30 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–29 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Original Paper FOR CITATION Lukić, D., Berjan, S., El Bilali, H. (2018) Indicators of tourism development of the Serbian Danube region. R-economy, 4(1), 30–37. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 FOR CITATION Лукич, Д., Берьян, С., Эл Билали, Х. (2018) Индикаторы развития туризма в придунайских районах Сербии. R-economy, 4(1), 30–37. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 Indicators of tourism development of the Serbian Danube region Dobrila Lukića, Siniša Berjanb, Hamid El Bilalic a Alfa BK University, Belgrade, Serbia; dobriladjerdap@gmail.com b University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; email: sinisaberjan@yahoo.com c Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Department, International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM-Bari), Valenzano (Bari), Italy; hamid.elbilali@boku.ac.at ABSTRACT Protected natural area in the Danube region covers 107,200 hectares and includes two national parks, two nature parks, one place of outstanding natural beauty, five special natural reserves, twenty-five nature monuments, and two sites of international signif- icance included in the Ramsar list. However, only 140 immovable and 374 movable cultural objects are officially registered. There are 31 cultural objects of exceptional importance and national significance and 89 objects of great importance and regional significance. The objects with this status are protected by the state. Two sites are on the preliminary UNESCO World Heritage list. This paper discusses the potential of tour- ism industry in the Serbian Danube Region and the prospects of its further develop- ment. We outline the current state of tourism industry and describe the geographical location of the region, its natural and anthropogenic resources, and accommodation capacities. We analyse such data as the number of tourists and the number of overnight stays by municipalities in 2016, and the average length of stay. The indicators used are the functionality coefficient, the capacity utilization and the intensity of functionality. The conclusion is drawn that the tourism potential of the Serbian Danube Region is not fully realized and that its development should be at a much higher level, given the increasingly important role of the region as a major tourist destination in Serbia. KEYWORDS Serbia, Danube Region, indicators, development, tourism Индикаторы развития туризма в придунайских районах Сербии Д. Лукичa, С. Берьянb, Х. Эл Билалиc a Алфа БК Универзитет, Белград, Сербия; dobriladjerdap@gmail.com b Восточно-Сараевский университет, Лукавица, Босния и Герцеговина; email: sinisaberjan@yahoo.com c Международный центр средиземноморских агрономических исследований, Валенцано, Италия; email: hamid.elbilali@boku.ac.at РЕЗЮМЕ Охраняемая природная территория в Дунайском регионе занимает 107 200 гек- таров и включает в себя два национальных парка, два природных парка, одно место выдающейся природной красоты, пять специальных природных запо- ведников, двадцать пять памятников природы и два объекта международного значения, включенные в список Рамсарской конвенции. Однако официально зарегистрировано только 140 недвижимых и 374 передвижных культурных объекта. Есть 31 культурный объект исключительной важности и националь- ного значения и 89 объектов, имеющих большое значение и региональное зна- чение. Объекты с этим статусом защищены государством. Два объекта нахо- дятся в предварительном списке Всемирного наследия ЮНЕСКО. В данной статье обсуждается потенциал индустрии туризма в регионе сербского Дуная и перспективы его дальнейшего развития. Мы описываем текущее состояние индустрии туризма и географическое положение региона, его природные и ан- тропогенные ресурсы, а также гостиничные мощности . Мы анализируем та- кие данные, как количество туристов и количество ночевок в муниципалитетах в 2016 г., а также средняя продолжительность пребывания. Используемыми ин- дикаторами являются коэффициент функциональности, использование мощ- ности и интенсивность функциональности. Сделан вывод о том, что туристиче- ский потенциал сербского Дунайского региона не полностью реализован и его развитие должно быть на гораздо более высоком уровне, учитывая все более важную роль региона как важного туристического направления в Сербии. