ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 2 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-2 • 2019 Contents Drago PERKO, Rok CIGLIČ, Mauro HRVATIN The usefulness of unsupervised classification methods for landscape typification: The case of Slovenia 7 Vladimir M. CVETKOVIĆ, Kevin RONAN, Rajib SHAW, Marina FILIPOVIĆ, Rita MANO,Jasmina GAČIĆ, Vladimir JAKOVLJEVIĆ Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities 27 Iwona CIEŚLAK Spatial conflicts: Analyzing a burden created by differing land use 43 Ivan PAUNOVIĆ, Verka JOVANOVIĆ Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macroregions of the Alps and the Dinarides 59 Nikola Darko VUKSANOVIĆ, Dragan TEŠANOVIĆ, Bojana KALENJUK, Milijanko PORTIĆ Gender, age and education differences in food consumption within a region: Case studies of Belgradeand Novi Sad (Serbia) 71 Special issue – Franciscean cadaster as a source of studying landscape changes Matej GABROVEC, Ivan BIČÍK, Blaž KOMAC Land registers as a source of studying long-term land-use changes 83 Ivan BIČÍK, Matej GABROVEC, Lucie KUPKOVÁ Long-term land-use changes: A comparison between Czechia and Slovenia 91 Lucie KUPKOVÁ, Ivan BIČÍK, Zdeněk BOUDNÝ Long-term land-use / land-cover changes in Czech border regions 107 Drago KLADNIK, Matjaž GERŠIČ, Primož PIPAN, Manca VOLK BAHUN Land-use changes in Slovenian terraced landscapes 119 Daniela RIBEIRO, Mateja ŠMID HRIBAR Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenianrural landscapes 143 Mojca FOŠKI, Alma ZAVODNIK LAMOVŠEK Monitoring land-use change using selected indices 161 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 450 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: Exploration of the collapse dolines, such as the one at the Small Natural Bridge in RakovŠkocjan, has enabled a deeper understanding of karst processes in recent years (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Raziskave udornice, kot je ta pri Malem Naravnem mostu v Rakovem Škocjanu, so v zadnjihletih omogočile globlje razumevanje kraških procesov (fotografija: Matej Lipar). SUSTAINABLEMOUNTAINTOURISM INWORDANDDEED:ACOMPARATIVE ANALYSISINTHEMACROREGIONS OFTHEALPSANDTHEDINARIDES Ivan Paunović, Verka Jovanović Sustainable mountain tourism can contribute significantly to sustainable development in the Alps and Dinarides. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4630 UDC: 913:338.48(234.3+234.422.1) COBISS: 1.01 Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macro regions of the Alps and the Dinarides ABSTRACT: This articleexaminessimilarities and differences inthe attitudes andsocialrepresentations ofdestinationmanagerstowardsimplementingsustainabletourismbetweenthemountainregionsofthe AlpsandtheDinarides. Bearinginmindthetransnationalimpacts(i.e.,environmental,economicandsocial) of the tourism industry the research methodology adopted an international perspective by sending aquestionnairetotourismorganizationsinfourteendifferentcountriesintheAlpsandtheDinarides.The researchisinterdisciplinaryinnature,becauseitintegratesknowledgefromsustainabilityandmanagement science with tourism geography and social psychology. The findings confirm that social representations of sustainable tourism differ significantly in the two mountain regions. KEY WORDS: Sustainability, tourism geography, governance, mountain tourism, social representations of tourism, Alps, Dinarides Trajnostni gorski turizem v besedi in dejanju: primerjalna analiza v makroregijah Alp in Dinarskega gorstva IZVLEČEK: V članku avtorja preučujeta podobnosti in razlike v odnosu destinacijskih menedžerjev do izvajanja trajnostnega turizma na gorskih območjih Alp in Dinaridov oziroma primerjata socialne reprezentacije trajnostnega turizma na teh dveh območjih. Ker ima turistična dejavnost transnacionalne (okoljske,ekonomskeinsocialne)vplive,staavtorjaopravilamednarodnoraziskavo,vkateristavprašalnike poslalaturističnimorganizacijamv14različnihdržavahnaobmočjuAlpinDinarskegagorstva.Raziskava je interdisciplinarna, saj združuje znanja s področij trajnostnega razvoja, managementa, turistične geografijeinsocialnepsihologije. Njeniizsledkipotrjujejo,dasesocialnereprezentacijetrajnostnegaturizma med obema preučevanima gorskima območjema precej razlikujejo. KLJUČNEBESEDE:trajnostnost,turističnageografija,upravljanje,gorskiturizem,socialnereprezentacije turizma, Alpe, Dinarsko Ivan Paunović, Verka Jovanović Singidunum University paun.bg@gmail.com, vjovanovic@singidunum.ac.rs The article was submitted for publication on July 19th 2016. