or region. Before development of tourism is initialized by residents, it is very important to comprehend how they feel about such development. A sustainable tourism industry in a community can be hardly developed without the support provided by a community. Residents are absolutely entitled to determine which tourism impacts are accepted and which impacts can cause problems (Andereck, Vogt 2000). Numerous studies on community residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts have been conducted (Andereck et al., 2005; Choi, Sirakaya 2005; Sheldon, Abenoja 2001; Sirakaya et al., 2001; Teye et al., 2002; Upchurch, Teivane 2000). Residents’ perceptions are found to be critical regarding distribution of the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits that tourism can cause, which increases sustainable tourism development (Twining-Ward, Butler, 2002). Many local communities consider that tourism can induce change in social, cultural, environmental and economic dimensions in the circumstances when tourism activities have been closely connected with the local communities (Beeton, 2006; Richards, Hall, 2000). When tourism development does not affect local residents' lifestyles, residents acquire a higher degree of social tolerance for 146 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ visitors, and the interaction between tourists and residents is more satisfying. As some researchers argue, the nature, depth and quality of interaction between tourists and local residents considerably affects tourists’ subjective experiences (Sheldon, Abenoya, 2001). It is documented in the literature that tourism development has both positive and negative impacts on host communities. Thus, as it produces benefits, it also imposes costs (Jafari, 2001). When local residents estimate benefits and costs of tourism development, they establish their own attitude toward tourism. Hence, tourism should not be regarded as a commercial activity without any significant impact on the natural, human-made, and socio-cultural environments in which it is situated (Garrod, 1998). Tourist destinations tend to ensure long-term viability that would bring benefits to both the tourism industry and host communities. However, this goal can be difficult to attain because tourism development usually has harmful effect to host communities, so their social, economic, and environmental prosperity can start deteriorating as tourism industry is expanding. As the literature suggests, residents should be included in the planning of tourism development in host communities in order to avoid negative impacts of tourism on host communities (Sheldon, Abenoya, 2001; Choi, Sirakaya, 2005). Residents’ participation in planning and development stages is also a necessity for sustainability of the development (Mowforth, Munt, 2003; Dyer et al., 2007). If local communities want their traditional lifestyles and values to be respected and to ensure their benefits, they should necessarily involve themselves in decision-making processes (Mitchell, Reid, 2001; Sheldon, Abenoja, 2001). An important part of literature refers to the economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts that tourism development has on resident communities and the residents’ attitudes towards tourism development. Both positive and negative aspects of tourism impact have been found in many local communities. Residents of any host community may positively accept tourism because it allows job creation, income generation and it also improves community infrastructure (Mitchell, Reid, 2001; Andriotis, 2002). Residents who benefit from tourism through employment will have more favourable perceptions than those who do not (Fredline, 2004). On the other hand, tourism may be negatively accepted by the residents of host communities because of the socio-cultural and environmental costs it generates (Chen, 2000). Residents will be able to understand positive and negative aspects of tourism and they will make their conclusions on the basis of balancing benefits and the costs. Balance of residents’ perceptions of the costs and benefits that tourism can cause is the most important factor in visitor satisfaction and conditional for success of the tourism industry. In the circumstances when the number of tourists to a particular region increases, residents who initially had excessively positive attitude towards their guests over time developed a certain distance related to long-term benefits of tourism. This change of attitude may arise because the original expectations of the benefits of tourism were exaggerated or because it is believed that only a small number of people will attain the benefits. There are many circumstances under which negative attitudes towards tourism development can arise. Most often they refer to poor relationship between locals and authority, problems with distribution of benefits to local residents and exclusion of local population from decision-making process. Residents are more tolerant to negative social consequences because they are less important in determining the quality of life. Attitudes towards tourism are mainly determined by resident values referring to economic benefits with a clear priority to job creation. According