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА Сербия, Дунайский регион, показатели, развитие, туризм http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 31 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Introduction The Serbian Danube Region is a destination that is gaining more and more importance on the tourist market of Serbia. The region offers a variety of diverse tourist attractions ranging from natural parks and reserves to cultural heritage sites [1]. However, the abundance of resources does not al- ways guarantee commercial success [2]. Therefore, it is important to define the direction for develop- ment of tourism in the region, to achieve the syn- ergy of all the key factors, and to cooperate with other local partners to promote the Serbian Dan- ube Region as a major tourist destination. The goal is to boost revenues of the tourism industry by in- creasing the number of tourists and the number of overnight stays. The growth in the tourism sector would create more jobs, reduce the outflow of the population to other regions and improve the living standards of the local community [3]. Theoretical framework Until the second half of the twentieth century, the data on tourist arrivals, number of beds and the average length of stay as well as the number of people employed in tourism and hospitality in- dustry had been the key indicators for assessment of tourism development in specific destinations [4]. Later, in order to determine the impact of tourism on local economies, the research started to focus on the ratio of accommodation capaci- ties and the number of local population in specific destinations [5; 6]. The first to apply this type of methodology was French geographer Pierre De- fert, who proposed the index of tourist function in 1967. French researcher Rene Baretje in 1978 improved Defert index and brought it in agree- ment with the spatial unit of destination. Numer- ous studies introduced other indicators, in addi- tion to Defert-Baretje’s index, for measuring the tourist intensity. For example, Polish researchers used Charvat’s index to show the development of tourism as a result of urbanization. The intensity of tourism can also be determined with the help of Schneider’s index, which is often referred to as the index of tourist traffic intensity [7]. Description of the region The Serbian Danube Region extends be- tween 45°48’39” and 44°12’48” north latitude and 18° 51’9”and 22°40’18” east longitude. This region is located in Central Europe in the south- ern part of the Pannonian Basin, in the north of the Republic of Serbia [8]. The Danube Region in Serbia covers 15,755 km2, which is about 17.8% of its total area. According to the last census, there are 2,957,577  people in 499 settlements, that is, about 40.7% of the total population of Serbia. The average population density is 125 in- habitants per km2. The region comprises 24 local self-government units that have a direct access to the Danube. The territory can be divided into the following parts: – the upper Danube Region, the area locat- ed along the border with Croatia from Batina (Bezdan) to Bačka Palanka. Recently, this region has significantly changed its spatial and function- al characteristics; the central Danube Region, the area from Bačka Palanka to Ram, which includes the largest and most important centres in Serbia. This region has retained its previous characteristics and does not require any changes in the planning and ar- ranging of its territory; the lower Danube Region, the area from Ram to Prahovo, located on the border with Romania. This region holds considerable potential in the sphere of trans-border cooperation [9]. The Serbian Danube Region comprises 107,200 hectares of protected natural area, which makes it an ecological corridor of international significance. The protected areas include the fol- lowing: – 2 national parks: Fruska Gora and Djerdap; – 2 nature parks: Tikvara and Begečka jama; – Area of unique natural beauty: Veliko ratno ostrvo; – 5 natural reserves: Gornje Podunavlje, Kar- adjordjevo, Bagremara, Koviljsko-Petrovaradins- ki rit and Deliblatska peščara; – 25 natural monuments covering over one hectare of area: Stari park near Sonta, Park čelarevskog dvorca, Kamenički park, Dvorska bašta park, Mačkov sprud, Ivanovačka ada and Šalinački lug; – According to the Convention on Wetlands, Gornje Podunavlje and Labudovo okno are regis- tered as sites of international importance for wet- land habitats of bird species [10; 11]. Within the