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 19. julija 2016. 1 Introduction IntheAlps,sustainabledevelopmentbecameanimportantparadigmatthelevelofthemacroregionsoon after the publication of the report »Our Common Future« by the Brundtland Commission, through the firstAlpineconferenceinBerchtesgadenin1989,andeversinceacoordinatedtransnationalresearchhas been conducted in the Alps through the Alpine Convention. (Borsdorf et al. 2015; WCED 1987). In the Dinarideshowever,therearestillnostrongtransnationalandcross-disciplinarypoliticalinitiativesorresearch onsustainabledevelopment.Thissituationpointstothepotentialdifferencesinthesocialrepresentations of sustainable tourism in the Dinarides. This article therefore opens a discussion on the governance and sustainabilityoftourismfromtheperspectiveofthemountaindestinationmanagersinthetwomacroregions: the Alps and the Dinarides. The Alps are a natural benchmark for the Dinarides not only as their closest neighborbutalsoasoneoftheleadingmountainchainsregardingresearchontheenvironmentalandsocial impactsofmountaintourism.ThearticleinvestigatesthephenomenonofsustainabletourismintheAlps andtheDinarides asaninterdisciplinaryfieldofresearchbetweentourismgeography,socialpsychology, sustainability science and management science. TheBrundtlandCommissionhasdefinedsustainabledevelopmentas:»…developmentthatmeetsthe needsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityofthefuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds« (WCED1987),andotherinstitutions(UNEPandUNWTO2005)emphasizethatatthecenterofsustainable developmentareinterdisciplinaryperspectives(involvingtheeconomy,society,andenvironment)andglob­alperspectivesaswellasethicalconduct.Thismeansthatsustainabledestinationplanninganddevelopment are directly connected to destination values and leadership. Elaković (2011) correctly notes that a criti-cal-realistic approach to destination development (with humanistic values at its core) marks the mature phaseoftouristdestinationdevelopment.Theauthorfurtherclarifiesthatimprovingleadershipandman-agementvaluesisataskforeveryethicalmanagerinordertoimprovethefullscopeoforganisationalactivites andlessentheirnegativeimpactsontheenvironment.Inthissense,thereisverylittleresearchonthesocial representationsoftourism(Moscardo2011),andnonehasbeenconductedonsustainablemountaintourism. Socialrepresentationsareaspecificwayofunderstandingandcommunicatingexistingknowledge,some­where between the raw concepts and percepts, which give meaning to the world around us (Moscovici and Duveen 2000). In short, representation is an image or a meaning. Social representations in tourism arewhatcommunitiesandotherstakeholdersbelieveorinterpretabouttourismanditsimpacts(Moscardo 2011). The central actor, whose socialrepresentation of sustainable tourism has been studied in this arti-clearethedestinationmanagementorganizations(DMO)intheAlpsandtheDinarides.DMO’sareacentral actor in coordination of various tourism stakeholders and as such they usually have the most knowledge about different types of destination stakeholders. Moscardo’s (2011) analysis of tourism planning models in emerging destinations demonstrated that thepredominantparadigmisabusinessapproach,whereassustainabilityissueshavebeentotallyneglected in most cases. Government planning has been considered by many as partly outdated and partly unnec­essary, but effective management systems for sustainable tourism very often need government planning (Bramwell and Lane 2011). The two main factors shaping the planning of mountain and ski tourism are demographicchange-asthemostimportantfactor,andclimatechange-asthesecondmostimportantfac-tor (Gössling and Scott 2012). However, this order is predicted to shift by the end of the century, when climatechangewillbecomethemostimportantfactor,anddemographicchangethesecondmostimpor­tantfactor.Organizationalapproachestothischangescanvaryfromtotalrejectionofasustainabilityagenda andnon-responsiveness,throughcompliance,eco-efficiencyorstrategicsustainability,allthewaytoide­ological commitment (Dunphy and Benveniste 2000). Destination values and strategic directions always directly reflect destination leadership which is set inaninter-organizationalcontextthroughdistributedandsystemicleadership(Pechlaner,KozakandVolgger 2014). Leadership is considered by many to be a missing link in destination management theory (Bieger and Beritelli 2013). This is because the concepts of governance and networking go hand in hand, but are only able to resolve the