to the research on residents’ attitude, residents who value economic impact will have positive attitudes towards tourism, but negative ones toward environmental and Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 147 cultural change (Walpole, Goodwin, 2001; Yoon et al., 2001). Residents with the most economic gain provide the best support to the tourism industry (Harrill, 2004). Realizing that the costs of tourism exceed the benefits, residents can develop feelings of resentment and irritation towards tourism, diminishing community satisfaction (Ko, Stewart, 2002). Hardly any work has been devoted to examining residents’ attitudes in developing countries, especially at the stage when the support and involvement of the local community is critical for the overall success of tourism development efforts. Usually studies about attitudes of city residents toward tourism development are performed by Western researchers. Thus, the relevance of the findings in Serbia may not fit the existing pattern. Tourist destinations, such as the city of Kragujevac, have a greater urgency to determine resident sentiments so the chosen path of development has community support, before it becomes too late. This kind of support can be achieved through strong patronization of local residents and their positive attitude towards tourism growth and development wherever it is required. Through extending our limited knowledge of city resident attitudes to tourism development, especially in Serbia, this research provides significant insights into urban community concerns and priorities in Serbia, and also discusses the practical implications of the results. As such, it makes a contribution both in theoretical and practical context. The aim of the survey was to truly understand resident’s views and concerns about potential impacts of tourism development through community perspective, and to facilitate the preparation of a tourism strategy that incorporates needs of the host population and desires of tourists. Within this framework, there were two specific objectives: a) to examine the key factors affecting resident attitudes and b) to determine difference between certain age groups and between locally and non-locally born populations. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study focuses on the city of Kragujevac in central Serbia and examines the results from an urban community survey to determine resident attitudes toward tourism development. The location of the study was the city of Kragujevac, a big town (835 square kilometers) situated in the central part of Serbia. The area has become a popular and well-established tourist destination widely known as former Serbian capital. Kragujevac is the fourth largest city in Serbia, the main city of Šumadija region and the administrative centre of Šumadija district. It is situated on the banks of the Lepenica River. According to official results of the 2011 census, the city has a population of 147,281 inhabitants, while municipality has a population of 177,468. Kragujevac was the first capital of modern Serbia (1818–1839), and the first constitution in the Balkans was proclaimed in this city in 1835. Further on, the first full-fledged university in the newly independent Serbia was founded in 1838, preceeded by the first grammar school (Gimnazija), Printworks (both in 1833), professional National theatre (1835) and the Military academy (1837). The city of Kragujevac, as a tourist destination, is significant due to cultural and historical heritage, natural surrounding, and pleasant and hospitable people. Survey was conducted on the territory of the city of Kragujevac. The city itself is the fourth largest Serbian city located in the central part of the country. After the World War II, Kragujevac developed industry which relied on producing cars, trucks, hunting arms, leather and textile. The city is mainly dependent on further development of industry, but tourism can also generate employment opportunities for a large proportion of local population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_%28school%29 148 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ The study on citizens’ attitudes on further tourism development was carried through a survey method. Specifically, a five-point Likert scale was used, where mark 1 meant that respondent completely disagrees with a specific statement, while mark 5 meant that respondent completely agrees with a statement. Survey consists of 29 statements that express various aspects of tourism significance. Selection of statements was done through literature review (Schofield, 2010; Aref, Redzuan, Gill, 2009; Sonmez, Teye, Sirakaya, 2002; Ko, Stewart, 2002). Essentially, all statements describe different aspects of tourism development in urban areas. For developing countries, further economic progress usually comes from tourism development and this is most evident to citizens who have direct benefits from tourism. The impact of tourism through perception of urban population includes aspects of environment preservation, improvement of sports and entertainment contents, as well as encouraging cultural activities and better understanding among people. For the survey purposes, convenience sample was