Serbian Danube Region, there are areas that enjoy the status of internationally pro- tected areas and those with the candidate status: for example, Gornje Podunavlje and Labudovo okno are already included in the list of Ramsar sites, while Koviljsko-Petrovaradinski rit and Donje Podunavlje are awaiting to be approved. Such areas as Gornje Podunavlje, Deliblatska https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 32 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 Online ISSN 2412-0731 peščara and Djerdap have the status of recog- nized biosphere reserves within the UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Djer- dap National Park is covered by the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians. Serbia has also submitted nomination proposals for Deliblatska peščara and Djerdap National Park to be included into the World Heritage List on the basis of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cul- tural and Heritage Site [10]. There are 1,186 objects of cultural significance in the Serbian Danube Region. However, only 140 immovable and 374 movable cultural objects are officially registered. There are 31 cultural objects of exceptional importance and national signif- icance and 89 objects of great importance and regional significance. The objects with this status are protected by the state. The town of Bač and Smederevo fortress with its surroundings have been on the preliminary UNESCO World Heri- tage list since 2010. All these natural and anthro- pogenic resources of the Serbian Danube Region are a part of the European heritage, which can be used as the starting point for their promotion and marketing as tourist attractions [11]. The peculiar feature of tourism in the Serbian Danube Region is the number and diversity of the natural and anthropogenic landmarks concentrat- ed in a relatively small territory. The problem that needs to be addressed is the low level of their attrac- tiveness for tourists. Moreover, tourists’ awareness about these spots is also low [12]. It is known that the Danube is one of the most popular river boat destinations: it ranks first in the world by the num- ber of tourists that visit it on boat cruises. In 2008, out of 380,000 German and Austrian tourists that travelled on international tourist boats, only 51,000 stopped in Belgrade [13]. On the one hand, there are fortresses such as Kalemegdan and Petrovara- din, whose promotion is ineffective; on the other hand, there are also fortresses that remain largely unknown to tourists. The most attractive cultural landmark in the region is the archaeological park Viminacium. Another example of successful pro- motion is Lepenski Vir: since 2012, the efficient marketing campaign has made it much more inter- esting for tourists. Table 1 The region’s population by municipalities (data of the 2011 census) Municipality Surface area in sq. km Populated places Population People per sq. km District Serbia 88,509 6,158 7,258,753 – – Belgrade 3226 157 1,647,490 514 – Apatin 380 5 29,500 84 West Backa Odzaci 411 9 30,202 73 Sombor 1216 16 87,539 74 Bela Crkva 353 14 17,912 51 South Banat Kovin 730 10 34,990 48 Pancevo 756 10 12,3021 163 Novi Sad 699 16 333,268 477 South Backa Backa Palanka 579 14 55,898 97 Bac 365 6 14,415 39 Backi Petrovac 158 4 13,418 85 Beocin 185 8 15,589 84 Sremski Karlovci 51 1 8,797 172 Titel 261 6 16,070 61 Zrenjanin 1327 22 123,536 93 Central Banak Indjiјa 385 11 47,818 124 Srem Stara Pazova 350 9 70,333 200 Kladovo 629 23 21,142 34 Southern and Eastern SerbiaMaјdanpek 932 14 19,854 21 Negotin 1,090 39 38,030 35 Pozarevac 477 27 73,975 156 Branicevo Veliko Gradiste 344 26 18,956 55 Golubac 367 24 8,654 25 Smederevo 484 28 107,170 223 Podunavlje (Danube Basin) Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 33 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Tourist infrastructure and tourist traffic in the Serbian Danube Region There is currently no adequate record of ac- commodation in Serbia and it is not possible to give a complete overview of accommodation fa- cilities and complementary accommodation fa- cilities. Although many towns and municipalities on the Danube hold a great potential for the de- velopment of tourism, they have a poor tourist infrastructure [14]. In our analysis we are using the data provided by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. As statistics show, in 2016, 1,250,308 tourists arrived in the Serbian Danube Region and