issues of processes and how things are done, whereas the question of goals and strategiesshouldbeaddressedthroughaframeworkofleadershiporgenerallyamorehumanisticapproach (VolggerandPechlaner2015).Havingallthisinmind,Waligo,ClarkeandHawkings(2013)notethatlead­ership is essential in creating a common understanding about the values of sustainable development and its implementation at the destination. However, according to Yasarata et al. (2010), a pressurized political contextaswellaspoliticians’attitudesandvaluesinsomecountriescansignificantlyaltertheimplementation of sustainable development policies, compared to the original plans. Thedestinationactorsthathavethepowertochooseorchangethenatureoftourismdevelopmentcan haveakeyimpactonspreadingthebenefitsoftourismdevelopmenttothedevelopmentoftheentiredes­tinationandlocalcommunity(Moscardo2005). Themostimportantaspectofthispoweriswhetherand howmuchitisbasedonknowledge.However,theproblemwithmanydevelopingdestinationsisthatdes­tination residents have a small or limited role in tourism planning, whereas the development is directed byforeigntouroperators,oftenpower-distantgovernmentdepartmentsanddestinationmanagementorgan­isations (Moscardo 2011). Mountain destinations in most of the Dinarides are definitely developing destinationswherethesekindsofissuesare present, whichiswhydevelopmentpriorities shouldbecom-pared to those of more developed mountain destinations, such as those in the Alps. The main goal of this article is to determine whether there are any differences in the social represen­tations of sustainable tourism that affect the realization of sustainable tourism in the Alps compared to the Dinarides. The goal is also to identify the triggers of destination management differences that result invariousproblemsinimplementatingsustainabletourismdevelopment.Inthissense,thefollowingfour research questions have been developed: 1. How great is the importance of various stakeholders to destination management? 2. How great is the implementation of sustainability principles in destination planning? 3. What are the leadership or management values practiced at the destination? 4. What are the priorities of destination development? Author of the map background: Google Image Landsat 2016; US Department of State Geographer 2016; GeoBasis–DE/BKG 2009 Copyright for the map background: © Google, 2016 © GeoBasic–DE/BKG Figure 1: Position of the researched mountain areas in Europe: The Alps and the Dinarides. 2 Methods Theresearchmethodusedinthisstudywasaquestionnaire,andthesamplingmethodwasjudgmentsam­pling used as a nonprobability method, which means that sample was selected based on judgment. The questionnaire was translated into six languages and it used a seven-point Lickert scale for all of the ques­tions (a five-point was not used intentionally, in order to avoid mistakes because there are, for example, differencesinschoolgradingindifferentcountries),onwhich7wasthehighestscore.Thequestionnaire wassentoutviae-mailandasanonlinequestionnaire(respondentcouldchoosewhichonetouse)toselect-ed DMOs in areas over 1000m in elevation. Altogether, 1,213 organizations where included and seventy of them replied. The relatively low response rate (5.77%) was expected, given that previous research (Finkelstein,HambrickandCannella2009)hadindicatedthatprofessionalsinmanagementpositionsare notinclinedtoparticipateinresearchonleadershipvalues.Thedistributionofthedatacollectedisasfol-lows:fourty-sixintheAlps(sixFrance,oneinLiechtenstein,nineinItaly,seveninGermany,twoinAlpine Slovenia,nineinAustria,andtwelveinSwitzerland)andtwenty-fourintheDinarides-24(oneinAlbania, ten in Bosnia and Herzegovina, threein Montenegro, onein Croatia, zero in Kosovo, four in Macedonia, one in Dinaric Slovenia, and four in Serbia). The research included the following types of organizations: tourismorganizations,departments/sectionsfortourismand/oreconomicdevelopment(inchargeoftourism) in local municipal institutions, regional tourism organizations, tourism societies, destination marketing organizations and regional development organizations. In the analysis phase, MS Excel was used to calculate the descriptive statistics, as well as SPSS to cal-culatestatisticalsignificanceusingt-tests. Inthegraphsandtables,statisticalsignificanceatthe0.05level is marked with two asterisks. In this sense, it is important that the two samples (the Alps and Dinarides) wererelativelywell-balanced,becausethereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroups inage,levelofeducation,oranykeycompetencyoftherespondents. Theonlystatisticallysignificantdif­ference was in the sex of the respondents; there were more women in the Alps sample. 