used. Sample consisted of a total of 188 respondents. From a total number of respondents, 83 were males (44.2%), and 105 were females (55.8%). In terms of age, respondents were classified into three groups: younger – up to 30 years of age (60 respondents, 31.9%), middle age – between 30 and 50 years of age (113 respondents, 60.1%) and older – over 50 years of age (15 respondents, 8%). From the perspective of professional status as a criterion for segmentation, 125 respondents have a job (66.5%), while 63 respondents are unemployed (33.5%). Finally, 140 respondents were born in the city where the survey was conducted (74.5%) and 48 respondents (25.5%) were born elsewhere, but now live and work there. Data gathering was conducted through a personal interview. Surveying itself was conducted in the homes of respondents, which gave respondents enough time to think thoroughly about statements in the questionnaire. Prior to surveying, the questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 30 respondents. Data analysis was done in Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 13. In terms of statistical analyses, we used independent samples t test, variance analysis (ANOVA) and explorative factor analysis. Given that the certain number of statements is related to examining the significance of tourism on further development of local community, we wanted to investigate whether there is a statistically significant difference among those born in the city and those who are born elsewhere, but live and work in the city of Kragujevac. For the purposes of this analysis, we used independent t test. Comparison of means among different age groups was done based on the results of ANOVA test, given that we used three age groups. In cases when ANOVA test shows significant differences among different groups, it is important to identify among which groups these differences were manifested. For that reason, we conducted Post hoc Tukey test. Finally, by implementing explorative factor analysis (principal component analysis), 29 statements were grouped in several different factors. Fig. 1 City of Kragujevac, Serbia Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 149 3. RESULTS Two fundamental objectives of the study were to determine statistically significant differences between different groups of respondents based on 29 statements and to identify factors that highlight significance of tourism for the development of a given society and its national economy. In the first step of analysis, through use of t test, we distinguished five statements where significant differences appeared in attitudes of residents of local origin (respondents born in Kragujevac) and residents of non-local origin (respondents born elsewhere). In all five statements, non-local residents showed more positive attitude on the significance of tourism (Table 2). Table 2 Results of independent samples t test Locally born Non-locally born Statements M (SD) M (SD) t Tourism development stimulates increased investments 4.02 (0.92) 4.31 (0.55) - 2.06 ** Tourism development improves coverage with public toilets 3.45 (1.05) 3.73 (0.79) - 1.93 * Tourism development improves of environment preservation 3.59 (1.16) 3.90 (0.90) - 1.86 * Tourism development improves environmental consciousness of local population 3.41 (0.91) 3.67 (0.95) - 1.68 * Tourism development improves shopping options 3.51 (0.93) 3.83 (0.72) - 2.44 *** Notes: M – Mean; SD – Standard Deviation; *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * P < 0.1 * Table refers only to statements where there are statistically significant differences among two groups of respondents. When we speak about forming segments on the basis of age, statistically significant difference appeared only for three statements. Results of ANOVA test are shown in Table 3. It can be inferred that different age groups of respondents have homogeneous attitudes on different aspects of tourism significance. Nevertheless, Post hoc Tukey test has identified among which groups there are significant differences. In the case of statement “Tourism development improves environmental consciousness of local population” older respondents are statistically different in their views on this issue (arithmetic mean – M = 4.21) in comparison to younger respondents (M = 3.35) and mid-age respondents (M = 3.45). When we speak of statement “Tourism development helps lower the noise” there is a significant difference between younger respondents (M = 2.57) and mid-age respondents (M = 2.18). Finally, for the statement “Tourism development contributes to cleaner streets” attitude of mid-age respondents (M = 2.62) is significantly different from those respondents belonging to older population (М = 3.29). Table 3 Results of ANOVA test Statements F p Tourism development improves environmental consciousness of local population 5.27 0.006 *** Tourism development helps lower the noise 2.60 0.077 * Tourism development contributes to cleaner streets 3.11 0.047 ** Notes: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * P < 0.1 * Table refers only to statements where there are statistically significant differences among two groups of respondents. 