R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 59 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Original Paper FOR CITATION Demirović, D., Košić, K. & Stjepanović, S. (2018) Competitiveness in rural tourism between Serbia and Hungary. R-economy, 4(2), 59–66. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 FOR CITATION Демирович, Д., Кошич, К., Степанович, С. (2018) Конкуренция на рынке сельского туризма между Венгрией и Сербией. R-economy, 4(2), 59–66. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 Competitiveness in rural tourism between Serbia and Hungary Dunja Demirovića, Kristina Košićb, Stefan Stjepanovićc a Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbian Academy of Science and Art, Belgrade, Serbia; e-mail: d.demirovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs b University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia; e-mail: tinicaus@yahoo.com c University of East Sarajevo, Vlasenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; e-mail: stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com ABSTRACT Competition between tourist destinations and products has recently become very intense. While the market of rural tourism is on the rise, the future of many rural areas is uncertain due to the changes in agricultural production and the growing attractiveness of cities. In this paper, we are going to identify the factors that may influence the competitiveness of rural tourism in Serbia compared with Hungary, which is Serbia’s main competitor. We examined the views of the key stakeholders involved in the development of rural tourism in Serbia and Hun- gary. Our findings have led us to the conclusion that the level of rural tourism in Hungary is considerably higher than in Serbia as we found a statistically signifi- cant difference in the assessment of all the factors, except for Safety and Security. Hungarian experts do not see Serbia as their country’s competitor, which means that tourism policy makers should consider Hungary as a market that requires greater investment and greater efforts to meet the demands of their sophisticated rural tourists, which is impossible to achieve in a short period of time. In the following period, Hungary should be seen as Serbia’s partner and Serbian stake- holders should develop joint projects with their Hungarian counterparts, which will improve the quality of rural tourism in Serbia. At the moment, the Hungari- an market of rural tourism presents an example of good practice. KEYWORDS competitiveness, tourism destination, rural tourism, Serbia, Hungary Конкуренция на рынке сельского туризма между Венгрией и Сербией Д. Демировичa, К. Кошичb, С. Степановичc a Географический институт «Йован Цвиич» Сербской академии наук, Белград, Сербия; e-mail: d.demirovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs b Нови-Садский университет, Нови-Сад, Сербия; e-mail: tinicaus@yahoo.com c Восточно-Сараевский университет, Лукавица, Босния и Герцеговина; e-mail: stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com РЕЗЮМЕ В последнее время конкуренция между туристическими направлениями и продуктами стала очень интенсивной. В то время как рынок сельского ту- ризма растет, будущее многих сельских районов является неопределенным из-за изменений в сельскохозяйственном производстве и растущей при- влекательности городов. В данной статье определены факторы, которые могут повлиять на конкурентоспособность сельского туризма в Сербии по сравнению с Венгрией, которая является главным конкурентом Сербии. Мы рассмотрели мнения ключевых заинтересованных сторон, участвую- щих в развитии сельского туризма в Сербии и Венгрии. Наши выводы при- вели нас к выводу, что уровень сельского туризма в Венгрии значительно выше, чем в Сербии, поскольку мы обнаружили статистически значимую разницу в оценке всех факторов, за исключением фактора безопасности. Венгерские эксперты не считают Сербию конкурентом, а это означает, что разработчики политики в области туризма должны рассматривать Вен- грию как рынок, который требует большего числа инвестиций и больших усилий для удовлетворения потребностей своих искушенных сельских ту- ристов, чего невозможно достичь за короткий период. В ближайшее время Венгрия должна рассматриваться как партнер Сербии, а Сербия должна разрабатывать совместные проекты со своими венгерскими коллегами, что улучшит качество сельского туризма в Сербии. В настоящий момент венгерский рынок сельского туризма может считаться образцовым. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА конкурентоспособность, туризм, сельский туризм, Сербия, Венгрия ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (Grant III 47007) БЛАГОДАРНОСТИ Исследование поддержано Министерством образования, науки и технологического развития Республики Сербия (грант III 47007) http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 mailto:d.demirovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs mailto:tinicaus@yahoo.com mailto:stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com mailto:d.demirovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs mailto:tinicaus@yahoo.com mailto:stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com 60 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Introduction In many studies, the concept of competitive- ness was applied to study tourist destinations [1–3], and the research focused on how to main- tain or increase the existing level of competitive- ness. In