3 Results Theresultsonthesocialrepresentationsofsustainabletourisminthemanagementpracticecoverthefol-lowingaspectsofthedestinationmanagementprocessinthetwomountainregions:theimportancegiven to the different types of stakeholders by the DMO (Figure 2), planning for sustainability at the destina­tion (Figure 3andTable 1), leadership/management values atthe destination (Figure4), and priorities of the destination development (Table 2). In all of the following tables and graphs, two asterisks »**« indi­cates statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level. Figure 2 shows that there are significant differences in stakeholder prioritization by the destination managementorganizationsbetweentheAlpsandtheDinarides.Oneveryimportantdifferenceisthatstake­holdersaremoreevenlyrankedintheDinarides,whereasthethreemostimportantstakeholdersareclearly more important than the other stakeholders in the Alps. As shown in Figure 3, self-evaluations about the implementation of sustainability principles in desti­ nation planning show a small difference. However, the differences between evaluation in word only and concrete actions become somewhat clearer in Table 1, Figure 4 and Table 2. Table 1: Planning for sustainability. Feature Likert scores (rank) Alps Dinarides Multidisciplinary sustainable development planning documents 4.17 (3rd) 3.77 Economic/tourism development documents 4.94 (1st) 4.05 (3rd) **Environmental protection documents 4.26 (2nd) 5.64 (1st) Separate cost-benefit analyses 2.98 3.14 **Legislation (constitutional, environmental, economic/tourism, etc.) 4.06 5.18 (2nd) Other 1.72 1.72 Public institutions **Entertainment Transport companies organisations The Alps The Dinaric Alps Figure 2: Importance given to different types of stakeholders by the DMO’s. The Dinaric Alps The Alps 1 234567 Figure 3: Implementation of sustainability principles in destination planning (self-reported by DMOs). Figure 4: Leadership or management values in the destination. There isa statistically significant difference between the two mountain regions regarding documents used for planning sustainability regarding environmental protection, as well as laws. In both cases, these weresignificantlymoreimportantintheDinaridesthanintheAlps.AsshowninTable1,economic/tourism development documents are the single most important document in the Alps, followed by environmen­talprotectiondocumentsandmultidisciplinarysustainabledevelopmentplanningdocuments(rankedfirst, second and third). In the Dinarides however multidisciplinary sustainable development planning docu­ments are ranked only as a fourth priority. This means that in the Dinarides, environmental protection goals should be put into a broader social context (social and economic). In that sense, there is space for using more multidisciplinary general planning documents of sustainable development in the Dinarides. Topmanagers’choicesareshowntobeaffectedbytheirexperiences,valuesandpersonality(Hambrick 2007; Hambrick and Mason 1984). This applies to DMOs in the same way as it does to other organiza­tions. As shown in Figure 4, leadership or management values such as hard work, chain of command, protection of the environment and protection of nature score more importantly in the Dinarides. In this sense,for DMOs in the Dinarides there is an opportunityto create organizations that aremore egalitarian (emphasizing the social equality of all co-workers) andrely less onhierarchy (orthe chain of command). Similarlyaswithdocumentsforplanningsustainability,thereisanoticeablepolarizationofanswerstowards environmentalprotectionintheDinarides,whichalsomeansthatthereispoorerintegrationofthisaspect with other aspects of sustainability. Conversely, in the Alps, environmental protection of the destination is an aspect of sustainable development that needs additional specialized attention. Table 2: Priorities of destination development. Feature Likert scores (rank) Alps Dinarides **Tourism research 4.63 5.87 Market research 4.87 5.61 **Use of social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) 4.83 5.87 **FDI (foreign direct investment) 2.96 5.52 Image and marketing 5.37 5.96 Tourism product development 6.11 (1st) 6.17 **Development of infrastructure 5.72 (3rd) 6.65 (1st) **Destination stakeholder network improvement 5.09 5.91 **Environmental protection 5.22 6.61 (2nd) **Regional or cross-border