24 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Original Paper FOR CITATION Vujko, A., Dimitrić, D., Gajić, T., Penić, M. & Gagić, S. (2018) Development potential of rural tourism (the case of Tešnjarske večeri festival). R-economy, 4(1), 24–29. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 FOR CITATION Вуйко, А., Димитрич, Д., Гайич, Т., Пенич, М., Гагич, C. (2018) Потенциал развития сельского туризма (пример фестиваля «Tešnjarske večeri»). R-economy, 4(1), 24–29. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 Development potential of rural tourism (the case of Teš njarske večeri festival) Aleksandra Vujkoa, Dragana Dimitrićb, Tamara Gajića, Mirjana Penićc, Snježana Gagićd a Novi Sad Business School, Novi Sad, Serbia; e-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com b Faculty of Science, Novi Sad, Serbia; e-mail: tamara.gajic.1977@yahoo.com c Fife Class Hotels & Spa, Istrabez Turizem, Portorož, Slovenia; e-mail: sadranel@gmail.com d University of Business Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management (FTH), Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina; e-mail: gagicsnjeza@yahoo.com ABSTRACT Rural tourism is a very broad concept which includes not only holidays in the countryside a range of other tourist activities in rural areas, such as traditional festivals. Tourist festivals are devoted to different local products which are famous in rural parts of Serbia. Some of the most popular Serbian festivals are the Grape Festivals in Sremski Karlovci, Erdevik, Banoštor, Irig, Erdevik, Vršac, Župa, Palić, Aleksandrovac, Hajdukovo, Smederevo, Topola; Plum Days in Osečina and Koštunići; Cabbage Days in Futog, Barbeque in Lesko- vac; BaconDdays in Kačarevo; Ham Days in Mačkat; Golden Pot of Danube in Petrovaradin, Apatin; Mushroom Days in Fruška gora, Valjevo and Divčibare, Medical Herbs Days in Soko Banja; Bee Days in Zaječar. This paper deals with the development potential of rural areas associated with these festivals by an- alyzing the case of Tešnjarske večeri. This festival provides a diverse cultural and ethnographic entertaining program, combining visual and performing arts, and celebrates the vibrant life of the local community. KEYWORDS rural tourism, festival, countryside, development, Tešnjarske večeri, Serbia Потенциал развития сельского туризма (пример фестиваля «Teš njarske večeri ») А. Вуйкоa, Д. Димитричb, Т. Гайичa, М. Пеничc, C. Гагичd a Бизнес-школа Нови-Сада, Нови-Сад, Сербия; e-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com b Нови-Садский университет, Нови-Сад, Сербия; e-mail: tamara.gajic.1977@yahoo.com c Отель LifeClass Hotels & Spa, Порторож, Словения; e-mail: sadranel@gmail.com d Университет бизнес-исследований, факультет туризма и гостиничного дела, Баня Лука, Босния и Герцеговина; e-mail: gagicsnjeza@yahoo.com РЕЗЮМЕ Сельский туризм – очень широкая концепция, которая включает в себя не только отдых в сельской местности, но и ряд других тури- стических мероприятий в сельской местности, таких как традици- онные фестивали. Туристические фестивали посвящены различным местным продуктам, которые известны в сельских районах Сербии. Некоторые из самых популярных сербских фестивалей – винные фе- стивали в Сремских Карловцах, Эрдевике, Баношторе, Ириге, Эрде- вике, Вршаце, Жупе, Паличе, Александроваце, Хайдуково, Смедерево, Тополе; Дни сливы в Осечине и Коштуничи; Дни капусты в Футоге, Барбекю в Лесковаце; Дни бекона в Качарево; Ветряные дни в Мачка- те; «Золотой горшок Дуная» в Петроварадине, Апатин; Грибные дни в Фрушка-горе, Вальево и Дивцибаре, Дни лечебных трав в Соко-Ба- ня; Пчелиные дни в Заечаре. В данной статье рассматривается потен- циал развития сельских районов, связанных с этими фестивалями на примере «Tešnjarske večeri». Этот фестиваль представляет собой раз- нообразную культурно-этнографическую развлекательную програм- му, сочетающую визуальное и исполнительское искусство и прослав- ляет яркую жизнь местного сообщества. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА сельский туризм, фестиваль, сельская местность, развитие, Tešnjarske večeri, Сербия   https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 mailto:aleksandravujko@yahoo.com R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 25 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Introduction According to Vujko et al. [1], rural tourism is an important factor of multifunctional rural de- velopment, which has been confirmed by numer- ous theoretical and empirical studies [2; 3]. Rural tourism in Serbia is a new phenomenon [1;  4]. Rural tourism, like other types of tourism, may have a significant environmental, economic, and social impact on local communities. According to Petrović et al. [4], the