150 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ Table 4 Results of factor analysis Factors Factor loading Eigenvalue % of variance explained Cronbach’s alpha F1: Economic development 3.300 11.378 0.80 Tourism development improves infrastructure 0.763 Tourism development improves entertainment options 0.685 Tourism development generates employment opportunities 0.664 Tourism development assures economic benefits to small business 0.632 Tourism development stimulates increased investments 0.607 Tourism development improves hospitality options 0.512 F2: Healthy and clean environment 3.105 10.706 0.82 Tourism development helps lower the noise 0.833 Tourism development helps lower the traffic congestion 0.812 Tourism development helps lower air-pollution 0.751 Tourism development contributes to cleaner streets 0.655 F3: Development of local communities 2.896 9.985 0.76 Tourism development improves tourist signalization 0.713 Tourism development improves possibilities for development of local communities 0.665 Local population has great benefits from tourism development 0.615 Tourism development has an impact on improvement of living standard of a local community 0.608 F4: Sport and entertainment 2.428 8.374 0.69 Tourism development increases areas under parks and spaces for recreation 0.773 Tourism development increases variety of cultural and sport activities 0.718 Tourism development improves shopping options 0.681 F5: Preservation of environment 2.387 8.232 0.77 Tourism development improves coverage with public toilets 0.793 Tourism development improves of environment preservation 0.763 Tourism development increases the number of parking lots 0.560 Tourism development improves environmental consciousness of local population 0.536 F6: Culture 2.201 7.590 0.70 Tourism development improves understanding and acceptance of differences 0.732 Tourism development improves preservation of our culture and tradition 0.729 Tourism development improves cultural exchange and better understanding among people 0.610 Tourism development improves preservation of cultural and historic heritage 0.514 F7: Real estate 1.387 4.784 - Tourism development results in increase of real-estate prices 0.706 Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis: Rotation Method: Varimax: Only loadings greater than 0.5 are reported; Total percentage of explained variance 61.047%; KMO = 0.850; Bartlett Test of Sphericity: p = 0.000 Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 151 In order to identify a lesser number of factors we conducted explorative factor analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation). By implementing Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphercity we tested the adequacy of using factor analysis. In both cases we obtained adequate factor analysis (KMO = 0.850; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p = 0.000). Varimax rotation identified a total of seven factors (economic development, healthy and clean environment, development of local communities, sport and entertainment, preservation of environment, culture and real-estate). Results of explorative factor analysis are presented in Table 4. All factors have a high level of reliability. Values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for obtained factors are higher than required minimum threshold which is 0.6 (Robinson et al., 1991). Three statements (tourism development allows easier access to information of local significance; tourism development improves the quality of public services; tourism development results in increase in personal income) are excluded from further analysis, given that they were not sufficiently correlated with any of the formed factors. Hair et al. (1995) suggest that only factor loadings higher than 0.5 should be considered as significant. In that context, if a certain statement has a loading lower then mentioned threshold, then it is excluded from the further analysis. The most statements grouped around the first factor – economic development (a total of six statements). Factor related to economic development describes the largest portion of variance, and groups statements that are dealing with improving tourist offering (improving of hospitality services and entertainment options) as well as with economic consequences of tourism development, including: employment opportunities, stimulating investments, infrastructure improvement. Around factor that is related to real-estate, only two statements grouped (tourism development results in increase of real-estate prices, tourism development results in increase in personal income). However, given the level of correlation of statement “tourism development results in increase in personal income” with a factor “real-estate” is 0.4, this statement was excluded from the further analysis. Obtained factors describe 61% of total variance. 