spent 2,647,347 nights. The average length of stay of do- mestic tourists was 2.3 days, while foreign tourists stayed for 2 days. Interestingly enough, twice as many foreign tourists as domestic ones visited the region in the given period. In 2016, 299 accommodation facilities were registered in the Serbian Danube Region. These facilities offer 15,688 rooms and 33,176 beds, with 31,827 permanent and 1,349 extra beds (Table 2). Accommodation services are predominantly pro- vided by hotels. There are 138 hotels in the Serbian Danube Region, all of them categorized. Hotels of a lower category have 8,868 rooms and 15,688 beds. In the region, there are 5 five-star hotels, 38 four- star hotels, 26 three-star hotels, 14 two-star hotels and 4 one-star hotels. There are also two apart- ment hotels (a five-star and a four-star). As for garni hotels, there is one five-star, 18 four-star, 25 three-star, 4 two-star, and a one-star. In ad- dition to the hotels, the Serbian Danube Region also has one boarding house, 3 motels, 61  over- night stays, 9 apartments, 17 inns with accom- modation, 3 spa centres, 2 mountain huts, 3 chil- dren’s and youth resorts, 57 hostels, 4 camps, and a car for sleeping. There are seven other accom- modation facilities, including campsites, hun- ting lodges and huts, tourist resorts [15]. Table 2 Tourist accommodation capacities in the Serbian Danube Region in 2016 Municipality Permanent establishment Available rooms Bed places Permanent beds Spare beds Belgrade 149 8,047 15,389 14,695 694 Apatin 5 269 610 604 6 Odzaci 4 28 56 56 0 Sombor 9 233 630 613 17 Bela Crkva 4 346 1,016 1,011 5 Kovin 1 32 130 130 0 Pancevo 5 29 78 70 8 Novi Sad 58 4,064 9,129 8,943 186 Bac 2 14 33 33 0 Backi Petrovac 0 93 197 197 0 Backa Palanka 7 113 228 207 21 Beocin 2 36 64 61 3 Sremski Karlovci 3 129 282 268 14 Titel 1 41 93 93 0 Zrenjanin 12 323 674 654 20 Indjiјa 4 98 210 199 11 Stara Pazova 6 160 394 314 80 Kladovo 4 424 1,173 1,064 109 Maјdanpek 2 361 736 716 20 Negotin 4 203 530 510 20 Smederevo 4 66 129 128 1 Golubac 2 84 242 191 51 Veliko Gradiste 4 338 835 808 27 Pozarevac 7 157 318 262 56 Total 299 15,688 33,176 31,827 1,349 Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 34 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Hotels are well-equipped to accommodate large tourist groups as well as conference guests. However, the average occupancy rate in the Ser- bian Danube Region is low and, therefore, ho- tels’ annual revenues are quite modest [14]. The largest number of tourists come to Belgrade and Novi Sad. Thus, it is the hotel industry in these areas that has the greatest impact on economy. For more balanced development of tourism industry in the Serbian Danube Region it is necessary to build many more facilities for accommodation of tourists in other parts of the region. The number of foreign tourist arrivals in 2016 was 885,672 or 70.8% of the total number of ar- rivals. Foreign tourists made 1,808,924 overnight stays, which is 68.3% of the total number of over- night stays in the Danube Region (Table 3). The large proportion of foreign tourists indicate the increasing importance of foreign tourism for the development of the region. The absolute values of the tourist traffic as well as the region’s participa- tion in the overall tourist traffic of Serbia are likely to increase in the future due to the region’s signif- icant natural potential and the size of its territory. The current data indicate the growth of tourism industry and the systemic approach applied to tourism development and management by the authorities of the Serbian Danube Region. At the moment, the leading municipalities in this respect are Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kladovo, Majdanpek and Veliko Gradište. Municipalities which have the smallest tour- ist traffic are also the most underdeveloped. These include Odžaci, Bač, Titel and Pančevo. Thus, the local trend contradicts the global pattern in which the share of family business in tourism, especially in the domain of accommodation services, is be- coming increasingly important [16]. Encouraging the construction of facilities in the private sector seems to be a very suitable development option, which could improve the poor social conditions of the local population and compensate for the lack of investment in tourism and hospitality management in Serbia. Table 3 Tourists and overnight stays in 2016 Municipality Tourists Nights spent Average