research literature, competitiveness of a tourist destination is defined as “the ability of a destination to maintain its position on the mar- ket and/or to improve it over time” [2, p. 239] and “to deliver products and services that are better than in other destinations, especially with regard to those aspects of tourist experience that are important to tourists” [4, p. 374]. According to Ritchie and Crouch [5], the most competitive des- tinations are the ones that provide their residents with benefits of sustainable development. Thus, it can be concluded that competitiveness implies the application of sustainability principles. In the tourism industry, the competition between tourist destinations and products has become very intense, which has contributed to greater market transparency of prices and oth- er elements of products and services [6]. Global competition in tourism has become a challenge for many countries that compete to become a de- sirable tourist destination, and understanding the factors that contribute to the competitiveness of a destination is essential for maintaining the cur- rent level of development of a tourist destination, its growth and vitality [5]. Therefore, measuring competitiveness can be considered as a key factor in ensuring the success of tourist destinations. Rural tourism is one of the priorities in the tourist development of many European countries. The rural tourism market is on the rise, while at the same time the future of many rural areas is un- certain, due to changes in agricultural production or the attractiveness of urban areas due to a higher standard of living. Rural tourism is considered as one of the most effective instruments for revital- ization of rural areas and ensuring their sustain- able future through job retention or job creation, support for agricultural holdings, nature preserva- tion, or keeping alive traditional rural crafts. Des- tinations of rural tourism are a complex product consisting of several components (accommoda- tion, transport, food, shops, attractions, and so on) [7–9]. These tourist companies are interdependent and interconnected, and they are usually small and medium-sized businesses. Problems in rural tour- ism that are detrimental for the competitiveness of the destinations stem from the fact that local pro- viders of tourism products and services are com- peting rather than cooperating with each other. To make rural destinations more competitive, it is essential to determine the factors that affect their position on the market [10]. In this paper, we are trying to identify and determine the impact of certain factors on com- petitiveness of rural tourism in Serbia. Analyzing tourist attractions, supporting factors and resourc- es, indicators of market participation and others, we will determine how competitive Serbia is as a destination of rural tourism, that is, its ability to increase tourist spending, attract more tourists, satisfy their needs, and ensure sustainable devel- opment of all the regions. We will also examine the views of the stakeholders involved in the de- velopment of rural tourism in Serbia and Hungary (direct providers of services in rural tourism, em- ployees in tourist organizations and tourist agen- cies, employees in municipal and provincial ser- vices, ministry officials, and university faculty). Methodology In the existing literature, there is no univer- sally accepted set of indicators for measuring competitiveness which will be applicable to all tourist destinations at any time [11]. The model used in this study was based on models devel- oped by Ritchie and Crouch [5], Dwyer-Kim [4] and Enright-Newton [12]. The final questionnaire for determining the competitiveness of Serbia as a destination of rural tourism has two parts: the first refers to the socio-demographic profile of the respondents (gender, age, education, workplace and work experience), while the second part con- sists of 17 factors that reflect specific characteris- tics of rural tourism, and have an impact on the competitiveness of the rural tourist destination. Since in tourism, Hungary is Serbia’s most signifi- cant competitor, the same questionnaire was pro- fessionally translated into Hungarian and sent to tourism experts to assess the current state of rural tourism in Hungary and to compare results with Serbia. Our Serbian and Hungarian experts were asked to evaluate the current state of all 17 fac- tors that affect or can affect the competitiveness of rural tourism destinations in their countries. The research used the Likert scale. Since one of the aims of this study is to mea- sure the relative importance of tourist attractions and business functions, it was necessary to con- duct a survey among those individuals who have knowledge of both factors. The common charac- teristic of research in the field of management, in- http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 61 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 cluding competitiveness research, is that the tar- get groups of respondents are managers and other tourism experts, since it is assumed that they have the greatest knowledge of management and com- petitiveness. Apart from the fact that managers and tourism experts know the specific destination they are working in, the majority can be also in- formed about the situation in the main competi- tive locations. The need to evaluate the competitiveness of a tourist