effect of rural tourism on attitudes and behavior of local residents has been addressed in several theoretical and research papers in the last ten years [5–12]. These studies prove that rural tourism might be an important element in the positive and negative changes in the local rural area and that it might heavily affect the local residents. Rural tourism represents tourism in rural lo- cations and themed villages, which also includes participation in various recreation and leisure activities, festivals, handicraft fairs, and so on. Therefore, rural tourism can be seen as a way of solving the problem of the declining profitability potential of the local agricultural industry and as a source of additional income for local enterprises. According to Vujko et al. [1], rural tourism encompasses all tourism activities carried out in rural areas. Rural tourism has many forms, which include the following: – tourism in rural households; – hunting and fishing; – eco-tourism; – sports and recreation; – residential tourism (holiday homes); – educational tourism; – gastronomic tourism, festivals and events; – cultural tourism. Thus, we can identify the basic characteristics of rural tourism: first and foremost, it involves ru- ral areas and provides people with an opportuni- ty to be in close contact with nature and to learn about the cultural heritage, traditional societies and «traditional» practices. Rural tourism pres- ents a complex of rural environments, economies, histories and locations. Most of the revenue gen- erated through rural tourism is used to support the local community and enrich their livelihood. For our study we have chosen event Tešn- jarske večeri (Tešnjar Evenings), held in the city of Valjevo in the old quarter Tešnjar, which is an architectural ambience that is particularly attrac- tive for tourists. The organizers of this event are the Municipal Assembly of Valjevo and Cultural and Education Community of Valjevo. Tourist event Tešnjarske večeri has been held since 1987 and is a traditional event with a diverse cultural program. The Municipal Assembly describes Eve- nings of Tešnjar as a cultural festival with a diverse program including films, theatre and music per- formances, meetings of writers, publishers, and booksellers. The event is held at several locations: the three key locations are Tešnjar, summer stage of the Kolubara, and the plateau of the Centre for Culture. The survey research was done at these three locations as well as on the marble bridge over the summer stage of Kolubara, Kneza Miloša Street and Vojvoda Mišić Square. Methodology The basic method of our research is a socio- logical survey, which is a method typically used for studies in cultural geography and event tour- ism (direct observation and semi-structured in- terview with the organizers and participants of the festival). During the event of 2016, a survey was done on a random sample of 276 visitors. It was done during the six days of the event. This period was chosen because in these days the event is attended by the largest number of visitors. The survey was anonymous. One of the methods of data analysis was Pear- son’s chi-square test, which is used to determine whether the obtained (observed) frequency (an- swers of respondents according to the gender and age structure) deviate from the expected frequen- cies. The test shows whether there is a connection between these two groups and the likelihood of this connection. We assumed that there would be no differences in responses according to the gen- der and age of our respodents. In order to detect any differences in the responses we are using a sig- nificance level of p < 0.05. Result and Discussion The survey (Table 1) included 126 men (45.7%) and 150 women (54.3%). Regarding the age structure of the visitors (Table 2), most of them (27.5%) were under 18; 22.8%, from 61 to 70; 1.8%, over 71 (1.8%); from 51 to 60, 7.2%; and from 31 to 40, 9.8%. Table 1 Gender of visitors Gender Frequency Valid Percentage Valid Male 126 45,7 Female 150 54,3 Total 276 100 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 26 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Table 2 Age of visitors Age Frequency Valid Percentage Valid Under 18 76 27.5 19–30 43 15.6 31–40 27 9.8 41–50 42 15.2 51–60 20 7.2 61–70 63 22.8 Over 71 5 1.8 Total 276 100 In order to detect the differences in the re- sponses, the results are shown depending on the gender and age structure of the participants and the statistically significant difference is taken at the level of p < 0.05. Table 3 shows that the majority of visitors – 73 (26.4%) – spent one day at the event. 