4. DISCUSSION Two basic objectives of the study are: determining statistically significant differences in attitudes of respondents on the impact of tourism development in terms of age and place of birth, as well as identifying factors that are significant for economic development and society in general. Results indicate statistically significant differences in five statements in terms of attitudes locally and non-locally born citizens of Kragujevac. In all five statements it is noticeable that non-locally born inhabitants are more positive in terms of the significance of tourism, especially, that tourism stimulates investments, preserving environment and improvement of ecologic state of mind, but also in terms of wider range of available services and products. Sheldon and Var (1984) in their study reveal relatedness of attitudes towards tourism between locally and non-locally born inhabitants, while Um and Crompton (1987) in their research show that the more an inhabitant is connected to the local community, through birth, heritage or duration of stay in it, they has less positive attitude towards tourism development, with increased expectations of negative effects on local community and quality of environment. Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) stress also the aspect of emotional relatedness to local community. Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) and Nicholas, Thapa and Ko (2009) used place of birth or the period of 152 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ residence in the locality as key factors influencing the perceptions and attitudes of residents towards changes or developments in their community. Through utilizing ANOVA test we determined that different age groups of respondents have homogeneous attitudes in general on different aspects of tourism significance, even though there are significant exceptions among certain groups. Namely, between older and younger population there is a difference in attitudes on whether tourism raises environmental consciousness. Between younger and mid-aged population there is a difference on perception of noise resulting from tourism development and finally, there is a difference in attitudes of mid-aged and older population on waste generation as a consequence of tourism development. Age is stressed as an important factor in terms of attitude of urban population towards tourism development. In their study on Australian Golden Coast, Tomljenović and Faulkner (2000) found little difference according to residents’ age. Older respondents are equally supportive of tourism development as younger respondents, even showing that older generations are more tolerant towards foreign tourists and are less worried of tourism’s harmful effects on environment. Cavus and Tanrisevdi (2002), in the study they conducted in Kuşadasi, Turkey, found a significant relation between age, duration of stay and attitude towards tourism development, with older population having a more pronounced negative attitude towards tourism development. According to Weaver and Lawton (2001) younger residents are generally more supportive of tourism development. Based on the conducted factor analysis, seven factors were determined, including: economic development, healthy and clean environment, development of local communities, sport and entertainment, preservation of environment, culture and real-estate. Economic development surfaced as the most important of all seven factors. This was expected in a current economic situation if we take into consideration that local communities are directed towards tourism in order to generate increase in revenues, employment and quality of life. Tourism development is often linked to economic development, while ignoring other segments of improving quality of life in urban settings that are a direct consequence of tourism development. Factors such as healthy and clean environment and preservation of environment nowadays are getting greater global and social significance, and are including statements as lower noise, air-pollution, waste generation, as well as improvement of environment and raising environmental consciousness of urban population. In addition, tourism development is frequently found in conflict with preserving environment, but if followed with adequate strategy, tourism development can lead towards improving environment. It is important to stress the factor of local community as one of the fundamental reasons for tourism development which improves quality of life and living standard of population. Among mentioned factors, as very important elements of improving tourist offer are sport and entertainment (recreation, sports activities, wider options for shopping) and culture (improved preservation of cultural-historic heritage, preservation of culture/ tradition and better understanding among people). Real-estate as a factor includes statement that tourism development leads to increase in housing prices, which is somewhat expected, given that with the development of tourist destination, housing market becomes important. Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 153 CONCLUSIONS Tourism is increasingly perceived as a potential source providing local employment opportunities, tax revenues, reducing poverty and economic diversity. Currently, Kragujevac, with its undergoing revitalization of industry, has put tourism as a priority, with an objective of bringing businesses and tourists into the city in order to help boost the local economy. Significance of conducted study is twofold – theoretical and practical. The study is directed onto two different aspects of development, planning of tourism development with giving support to economic activities and better understanding of the needs of local community and ways of solving the existing issues. Research is also important because of specific domain that it covered, which so far has not been a subject of other studies. Research itself has some limitations and they are related to classifying groups of respondents into locally and non-locally born urban population. Criteria for respondents selection was that they live in Kragujevac, after which they were classified based on their place of birth, and not on the basis of their duration of living in the city, so we were unable to gain data on time lived in the city and emotional liaison that results from the time spent in the city, which on the other hand, directly affects attitudes on the impact of tourism development. Findings of this study suggested that understanding of local residents’ attitudes toward any form of tourism development requires an examination of a set of very complex and interrelated factors. Some residents are more concerned about economic benefits, while others are more concerned regarding specific social, cultural or environmental benefits. Results of this study suggested that seven factors influence attitudes and especially impact perceptions of tourism development. According to the results of the study, future research should link local government as a developer of tourism and policy makers with attitudes of residents in a manner that will help understand interaction among perceptions of tourism development and their long term needs. Finally, it would be interesting to determine if there is a statistically significant difference among urban and rural populations. REFERENCES 1. Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C., Vogt C.A. (2005) Residents' Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts, Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 1056-1076. 2. Andereck, K., Vogt, C. (2000) The Relationship between Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options, Journal of Travel Research, 39: 27-36. 3. Andereck, K., Nyaupane, G.P. (2011) Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents, Journal of Travel Research, 50 (3): 248–260. 4. Andriotis, K., Vaughan, R.P. (2003) Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: the case of Crete, Journal of Travel Research, 42 (4): 172-185. 5. Andriotis, K. (2002) Local Authorities in Crete and the Development of Tourism, Journal of Tourism Studies, 13 (2): 53-62. 6. Ap, J., Crompton, J.L. (1998) Developing and Testing a Tourism Impact Scale, Journal of Travel Research, 37: 120-130. 7. Aref, F., Redzuan, M., Gill, S. (2009) Community Perceptions toward Economic and Environmental Impacts of Tourism on Local Communities, Asian Social Science, 5 (7): 130-137. 8. Ahn, B., Lee, B., Shafer, C.S. (2002) Operationalising Sustainability in Regional Tourism Planning: An Application of the Limits of Acceptable Change Framework, Tourism Management, 23: 1-15. 9. Beeton, S. (2006), Community development through tourism, Australia, Landlink Press. 154 D. DIMITROVSKI, V. MARINKOVIĆ, V. SENIĆ 10. Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., McCormick, P.J. (2002) Residents’ Perceptions of the Cultural Benefits of Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2): 303-319. 11. Cavus, S., Tanrisevedi, A. (2003) Residents' attitudes toward tourism development: A case study in Kusadasi, Turkey, Tourism Analysis, 7: 259-269. 12. Chen, J. S. (2000) An investigation of urban residents’ loyalty to tourism, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24 (1): 5-19. 13. Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E. (2005) Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism scale, Journal of Travel Research, 43: 380-394. 14. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., and Carter J. (2007) Structural Modeling of Resident Perceptions of Tourism and Associated Development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia, Tourism Management, 28: 409-422. 15. Ferdline, L. (2004) “Host community reactions to motorsport events: the perception of impact on quality of life”, In: Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (eds), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, Clevedon: Channel View Publications, pp. 155-173. 16. Ferdline, E., Faulkner, B. (2000) Host community reactions: a cluster analysis, Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 763-784. 17. Garrod, F. (1998) Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management, 19 (3): 199-212. 18. Gursoy, D., Rutherford, D. (2004) Host Attitudes Toward Tourism. An Improved Structural Model, Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 495-516. 19. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate data analysis with readings, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall International. 20. Harril, R. (2004) Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Literature Review with Implications for Tourism Planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 18 (3): 251-256. 21. Iroegbu, H., Chen, J.S. (2002) Urban residents’ reaction toward tourism development: do subgroups exist? Tourism Analysis, 6: 155-161. 