destination by tourism experts was sup- ported by Gearing and associates [13], who ar- gued that tourism experts have a significant ex- perience in working with tourists and that their opinion can reflect the opinion of large groups of tourists. Similarly, B. Faulkner, M. Oppermann and E. Fredline [14] pointed out that tourism ex- perts can reflect the views of the tourism market as they are in constant contact with buyers (tourists) who are in the process of making travel decisions. S. Hudson, J. R. B. Ritchie, and S. Timur [15] not- ed that the input from a larger sample of tourism experts is desirable and identified six major stake- holders whose attitudes can best characterize the situation on the tourism market. These are the fol- lowing: transport companies; tourist associations or destination management organization; owners of accommodation facilities; tour operators; com- mercial companies, and specific groups, such as ecological groups or tourist consultants. For our study, we have chosen the tourism experts who possess knowledge and/or experience relevant to this topic or whose field of research and activities are related to rural tourism and competitiveness of tourist destinations. The following tourism experts were inter- viewed in Serbia: the faculty of higher education institutions that educate future tourism profes- sionals; employees of the Tourist Organization of Vojvodina and Serbia; employees in local tourist organizations and those employed in national and provincial institutions for development of tourism (Tourism Department of the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications, the Rural De- velopment Department of the Ministry of Agri- culture and Environmental Protection, Provincial Secretariat for Economy, Local Self-Government and Inter-Municipal Cooperation, Development Agency Bačka, Regional Development Agen- cy Srem, Chamber of Commerce of Vojvodina); tourist companies and agencies; owners of tour- ist companies in rural areas (farms, agricultural households, restaurants, ethnographic houses, museums, wineries, souvenir shops, organizers of village festivals); and so on. In Hungary, the fol- lowing tourism experts were interviewed: the fac- ulty of higher education institutions; employees of the Tourism Organization of Hungary; employees of nine local tourism organizations; those em- ployed in national institutions for development of tourism (the Department of Tourism and Cater- ing of the Ministry of Economy; the Ministry of Rural Development; and the Ministry of National Development); managers of tourist agencies and tour operators; owners of tourist companies in rural areas of Hungary (restaurants, ethnographic houses, museums, wineries, souvenir shops, orga- nizers of events and others); and representatives of the Association of Hungarian Tourist Guides, the Association for Hungarian Rural Tourism and Agritourism and the Center for Rural Tourism. In Serbia, the survey was conducted in two ways: we used personal interviews (face-to-face technique) and questionnaires, which we sent via e-mail. In Hungary, the survey was conducted only electronically (using an on-line question- naire in the form of a web page). The tourism ex- perts in Serbia were surveyed in the period from April to June 2017, while the survey in Hungary was conducted from May to July 2017. The re- sponse rate in both countries was about 50%. Sta- tistical analysis of collected data was done in the software statistical program SPSS 21. Results The differences between the Hungarian and Serbian respondents were analyzed by using the T-test for dependent samples. Statistically signifi- cant differences were obtained on almost all char- acteristics, that is, the factors of the competitive- ness model. In almost all categories, Hungary got higher scores. Table 1 shows the differences on the first scale for factors belonging to the determinant Key Re- sources and Attractions (arithmetic mean, stan- dard deviation, value and significance). At the significance level p < 0.01, statistically significant differences were achieved with the factor Geo- graphic Environment, Accommodation Capacities and their Authenticity and General Infrastructure and Tourist Suprastructure. Hungary is better rat- ed on items (factors) where the difference is statis- tically significant. The obtained results for factors in which there is a statistically significant difference show that the use of rivers, lakes and canals in rural tourism in http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 62 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Hungary is much more intensive and better orga- nized than in Serbia. Protected natural areas and nature parks are important for rural tourism and in Hungary, there is a larger number of organized programs and activities involving natural areas than in Serbia. Moreover, there is a significant dif- ference for the factor Accommodation Capacities and their Authenticity. In particular, there is a dif- ference in the average ratings of Hungary and Ser- bia when it comes to the authenticity of accom- modation units. The owners of accommodation facilities in Hungary make sure that the appear- ance of the buildings and their interiors enhance the attractiveness of the facilities. The quality of basic infrastructure in Hungarian villages is better than in Serbia while the differences between the quality of basic infrastructure in agrotourism are