56 (20.3%) visitors were at the event for six days. Not sur- prisingly, the smallest number of visitors were those who spent at the event 7 days or more than 7 days – 4.3% and 3.6% respectively. Table 4 illustrates that young people under the age of 18 mostly chose a one-day visit. Visi- tors from 19 to 30 usually spent two days. Visitors from 31 to 40 were there for three days. It is inter- esting that the smallest number of people attend- ed the event for more than seven days, that is, they came to the festival every day. Table 3 Number of days Days Frequency Valid Percentage Valid 1 73 26.4 2 43 15.6 3 27 9.8 4 38 13.8 5 17 6.2 6 56 20.3 7 12 4.3 More than 7 days 10 3.6 Total 276 100 Interestingly, there were no statistically signif- icant differences in the responses of the people of both genders and age structure p = 0.000 (Table 5). Table 5 Pearson chi-square test Value df Statistical significance (p) Pearson chi-square test 1419.787 42 0.000 As far as the gender is concerned, it should be noted that twice as many female respondents as men came on a one-day visit – 53 (19.2%). Table 6 demonstrates that these respondents were under the age of 18. Several female respondents came to visit for several days and 9 (3.3%) came to the fes- tival every day. Table 4 Number of days according to age structure Number of days Structure of visitors by age Total Under 18 19–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 Over 71 1 Count 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 % 26.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.4 2 Count 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 43 % 0 15.6 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 3 Count 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 % 0 0 9.8 0 0 0 0 9.8 4 Count 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 38 % 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 13.8 5 Count 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 % 0 0 0 0 6.2 0% 0 6.2 6 Count 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 56 % 0 0 0 0 0 20.3 0 20.3 7 Count 0 0 0 0 1 6 5 12 % 0 0 0 0 0.4 2.2 1.8 4.3 > 7 Count 3 0 0 4 2 1 0 10 % 1.1 0 0 1.4 0.7 0.4 0 3.6 Total Count 76 43 27 42 20 63 5 276 % 27.5 15.6 9.8 15.2 7.2 22.8 1.8 100 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 27 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Table 6 Number of days according to gender Days Gender Total Male Female 1 Count 20 53 73 % 7.2 19.2 26.4 2 Count 30 13 43 % 10.9 4.7 15.6 3 Count 10 17 27 % 3.6 6.2 9.8 4 Count 19 19 38 % 6.9 6.9 13.8 5 Count 10 7 17 % 3.6 2.5 6.2 6 Count 27 29 56 % 9.8 10.5 20.3 7 Count 9 3 12 % 3.3 1.1 4.3 More than 7 days Count 1 9 10 % 0.4 3.3 3.6 Total Count 126 150 276 % 45.7 54.3 100 Interestingly enough, there were no statisti- cally significant differences in the responses of the people of both genders and age structure p = 0.000 (Table 7). Table 7 Pearson chi-square test Value df Statistical significance (p) Pearson chi-square test 31.606 7 0.000 The largest number of visitors (Table 8) found out about the event from the radio and televi- sion – these were 105 people (38.0%) or more than a third of all the visitors; 63 (22.8%) visitors were told by friends and family; 51 (18.5%), from the advertising materials (e.g. brochures and leaflets); 47 (17.0%), from the Internet. The conclusion is that visitors are well informe and actively use all the available sources of information. Table 8 Sources of information Information source Frequency Valid Percentage Valid Radio and TV 105 38,0 Prospectus 51 18,5 Family and friends 63 22,8 Internet 47 17,0 Other 10 3,6 Total 276 100,0 By looking at Table 9, we can conclude that the younger population (under 18) mostly found about the festival from family and friends – 33 (12.0%). It can be assumed that it was their friends and relatives who recommended the respondents to participate. The majority of those who heard about the festival used radio and television pro- grams. Most of these people were 61 to 71 years old – 54 respondents (19.6%). Two equal groups of people have found out about the event on the Internet: these are young people and those aged between 41 and 50, each of the groups consisting of 13 people or 4.7%. Interestingly, there were no statistically signif- icant differences in the responses of people of both genders and age structure p = 0.000 (Table 10). Table 9 Preferred sources of information according to the age structure Sources of information Structure of visitors by age Total Under 18 19–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 Over 71 Radio and TV Count 14 22 7 4 4 54 0 105 % 5.1 8.0 2.5 1.4 1.4 19.6 0 38.0 Advertising materials Count 16 5 16 13 1 0 0 51 % 5.8 1.8 5.8 4.7 0.4 0 0 18.5 Family and friends Count 33 13 4 12 1 0 0 63 % 12.0 4.7 1.4 4.3 