number of nights spent Total Domestic Foreign Total Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Belgrade 913,150 176,087 737,063 1,867,150 406,674 1,460,476 2.3 2.0 Apatin 7,007 5,570 1,437 52,035 46,875 5,160 8.4 3.6 Odzaci 58 49 9 319 241 78 4.9 8.7 Sombor 11,271 7,369 3,902 21,548 14,058 7,490 1.9 1.9 Bela Crkva 1,186 1,143 43 8,024 7,929 95 6.7 2.2 Kovin 2,520 2,358 162 8,915 8,285 630 3.5 3.9 Pancevo 1,190 670 520 2,310 1,300 1,010 1.9 1.9 Novi Sad 174,489 67,808 106,681 360,578 118,956 241,622 1.8 2.3 Bac 547 215 332 1,346 337 1,009 1.5 3.0 Backi Petrovac 2,708 1,459 1,249 5,386 2,456 2,930 1.7 2.3 Backa Palanka 3,310 1,338 1,972 6,804 2,725 4,079 1.9 2.0 Beocin 1,982 1,601 381 4,700 3,235 1,465 2.0 2.0 Sremski Karlovci 7,219 5,059 2,160 12,926 8,181 4,745 1.6 2.2 Titel 558 473 85 1,444 1,192 252 2.5 3.0 Zrenjanin 15,261 8,926 6,335 54,085 31,126 22,959 3.5 3.6 Indjiјa 2,503 1,340 1,163 4,762 1,927 2,835 1.4 2.4 Stara Pazova 12,053 6,308 5,745 32,986 16,949 16,037 2.7 2.8 Kladovo 25,651 21,719 3,932 50,187 42,219 7,968 1.9 2.0 Maјdanpek 24,774 20,023 4,751 44,245 33,635 10,610 1.7 2.2 Negotin 4971 4,492 479 14,043 12,715 1,328 2.8 2.8 Pozarevac 13,269 11,004 2,265 30,164 24,839 5,325 2.3 2.4 Veliko Gradiste 17,891 15,755 2,136 52,861 46,378 6,483 2.9 3.0 Golubac 3,186 2,470 716 4,540 3,606 934 1.5 1.3 Smederevo 3,554 1,400 2,154 5,989 2,585 3,404 1.8 1.6 Total 1,250,308 364,636 885,672 2,647,347 838,423 1,808,924 2.3 2.0 Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 35 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Methodology This paper analyses indicators of tourist func- tions that can help determine the intensity of tourism and its development in a particular desti- nation. The analysis of four indicators is applied to determine the region’s importance and participa- tion in the overall tourist offer of Serbia. In order to present the tourist development of the region, we analysed the following indicators as of 2016: the length of stay of tourists, the functionality co- efficient, the capacity utilization and the intensity of functionality [17]. Length of stay (LS) is the ratio of the num- ber of overnight stays (NO) to the number of tourists (NT): . NO LS NT = Functionality coefficient (FC) is the ratio of number of beds (NB) to the population number (PN): 100 . NB FC PN ⋅ = Capacity utilization (CU) is the ratio of the number of overnight stays (NO) to the number of beds (NB) during the year. This indicator allows us to assess the profitability of accommodation facilities: 100 . 365 NO CU NB ⋅ = ⋅ If the capacity utilization is higher than 60%, the business is profitable; if it ranges between 40% and 60%, then the business is able to cover its costs to stay afloat; and if under 40%, the business is not profitable [17]. The intensity of functionality refers to the vol- ume of tourist traffic in the given location within a certain time period. It can be measured in terms of space, the number of local population or the size of accommodation capacities [17]. In this pa- per, we measure this indicator by using the pop- ulation size: 100 , NT IF PN ⋅ = where IF is the intensity of functionality; NT, the number of tourists; and PN, the local pop- ulation [7]. Results and discussion The results of research show that the Serbian Danube Region is a well-established destination on the tourist market, which is reflected in the number of tourist visits throughout the year. The turnout is particularly intense during the sum- mer months. We should take into consideration that an increase in the number of visitors in gen- eral could lead, in addition to positive econom- ic effects, to the decline in the quality of tourist services and excessive pressure on the capacities of certain sites. As Table 4 illustrates, the length of tourist stays in 2016 was quite short – on average two days. This fact can be explained by the poor state of tourism and hospitality infrastructure in Ser- bia, for example, the lack of available rooms and beds, accompanied by the decline in the popula- tion’s purchasing power and the rising prices of services. The only exception from this trend is Odžaci, in which tourists’ average length of stay was about 18 days. The functionality coefficient for the entire region is only 1.12% due to the small number of available beds. However, even if the actual num- ber of beds was increased, we would still have a low coefficient of functionality. This means that we