not so significant. Figure 1 illustrates that Serbia is the closest to Hungary when it comes to gastronomy, opportu- nities for sports, leisure and recreation and cultur- al heritage. It is interesting that the only factor that has a higher average rating in Serbia than in Hun- gary is Safety and Security. In further research, it is necessary to examine why safety and security in Hungary are lower than in Serbia, while man- agers should use this advantage of the Hungarian rural market for attracting tourists. The smallest differences in the assessment of competitiveness factors between Serbia and Hungary are found for the determinant Key Resources and Attractions, while the other two determinants are much more pronounced. In addition to the key resources and attrac- tions, respondents from Hungary and Serbia as- sessed the factors within the determinant Strategy Table 1 T-test for dependent samples – determinant Key Resources and Attractions Factor Country Arithmetic mean Standard Deviation T Significance Geographic environment Serbia 3.5000 .55830 –7.422 .000 Hungary 4.0058 .56773 Cultural heritage Serbia 3.5257 .66477 –2.184 .030 Hungary 3.7099 .72649 Opportunities for sports, leisure and recreation Serbia 3.7426 .73783 –2.535 .012 Hungary 3.9562 .65157 Accommodation capacities and their authenticity Serbia 3.0931 .65256 –7.602 .000 Hungary 3.6788 .62021 Gastronomy Serbia 3.9669 .83267 –.002 .998 Hungary 3.9672 .90180 General infrastructure and tourist supra- structure Serbia 2.9326 .70196 –9.736 .000 Hungary 3.7117 .61785 Safety and security Serbia 4.0478 .75738 1.342 .181 Hungary 3.9197 .81852 Physical-geographic elements of the environment Cultural heritage Opportunities for sports, leisure and recreation Accommodation capacities and their authenticity Gastronomy General infrastructure and tourist suprastructure Safety and security Serbia Hungary Figure 1. Performance of Serbia and Hungary for factors within the determinant Key Resources and Attractions http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 63 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 of the Tourist Destination. For each of the five fac- tors, a statistically significant difference at the level of p < 0.01 (Table 2) is observed. As in the previous case, the factors of the competitiveness model for Serbian rural regions are lower than in Hungary. There are considerable differences for fac- tors within the determinant Tourist Destination Strategies between Serbia and Hungary, which again demonstrates that this determinant is the weakest in the competitiveness model and that the policies applied in the sphere of tourism in Serbia have been inefficient so far. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the quality of rural tourism in Serbia in order to boost the demand. Significant differences in the assessment of the factor Marketing show that Hungarian rural tourism is better organized. The emphasis is made on promoting the tourist offer through business entities and especially through tourist organiza- tions and organizations for rural and agritour- ism. There is also organized distribution of tourist products through several travel agencies, which make this type of tourism more popular in Hun- gary. Hungarian policy-makers are aware of the importance of well-trained staff for successful de- velopment of rural tourism, and provide multiple opportunities for learning such as seminars and courses. There are also compulsory courses that owners of tourist facilities in rural areas should take. The policy for the development of tourist destinations has a better average rating in Hunga- ry due to the improved availability of the relevant data for local authorities since 1998. Figure 2 shows that as for the determinant Strategy of the Tourist Destination, there are sig- nificant differences between Serbia and Hungary. The only sphere in which Serbia’s competitiveness is closer to that of Hungary is the Quality Manage- ment of Services. However, when it comes to this factor, the differences in the profitability of rural tourism enterprises are not so obvious, which suggests that tourism companies in Hungary are struggling to ensure continued profitability of their business. Table 2 T-test for dependent samples – determinant Strategy of the Tourist Destination Factors Country Arithmetic mean Standard Deviation T Significance Marketing Serbia 2.9779 .58514 –10.166 .000 Hungary 3.6616 .52452 Employees in the tourist sector and rural tourist facilities Serbia 2.7623 .62711 –6.562 .000 Hungary 3.2920 .70415 Policy of planning and destination development Serbia 2.4540 .67165 –9.631 .000 Hungary 3.3084 .78898 Quality management services Serbia 2.7960 .62153 –4.878 .000 Hungary 3.1734 .65625 Environmental Management Serbia 2.5404 .77949 –9.308 .000 Hungary 3.4489 .83200 Marketing Employees in the tourist sector and rural tourist facilities Policy of planning and destination development Quality management services Environmental Management Serbia Hungary Figure 2. Performance of Serbia and Hungary for the factors within the determinant Strategy of the Tourist Destination http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 64 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Within the third determinant of the compet- itiveness model, determinant Tourist Destination almost all factors achieved statistical significance at p < 0.01 level, except for the factor Local Commu- nity Participation