cooperation 5.02 6 **Human resources development 4.76 6.09 Development of core competencies 4.98 5.48 **SME (small and medium-sized enterprises) support 4.2 5.49 **Service quality 5.87 (2nd) 6.57 (3rd) Innovative products 5.70 5.83 Sustainable development 5.43 6.17 Energy efficiency 4.98 5.61 Although there are some differencesin terms of leadership or management values, in termsof destina­tiondevelopmentpriorities,therearesignificantdifferences(tenoutofseventeenaresignificantlydifferent), asshowninTable2.Thisisunderstandablegiventhetworegions’differentlevelsofeconomicdevelopment. Priorities rated significantly higher in the Dinarides are tourism research, social media use, foreign direct investment,destinationstakeholdernetworkimprovement,regionalandcross-bordercooperationanddevel­opment, human resource development, and SME support. This surely doesn’t mean that in the Alps the destinationdonothaveaneedforimprovementsinthisareas,butratherthattheyarealreadysufficientlydevel­opedandarenot consideredapriority infuturedevelopment,becausetheseareasarealreadyfunctional. When analyzed separately, the priorities of destination development (marked in parentheses) in the Alpsaretourismproducts,servicequality,andinfrastructuredevelopment;intheDinarides,theyareinfra­structuredevelopment,environmentalprotectionandservicequality.Infrastructuredevelopmentandservice qualityareprioritiesforbothdestinations,buttheyareratedassignificantlymoreimportantintheDinarides. This finding says a great deal about the special importance of these two aspects (improvement of infra-structureandservicequality)forthedevelopmentofmountaindestinationsintheDinarides,whileatthe sametimetryingtopreservetheenvironment.Thisisarealchallengeofsustainabletourismdevelopment in the Dinarides, and also something that should be studied more in future research. There is a space for investments in accommodation capacities, as well as accompanying IT industry in the Dinarides. An equally important finding concerns DMOs themselves, which should become orga­nizationallylesshierarchical(relylessonchainofcommand-Figure4),withmoreemployeeempowerment inrelationtomanagersorleaders,especiallyifthesameeducationalstructureofemployeesinbothregions is taken into account. Alpine DMOs are significantly less focused on nature protection as a development priorityandasaleadershipvalue,andorganizationsfornatureprotectionhavelessinfluenceontheDMOs. Bearinginmindthegeneralimportanceofgastronomyasastakeholder,andservicequalitydevelopment asadevelopmentpriority,developingthequalityofgastronomicservicesisrecommendedinthebothmoun­tain regions. 4 Discussion Understanding the relation of the DMO to other destination actors in the mountain destinations is very importantbecausepolicychanges,relatedtoenvironmental,socialandeconomicimpactscanonlybeimple­mented in this DMO-stakeholders nexus. The most important difference in this sense is that in the Alps, thereisastrongerdivisionbetweenwhatFranch,MartiniandBuffa(2008)identifiedasprimaryandsec­ondarystakeholders,asrelatedtopowerandinfluenceatthedestination.Themostimportantstakeholders in the Alps are public institutions, accommodation and gastronomy, whereas the most important stake­holders in the Dinarides are education and training organizations, new media (social media, blogs, etc.), andculinaryproviders.Therelativelylowimportanceofthesocialdimensioninsustainabledevelopment in the Dinarides is in line with the findings of Kovačič and Brečko Grubar (2016) regarding knowledge of sustainable development among Slovenian students, who also lack awareness of the social dimension. More importantly, it also confirms the findings of Byrd, Cardenas and Greenwood (2008) in the case of North Carolina, where, the authors emphasize the need to inform destination stakeholders about social issuesandhowtheyrelatetosustainabledevelopment.Consequently,thereisstillmuchspaceintheDinarides for better stakeholder integration and consultation, and this must be reflected in multidisciplinary gen-eralplanningdocumentsasevidencedintheliterature(Waligo,ClarkeandHawkins2013;Brida,Ostiand Barquet2010;Shunnaq,SchwabandReid2008).TheresultsconfirmthatintheAlpsthereisagoodtrans­disciplinary development policy, because of the long tradition in transnational sustainable development, withthechallengeoffurtherimprovingenvironmentalprotection.ThisconfirmsthefindingsbyMarzelli andLintzmeyer(2015)thatinthemacro-regionoftheAlps,improvementsareneededinnaturalresources management, although significant results have already been achieved so