0.4 0 0 22.8 Internet Count 13 3 0 13 9 4 5 47 % 4.7 1.1 0 4.7 3.3 1.4 1.8 17.0 Other Count 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 10 % 0 0 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 3.6 Total Count 76 43 27 42 20 63 5 276 % 27.5 15.6 9.8 15.2 7.2 22.8 1.8 100 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 28 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Table 10 Pearson chi-square test Value df Statistical significance (p) Pearson chi-square test 220.472 24 0.000 Table 11 shows that most men – 78 (28.3%) – found out about the festival on the radio and tele- vision. Most women received the information from advertising materials – 47 (17.0%). It is as- sumed that considerably more women than men read leaflets and brochures. A lot of women also heard about the event from their friends and rela- tives – 43 (15.6%). As for the Internet, both sexes were equally represented. Table 11 Preferred sources of information according to the gender Sources of information Gender Total Male Female Radio and TV Count 78 27 105 % 28.3 9.8 38.0 Advertising materials Count 4 47 51 % 1.4 17.0 18.5 Family and friends Count 20 43 63 % 7.2 15.6 22.8 Internet Count 24 23 47 % 8.7 8.3 17.0 Other Count 0 10 10 % 0 3.6 3.6 Total Count 126 150 276 % 45.7 54.3 100 There were no statistically significant differ- ences in the responses of people of both genders and age structure p = 0.000 (Table 12). Table 12 Pearson chi-square test Value df Statistical significance (p) Pearson chi-square test 77.947 4 0.000 Conclusion Serbia is a country with respect for traditional values, rich cultural heritage and pristine natural environment. Therefore, this country has a great potential for the development of rural tourism. There is a variety of rural areas in Serbia with dif- ferent economic, socio-cultural and demographic characteristics. There are, however, a number of problems that impede efficient development of rural tourism: for example, the lack of knowledge about the new approaches to the development of rural economy; the lack of institutional frame- work (especially legislation) which would ensure the coordinating role of the state and greater in- volvement of local authorities into rural develop- ment; underdeveloped infrastructure; inadequate production and ownership structure; inadequate diversification of activities; and the dominance of the sectoral police [13; 14]. To be competitive on the market, rural desti- nations must meet the highest standards of quality to satisfy the needs of tourists and to ensure their loyalty. Tourists should be encouraged to return to these places again and again and to recommend them to their friends and relatives. This is partic- ularly true of foreign tourists, who have already accumulated considerable travel experience and are seeking the highest quality of hospitality and tourism [15]. Customer loyalty is directly related to word-of-mouth communication but we should not underestimate other sources of information such as the media, good advertising materials, and the Internet. Local authorities play the key role in devel- oping the potential of rural areas. In the past, they mostly focused on construction or maintenance of the infrastructure facilities and the improve- ment of social and health care. Nowadays, they need to invest more funds and effort into the de- velopment of rural tourism, organization of vari- ous rural festivals and the creation of institutions that would represent the interests of agricultural producers. The authorities should also provide sufficient support to local farmers, for example, through subsidies, educational schemes, aware- ness raising measures, facilitated administrative procedures, interest-free loans, and so on. All these activities are important for the development of rural tourism. Rural tourism provides opportunities which can be used to devise a balanced local and region- al strategy ensuring cooperation of a wide range of stakeholders. Effective partnerships between the public and the private sectors can serve as the basis for sustainable development. Innovations often come from the private sector, that is, from those who live and work in that area. In order to turn Tešnjarske večeri into a large- scale tourist event, better marketing strategies are required. To make this event more economically profitable it is also recommended to provide a wider range of souvenirs for sale representing the traditional arts and crafts. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 24–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 29 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 References 1. Vujko, A., Gajić, T., Dragosavac, M., Maksimović, B. & Mrkša, M. (2017). Level of Integration among Rural Accommodation Sector and Travel Agencies. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 64(2), 659–670. 2. Getz D. & Carlsen J. (2000). Characteristics and Goals of Family and Owner-Operated Busi- nesses in the Rural Tourism and Hospitality Sectors. Tourism Management, 21(6), 547–560. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00004-2. 3. Gaddefors J. (2005). Creating Context Entrepreneurial Opportunities in a Consumer Market Setting. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(3). 199–224. 4. Petrović, M., Blešić, I., Vujko, A. & Gajić, T. (2017). The Role of Agritourism Impact on Local Community in a Transitional Society: a Report from Serbia. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 50, 146–163. doi: 10.24193/tras.2017.0009. 5. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C. & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. doi: 10.1016/j.an- nals.2005.03.001. 6. Choi, H.-S. C. & Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2005). Measuring Residents’ Attitude Toward Sustain- able Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 380–394. doi: 10.1177/0047287505274651. 7. Wang, A. Y., Pfister, R. E. & Morais, D. B. (2006). Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism Devel- opment: A Case Study of Washington. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. GTR-NRS-P-14, 411–418. Retrieved from https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs- p-14/54-wang-p-14.pdf. 8. Aref, F., Gill, S. S. & Aref, F. (2010). Tourism Development in Local Communities: As a Com- munity Development Approach. Journal of American Science, 6(2), 155–161. 9. Blešić, I., Pivac, T., Đorđević, J., Stamenković, I. & Janićević, S. (2014). Cultural events as part of cultural tourism development. Case study: Sombor and Apatin (Serbia). Acta Geographica Sloven- ica, 54(2), 381–390. doi: 10.3986/AGS54406. 10. Dragićević, V., Bole, D., Bučić, A. & Prodanović, A. (2015). European Capital of Culture: Residents’ Perception of Social Benefits and Costs – Maribor 2012 case study. Acta Geographica Slo- venica, 55(2), 283–302. doi: 10.3986/AGS.747. 11. Vujko, A., Petrović, M., Dragosavac, M. & Gajić, T. (2016). Differences and Similarities among Rural Tourism in Slovenia and Serbia – Perceptions of Local Tourism Workers. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 63(4), 1459–1469. 12. Gajić, T., Vujko, A., Penić, M., Petrović, M. & Mrkša, M. (2017). Significant Involvement of Ag- ricultural Holdings in Rural Tourism Development in Serbia. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 64(3), 901–919. 13. Vujko, A., Petrović, M., Dragosavac, M., Ćurčić, N. & Gajić, T. (2017). The Linkage Be- tween Traditional Food and Loyalty of Tourists to the Rural Destinations. Teme, 41(2), 475–487. doi: 10.22190/TEME1702475V. 14. Petrović, M., Radovanović, M., Vuković, N., Vujko, A. & Vuković, D. (2017). Development of Rural Territory under the Influence of Community-Based Tourism. Ars Administrandi, 9(2), 253–268. doi: 10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268. 15. Vujko, A. & Gajić, T. (2014). The Government Policy Impact on Economic Development of Tourism. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 61(3), 789–804. Information about the authors Aleksandra Vujko – Ph.D. Professor, Novi Sad Business School (Vladimira Perića Valtera 4, 21000 Novi Sad); email: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com. Dragana Dimitric – Ph.D. Research Associate, Faculty of Science (Trg Dositeja Obradovica, 21000 Novi Sad); email: sadranel@gmail.com. Tamara Gajic – Ph.D. Professor, Novi Sad Business School (Vladimira Perića Valtera 4, 21000 Novi Sad); email: tamara.gajic.1977@yahoo.com. Mirjana Penić – Ph.D. F&B Manager, Fife Class Hotels & Spa, Istrabez Turizem (Portorož, Slo- venia); email: penicns@yahoo.com. Snježana Gagić – Ph.D. University of Business Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Manage- ment (FTH) (Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina); email: gagicsnjeza@yahoo.com. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.004 http://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00004-2 http://doi.org/10.24193/tras.2017.0009 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001 http://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274651 https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-14/54-wang-p-14.pdf https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-14/54-wang-p-14.pdf http://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54406 http://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.747 http://doi.org/10.22190/TEME1702475V http://doi.org/10.17072/2218-9173-2017-2-253-268