22. Jafari, J. (2001) “The scientification of tourism”, In: Valene B.M. (eds), Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, pp. 28-41. 23. Ko D.W., Stewart W. (2002) A structural equation model of residents' attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23: 521-530. 24. Lankford, V., Chen, Y., Chen, W. (1994) Tourism’s impacts in the Penghu National Scenic Area, Taiwan, Tourism Management, 15 (3): 222-227. 25. Lee, J., Graefe, A.R., Burns, R.C. (2004) Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention among forest visitors, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17 (1): 73-82. 26. McCool, S.F., Moisey, R.N., Nickerson, N.P. (2001) What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators, Journal of Travel Research, 40 (4): 124-131. 27. Mowforth, M., Munt, I. (2003), Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the Third World, London, Routledge. 28. Mitchell, R., Reid, D. (2001) Community Integration: Island Tourism in Peru, Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 113-139. 29. Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., Ko, Y. (2009) Residents' perspectives of a world heritage site-the Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia, Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3): 390-412. 30. Richards, G., Hall, D. (2000), Tourism and sustainable community development, USA, Routledge. 31. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S. (1991), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, San Diego, CA, Academic Press. 32. Schofield, P. (2010) City Resident Attitudes to Proposed Tourism Development and its Impacts on the Community, International Journal of Tourism Research, 13: 218-233. 33. Sirikaya, E., Teye, V., Sonmez, S. (2001) Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana, Journal of Travel Research, 41: 57-67. 34. Snaith, T., Haley, A.J. (1995) “Tourism’s Impact on Host Lifestyle Realities”, In: Seaton A.V. (eds), Tourism, the State of the Art, New York: John Wiley, pp. 826-835. 35. Sheldon, P.J., Abenoja, T. (2001) Resident attitudes in a mature destination: The case of Waikiki, Tourism Management, 22:. 434-443. 36. Sheldon, P.J., Var, T. (1984) Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales, Tourism Management, 5: 40-47. 37. Teye, V., Sonmez, S., Sirikaya, E. (2002) Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 668-688. 38. Tomljenovic, R., Faulkner, B. (2000) Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt resort, Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (1): 93-114. 39. Twining-Ward, L., Butler, R. (2002) Implementing STD on a Small Island: Development and Use of Sustainable Tourism Development Indicators in Samoa, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10 (5): 363-387. Attitudes of Serbian Urban Residents toward Tourism Development 155 40. Um, S., Crompton, L.J. (1987) Measuring resident’s attachment levels in a host community, Journal of Travel Research, 26 (1): 27-29. 41. Upshurch, R., Teivane, U. (2000) Resident perceptions of tourism development in Riga. Latvia, Tourism Management, 21: 499-507. 42. Walpole, M., Goodwin, H. (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia, Environmental Conservation, 28: 160-166. 43. Weaver, D., Lawton, L. (2001) Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe, Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 439-458. 44. Williams, J., Lawson, R. (2001) Community issues and resident opinions of tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 269-290. 45. Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., Chen, J. (2001) Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling,. Tourism Management, 22: 363-372. 46. Yu, H., Littrell, M.A. (2005) Tourists’ shopping orientations for handcrafts: What are key influences? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 18 (4): 1–21. ODNOS URBANOG STANOVNIŠTVA U SRBIJI PREMA RAZVOJU TURIZMA Razvoj turizma je jedan od pokretača ekonomskog razvoja u savremenom dobu, omogućavajući nove mogućnosti za zapošljavanje, rast standarda i kvaliteta života u gradovima. Turizam je vremenom uticao na gradsku sredinu i stanovništvo menjajući njihove prvobitne stavove o prednostima i nedostatcima njegovog razvoja. Gradsko stanovništvo nije homogeno i kao takvo nije jedinstveno u percepciji razvoja turizma, ali se ipak mogu doneti neki opšti zaključci. U radu se istrazuju stavovi koje lokalno stanovnistvo ima prema razvoju turizma. Cilj studije je da, putem studije slučaja u gradu Kragujevcu, razume percepciju urbanog stanovništva kada je u pitanju razvoj turizma, posebno u svetlu napora koje gradske institucije ulažu u povećanje broja turističkih poseta i noćenja gostiju. ilj rada je da izdvoji ključne faktore za razvoj turizma na osnovu stavova stanovništva grada Kragujevca, kao i da utvrdi da li postoje razlike u stavovima u zavisnosti od starosti i mestu rođenja ispitanika. Faktorskom analizom izdvojeno je šest faktora: ekonomski razvoj, zdrava i čista sredina, razvoj lokalnih zajednica, sport i zabava, očuvanje životne sredine, kultura i nekretnine. Rezultati pokazuju da postoje statistički značajne razlike u stavovima ispitanika kada su u pitanju starost i mesto rođenja. Ključne reči: stavovi, razvoj turizma, urbano stanovništvo, grad Kragujevac