should also work to improve the overall tour- ist offer in the region. A slightly better picture in this indicator is found in Djerdap, Sombor and Bela Crkva. In these areas, the functionality co- efficient is significantly higher than the average values for the whole region – over 5% – due to better accommodation capacities. It is also obvi- ous that the local population in these areas does not suffer from intensive construction of tour- ist infrastructure, which is of great importance for the sustainable development of the whole region. It is recommended that in the munici- palities specializing in tourism the ratio of num- ber of beds to the number of inhabitants should be 1.5:1 [18]. The capacity utilization indicator reflects the level of economic development and profitability. Unfortunately, its current level of 21.86% indicates the ultimate unprofitability of the local accommodation facilities. The intensity of functionality is an indicator that shows the intensity of tourist traffic, which is estimated by using the number of tourist ar- rivals. This indicator in the region is compara- tively low and amounts to 42.7%, which means that the negative impact of tourists on the local culture and the local identity is low. Higher val- ues of this indicator were recorded in Kladovo, Majdanpek (Djerdap), Sremski Karlovci and Belgrade. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 36 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Conclusion The Serbian Danube Region is becoming an increasingly important tourist destination of Ser- bia, along with popular spa areas and mountain destinations. It is rich in natural and anthropo- genic tourist attractions, which are underrated and deserve to be better presented in the tourist market. The region’s natural highlights, which could successfully compete with their counter- parts in other European countries, require addi- tional investment into the development of their tourist infrastructure. Although the general attitude in the region is that each municipality should bear responsibility for the development of its own tourism industry, it would be more productive to foster stronger links between the municipalities. Then, more prosperous munic- ipalities such as Belgrade and Novi Sad would also be able to boost the growth of tourism in other municipalities and thus make their eco- nomic development more balanced. This way, underdeveloped areas would become more at- tractive to tourists while more advanced mu- nicipalities would be able to reduce the negative impact of tourism on their environment and the population’s culture and way of life. Moreover, such strategy would allow the government to redistribute the pressure on the existing infra- structure, which is overloaded in the high peaks of the tourist season. In the future, measures should be taken to preserve the region’s natural beauty, to develop sustainable tourism, and to invest in creating diverse and modern tourist ac- commodation, transport and service infrastruc- ture. It is also recommended to develop such ar- eas of tourism industry as sports tourism, health and recreation, sightseeing, religious tourism and congress tourism, which are less dependent on weather conditions and can ensure stable tourist traffic throughout the year. Table 4 Indicators of tourism development in 2016 Municipality Population (2011 census) Tourists Nights spent Bed places Length of stay (day) Functionality index (%) Accommodation occupancy (%) Tourism intensity (%) Belgrade 1,647,490 913,150 1,867,150 15,389 2.0 0.93 33.24 55.43 Apatin 29,500 7,007 52,035 610 7.4 2.06 23.37 23.75 Odzaci 30,202 58 319 56 18.5 0.18 1.56 0.19 Sombor 87,539 11,271 21,548 630 1.9 5.59 9.37 12.88 Bela Crkva 17,912 1,186 8,024 1,016 6.8 5.67 2.16 6.62 Kovin 34,990 2,520 8,915 130 3.5 0.37 18.79 7.20 Pancevo 123,021 1,190 2,310 78 1.9 0.06 8.11 0.97 Novi Sad 333,268 174,489 360,578 9,129 2.0 2.73 10.82 52.36 Bac 55,898 547 1,346 33 2.5 0.06 11.17 0.98 Backi Petrovac 14,415 2,708 5,386 197 2.0 1.37 7.49 18.79 Backa Palanka 13,418 3,310 6,804 228 2.0 1.70 8.18 24.67 Beocin 15,589 1,982 4,700 64 2.4 1.70 20.12 12.71 Sremski Karlovci 8,797 7,219 12,926 282 1.8 3.20 12.56 82.06 Titel 16,070 558 1,444 93 2.6 0.58 4.25 3.47 Zrenjanin 123,536 15,261 54,085 674 3.5 0.55 21.98 12.35 Indjiјa 47,818 2,503 4,762 210 1.9 0.44 6.21 5.23 Stara Pazova 70,333 12,053 32,986 394 2.7 0.56 22.94 17.13 Kladovo 21,142 25,651 50,187 1,173 2.0 5.55 11.72 