and their Attitudes. In this case, Hungarian rural areas scored higher (Table 3). Regarding economic stability, which is an im- portant factor, tourists in Hungary have a greater part of their income available for traveling to rural areas for leisure and entertainment, while the eco- nomic differences between the two countries are not significant. In Hungary, many people tend to take shorter tourist trips throughout the year rath- er than one long vacation, which can result from better living standards and higher awareness of travel opportunities. Tourists who visit rural areas are more aware of the importance of a healthy life- style and choose the destinations suitable for ac- tive leisure such as hiking, hiking, swimming, and jogging. These tourists are also environmentally conscious and choose protected natural areas and eco-friendly hotels. What rural tourism in Serbia and Hungary have in common is that tourists vis- iting rural areas belong to all age categories and that domestic tourists prevail. Hungarian experts assessed cooperation between stakeholders more highly, which means that they are aware of the importance between the stakeholders invovled in the development of rural tourism. Moreover, the development of rural tourism in Hungary receives greater and more efficient financial support. This support is provided not only by state institutions but also by other stakeholders, who are trained to apply for European funds to improve all aspects of the tourist offer. Figure 3 shows that the performance of the de- terminant The Environment of the Tourist Destina- tion for both countries is closest for the factor Local Community Participation and their Attitudes, which means that the differences in the average estimates for this factor are not statistically significant. In both countries, the local population is hospitable and the local community is willing to support the development of rural tourism. The problem shared by both countries is the demographic structure of the population in rural areas due to the ageing of the population and their migration to cities in search for better living conditions. Table 3 T-test for dependent samples – determinant Tourist Destination Environment Factors Country Arithmetic mean Standard Deviation T Significance Economic stability Serbia 2.3051 .74826 –7.856 .000 Hungary 3.0912 .89775 Characteristics of demand and socio-cultural change Serbia 3.3544 .63338 –5.857 .000 Hungary 3.7912 .59846 Local community participation and their attitudes Serbia 3.3431 .62320 –.880 .380 Hungary 3.4112 .65463 Cooperation between stakeholders in tourism Serbia 2.4877 .78453 –6.271 .000 Hungary 3.1290 .90048 Incentives and financial support for the development of tourism by the government and local authorities Serbia 2.5423 .77433 –3.896 .000 Hungary 2.9599 .98343 Economic stability Characteristics of demand and socio-cultural change Local community participation and their attitudes Cooperation between stakeholders in tourism Incentives and �nancial support for the development of tourism by the government and local authorities Serbia Hungary Figure 3. Performance of Serbia and Hungary for factors within the determinant The Environment of the Tourist Destination http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 65 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Conclusion The key competitors of Serbia in rural tour- ism are Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia (and in- creasingly Romania). Our analysis has shown that the level of rural tourism in Hungary is much higher than in Serbia, since there is a sta- tistically significant difference in the assessment of all the factors (except for Safety and Security). Experts in Hungarian tourism do not see Serbia as their competitor, which leads us to the con- clusion that tourism policy makers should con- sider Hungary as a market that requires greater investment and significant efforts to meet the demands of sophisticated rural tourists, which cannot be achieved in a short period of time. In the following period, Hungary should be seen as Serbia’s partner and Serbian stakeholders should develop joint projects with their Hungar- ian counterparts in order to improve the qual- ity of rural tourism in Serbia. At the moment, the Hungarian market of rural tourism presents an example of good practice. In the meantime, more attention and effort should be directed towards foreign tourist markets, especially the countries that Serbia has good traditional con- nections with such as Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, and Russia. State and local authorities should work to- gether to ensure Serbia’s competitiveness as a destination of rural tourism by addressing the two groups of tasks: general and more specific. General tasks are those related to leadership and innovation in product development and market- ing, research on travel patterns, tourist behavior and satisfaction, and efforts to help businesses and other members of the sector in accordance with laws and regulations. Specific administra- tive tasks are those that target certain charac- teristics of the sector, including, for example, creation and maintenance of a database of rural tourism destinations. It is important to distinguish between the roles that the government and individual busi- nesses play in ensuring the competitiveness of the destination. The government is responsible for realizing systematic