far. Thesustainabletourismliteraturerecognizesthatdestinationplanningparadigmsareoutofdate(Waligo, ClarkeandHawkins2013;Popesku2011;GoeldnerandRitchie2009;Krippendorf,ZimmerandGlauber 1985),especiallyformountaindestinations(Trawoeger2014;PaunovićandRadojević2014;Blasco,Guia and Prats 2014; Dawson and Scott 2013), because they do not fully take into account broader social and environmental impacts of tourism in order to lessen the impact of the tourism industry on the environ-mentandcommunities.Thisiswhytheresultsofthisstudyaresoimportantfortourismgeography.They demonstrate the lack of interdisciplinarity in planning sustainable tourism in the Dinarides as well as an unusedpotentialofflexible,softpolicyinstruments(comparedtolaws)inachievingsustainabletourism. Leadership is considered an essential part of addressing the »crisis of governance« involving the natural environment (Case et al. 2015; Young et al. 2007), an issue of great importance in mountain destinations, whichareecologicallyverysensitive(Prideaux2009).Leadershipvaluesconstituteanimportantpartofthe moderndestinationmanagementprocess,inwhicheconomic,environmentalandsocialvaluesareallequal­lyimportant.Animportantnotionisalsothatnotallpeoplethatdeclarethemselvesinfavourofenvironmental protection really consider this a value because value is something that is a permanent priority and affects actualactionsaswellasthechoiceofpolicyinstrumentsinthebroaderframeworkofgovernance(Smrekar 2011; Hall 2010). Researchofdeclaredvalues in theDinarides revealed that, regardingDMOorganization, hierarchies (i.e., chain of command and hard work) are much more important than in the Alps. This con-firmsthelowpriorityofthesocialdimensionofsustainabilityintheDinarides(sucharestakeholderinvolvement, socialinclusion,partnernetworks,etc.).Ontheotherhand,intheAlpstheattitudetowardstheenvironment and nature protection at the destination could be improved, as shown in the Figure4. Thetourismindustryhasastrongimpactonresourcesatthedestination,especiallyonthelocalcom­munityatthedestination,andatthesametimethefutureofthetouristdestinationalsodependsonprotecting thoseverysameresources(Prideaux2009;GoeldnerandRitchie2009).Therefore,researchplaysanimpor­tant role in informing those involved in tourism about available development alternatives and priorities whilemaintainingaholisticandsystemicapproachindealingwithtourismdevelopment(Prideaux2009; Burns and Novelli 2008). This is particularly true for ecologically sensitive mountain regions such as the Alps and the Dinarides, which is why the results presented results should serve as a basis for further dis-cussiononsustainabletourismdevelopmentpriorities.Whydocertainregionshavecertainpriorities,why do these priorities differ, and how do they change over time? Although there are general differences in thesocialrepresentationsofsustainabletourismbetweentheAlpsandtheDinarides,individualdestinations within both regions can alsovarysignificantlydepending onthe specific arrangements: thetypeof orga­nization responsible for coordinating destination development, institutional arrangements and the local resources available (i.e., human, geographic, infrastructure, know-how, tradition, etc.). In this sense, future research on social representations of sustainable tourism should take two directions: 1) research can be conducted on larger samples and in different regions or types of destinations, and 2) a qualitative researchapproach(i.e.,casestudiesandinterviews)shouldcomplementthequalitativeapproachinorder to provide greater understanding and interpretation of the results obtained. 5 Conclusion In order to enhance future sustainable tourism development in the Alps and Dinarides, geography and tourism research should advocate the constant communication of information and upgrading of knowl­edge of the entire tourism public regarding available development alternatives and priorities, especially takingintoaccounttheobserveddifferences.Specialemphasisshouldbeputonexchangeofbestpractices and improvement of the quality of all sustainable tourism elements. An important link in this process is understanding the social representations of sustainable mountain tourism. This is because the very same concept,suchassustainabletourism,canhavecompletelydifferentinterpretationsandsocialrolesindif­ferent societies or communities. This study has confirmed that there are differences in this sense, and it haspresentedadetailedanalysisofsocialrepresentationsofsustainablemountaintourismintheAlpsand the Dinarides, as a basis for further research on implementing sustainable tourism. There are significant differences in the social representations of sustainable tourism regarding stakeholder prioritization, des­tination planning, leadership or management values, and destination development priorities. 