121.32 Maјdanpek 19,854 24,774 44,245 736 1.8 3.70 16.47 124.78 Negotin 38,030 4,971 14,043 530 2.8 1.39 7.26 13.07 Pozarevac 73,975 13,269 30,164 129 2.3 0.17 64.06 17.93 Veliko Gradiste 18,956 17,891 52,861 242 3.0 1.28 59.84 94.38 Golubac 8,654 3,186 4,540 835 1.4 9.65 1.49 36.81 Smederevo 107,170 3,554 5,989 318 1.7 0.30 5.16 3.31 Total 2,957,577 1,250,308 2,647,347 33,176 2.1 1.12 21.86 42.27 Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(1), 30–37 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 37 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 References 1. Gajic, T. (2010). Role of Tourism in Enhancing the Development of Places of Tourist Origin and Tourist Destinations – an Example of South Backa District. Industrija, 3, 139–155. 2. Milosevic, S. (2014). Factors Influencing Development of Cultural Tourism – A Case Study: Bar, Montenegro. Poslovna ekonomija, 8(1), 259–280. doi: 10.5937/poseko1401259m. 3. Milosevic, S. (2017). Objective Indicators of Tourism Development in Montenegro – an Anal- ysis. TIMS Acta, 11, 31–43. 4. Durydiwka, M. (2013). Tourist function in rural areas of Poland. Spatial diversity and chanc- ing trends. Miscellanea Geographica – Regional studies on development, 17(3), 5–11. doi: 10.2478/ v10288-012-0041-2. 5. Keogh, B. (1984). The measurement of spatial variations in tourist activity. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(2), 267–282. 6. Van Doren, C. S. & Gustke, L. D. (1982). Spatial analysis of the U.S. lodging industry 1963– 1977. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(4), 543–563. 7. Marković, S., Perić, M., Mijatov, M., Doljak, D., Žolna M. (2017). Application of Tourist Func- tion Indicators in Tourism development. Journal o Geographical Institute „Jovan Cvijic“of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 67(2), 163–178. doi: 10.2298/IJGI1702163M. 8. Milankovic, Ј. (2015). Danube as a Transport Artery and Axis of Development in the Republic of Serbia. Novi Sad: Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Doctoral dissertation. 9. Secerov, V. & Nevenic, M. (2004). Serbian Danube Basin through the Ages: form Past to Pres- ent. Journal of Serbian Geographic Society, 84(2), 223–230. 10. Transnational Cooperation Programme (2010) Datourway Sustainable Development Strategy in the Danube Region with a Focus on Tourism. Novi Sad: Sout East Europe. 11. Maksin, M., Pucar, M., Korac, M. & Miliјic, S. (2009). Management of Natural and Cultural Resources in Tourism. Belgrade: Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management. 12. Maksin, M. & Miliјic, S. (2012). Potentials for Sustainable Tourism Development at Danube in Serbia. Arhitektura i urbanizam, 35, 10–21. doi: 10.5937/arhurb1235010m. 13. Danube Tourist Commission (2009) Danube Facts and figures 2008. 14. Lukić D. (2015). The Serbian Danube Region as Tourist Destination. Journal of Serbian Geo- graphic Society, 95 (3), 73–92. 15. SORS (2016). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. 16. Petric, L., & Mimica, J. (2011). Guidelines for Development of Private Accommodation Fa- cilities as an Important Segment of Accommodation Offer. Acta Turistica Nova, 5(1), 1–42. 17. Beliј M., Milosavljevic Ј., Beliј Ј.& Perak K. (2014). Indicators of Tourism Development of Spa Centres in Serbia. Collection of Papers – Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, 62, 175–196. 18.  Jegdic, V. (2011). Tourism and Sustainable Development. Novi Sad: Faculty of Sports and Tourism. Information about the authors Dobrila Lukić – PhD in Geography, Assistant Professor, Alfa BK University (Palmira Toljatija 3, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia); email: dobriladjerdap@gmail.com. Siniša Berjan – PhD in Agriculture, Assistant Professor, University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture (Vuka Karadžića 30, 71123 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina); email: sinisaberjan@yahoo.com. Hamid El Bilali – PhD in Agriculture, Assistant Professor, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Department of Centre for Development Research (Borkowskigasse 4, 1190 Vienna, Austria); email: hamid.elbilali@boku.ac.at. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.1.005 http://doi.org/10.5937/poseko1401259m http://doi.org/10.2478/v10288-012-0041-2 http://doi.org/10.2478/v10288-012-0041-2 http://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI1702163M http://doi.org/10.5937/arhurb1235010m