tasks and for adopting poli- cies and decisions on the macro-level. In contrast, managerial tasks of the economy sector are car- ried out on the micro-level, that is, the level of in- dividual owners of rural tourism facilities. These enterprises strive to become more cost-effective and more competitive on the market. It can be concluded that competitiveness of Serbia as a destination of rural tourism depends significantly on the ability of each business entity to maintain its competitive position on the mar- ket, which will also strengthen the overall regional competitiveness. The support of the government is important for creating a healthy environment for business and for providing clear guidelines that will enable the rural tourism sector to grow. Moreover, since a large number of service com- panies are involved in the provision of services to rural tourists, each section of the sector must make sure to provide high-quality experience for visitors (good value for money). References 1. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism Manage- ment, 21(1), 97–116. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3. 2. D’ Hauteserre, A. M. (2000). Lessons in Managed Destination Competitiveness: The Case of Foxwoods Casino Resort. Tourism Management, 21(1), 23–32. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00097-7. 3. Heath, E. (2003). Towards a Model to Enhance Destination Competitiveness: A Southern Af- rican Perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(2), 124–141. 4. Dwyer, L. & Kim, C. (2003). Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Cur- rent Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. doi: 10.1080/13683500308667962. 5. Ritchie, J.R.B. & Crouch, G.I. (2003). The Competitive Destination, A Sustainable Tourism Per- spective. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. 6.  Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P. (2008). Assessment of Tourism Compet- itiveness by Analysing Destination Efficiency. Tourism Economics, 14(2), 325–342. doi: 10.5367/000000008784460427. 7. Roberts, L., Hall, D., Mitchell, M. (2003). Rural Tourism and Recreation, Principles to Practice. London: Ashgate. http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 http://doi.org/1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3 http://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00097-7 http://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962 http://doi.org/10.5367/000000008784460427 66 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(2), 59–66 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 Online ISSN 2412-0731 8.  Demonja, D. & Ružič, P. (2010). Ruralni turizam u Hrvatskoj s hrvatskim primjerima dobre prakse i europskim iskustvima. Samobor: Meridijani. 9. Sidali, K. L. (2011). A Sideways Look at Farm Tourism in Germany and in Italy. In Sidali, K. L., Spiller, A. & Schulze, B. (Ed.) Food, Agriculture and Tourism: Linking Local Gastronomy and Rural Tourism-Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 2–24), Berlin, Springer. 10.  Demirović, D., Košić, K., Surd, V., Žunić, L. & Syromiatnikova, Y. A. (2017). Application of Tourism Destination Competitiveness Model on Rural Destinations. J. Geogr. Inst. Cvijic., 67(3), 279–295. doi: 10.2298/IJGI1703279D. 11. Dwyer, L., Livaic, Z. & Mellor, R. (2003). Competitiveness of Australia as a Tourist Destina- tion. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(1), 60–78. 12. Enright, M. J. & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of Tourism Destination Competitiveness in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and Universality. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 339–350. doi: 10.1177/0047287505274647. 13. Gearing, C.E., Swart, W.W. & Var, T. (1974). Establishing a Measure of Touristic Attractive- ness. Journal of Travel Research, 12(4), 1–8. doi: 10.1177/004728757401200401. 14.  Faulkner, B., Oppermann, M. & Fredline, E. (1999). Destination Competitiveness: An Exploratory Examination of South Australia’s Core Attractions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 125–139. 15.  Hudson, S., Ritchie, J.R.B. & Timur, S. (2004). Measuring Destination Competitiveness: An Empirical Study of Canadian Ski Resorts. Tourism Hospitality Planning and Development, 1(1), 79–94. doi: 10.1080/1479053042000187810. Information about the authors Dunja Demirović – PhD in Tourism, Research Associate, Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić SASA (Đure Jakšića street no. 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia); e-mail: d.demirovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs. Kristina Košić – PhD in Tourism, Associate professor, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sci- ences (Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia); e-mail: tinicaus@yahoo.com. Stefan Stjepanović – MSc, PhD student, University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture (Vlasenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina); e-mail: stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com. http://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2018.4.2.009 http://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI1703279D http://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274647 http://doi.org/10.1177/004728757401200401 http://doi.org/10.1080/1479053042000187810 mailto:tinicaus@yahoo.com mailto:stefan.stjepanovicuis@gmail.com