6 References Bieger, T., Beritelli, P. 2013: Management von Destinationen. München. Blasco,D.,Guia,J.,Prats,L.2014:Emergenceofgovernanceincross-borderdestinations.Annalsof Tourism Research 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.09.002 Borsdorf,A.,Bender,O.,Braun,F.,Haller,A.2015:Web-basedinstrumentsforstrengtheningsustainable regionaldevelopmentintheAlps.ActageographicaSlovenica55-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.897 Bramwell, B., Lane, B. 2011: Editorial Introduction: Critical research on governance of tourism and sustainability.JournalofSustainableTourism19,4-5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.580586 Brida,J.G.,Osti,L.,Barquet,A.2010:SegmentingResidentPerceptionstowardsTourism-aClusterAnalysis withaMultinomialLogitModelofaMountainCommunity.InternationalJournalofTourismResearch 12-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.778 Burns, P., Novelli, M. 2008: Introduction: The Majority World Development and Tourism. Tourism Development-Growth, Myths and Inequalities. Oxfordshire. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/ 9781845934255.0000 Byrd,E.T.,Cardenas,D.A.,Greenwood,J.B.2008:FactorsofStakeholderUnderstandingofTourism:The Case of Eastern North Carolina. Tourism and Hospitality Research 8-3. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1057/thr.2008.21 Case, P., Evans, L. S., Fabinyi, M., Cohen, P. J., Hicks, C. C., Prideaux, M., Mills, D. J. 2015: Rethinking environmentalleadership:Thesocialconstructionofleadersandleadershipindiscoursesofecological crisis,development,andconservation.Leadership11-4.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015577887 Dawson, J., Scott, D. 2013: Managing for climate change in the alpine ski sector. Tourism Management 35. DOI: httpss:/doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.009 Dunphy,D.,Benveniste,J. 2000:Anintroductiontothesustainableincorporation. Poslovnaetikaikomuniciranje. Beograd. Finkelstein,S.,Hambrick,D.,Cannella,A.J.2009:Strategicleadership:Theoryandresearchonexecutives, top management teams and boards. New York. Franch,M.,Martini,U.,Buffa,F.2008:Strategiedibrandmanagementnelledestinazionialpinecommunity. Mercati e competitivita 4. Goeldner, C. R., Ritchie, J. R. 2009: Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Hoboken. Gössling, S., Scott, D. 2012: Scenario planning for sustainable tourism: an introduction. Journal of sustainable tourism 20-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699064 Hall,M.C.2010:PolicyLearningandpolicyfailureinsustainabletourismgovernance:fromfirstandsecond order to third order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19, 4-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2011.555555 Hambrick, D. 2007: Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Academy of Management Review 32-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24345254 Hambrick, D., Mason, P. 1984: Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628 Kov.čič, G., Brečko Grubar, V. 2016: Knowledge of sustainable development among geography students in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1633 Krippendorf, J., Zimmer, P., Glauber, H. 1985: Für einen anderen Tourismus. Frankfurt am Main. Marzelli,S.,Lintzmeyer,F.2015:TransnationalneedsofsustainablespatialdevelopmentintheAlps:results fromananalysisofpolicydocuments.ActageographicaSlovenica55-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/ AGS.1585 Moscardo, G. 2005: Peripheral tourism development: Challenges, Issues and Success Factors. Tourism Recreation Research 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2005.11081231 Moscardo, G. 2011: Exploring social representations of tourism planning: issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19, 4-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.558625 Moscovici, S., Duveen, G. 2000: Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge. Paunović, I., Radojević, M. 2014: Towards green economy: balancing market and seasonality of demand indicators in Serbian mountain tourism product development. Trends in Tourism and Hospitality Industry. Opatija. Pechlaner,H.,Kozak,M.,Volgger,M.2014:Destinationleadership:anewparadigmfortouristdestinations? Tourism Review 69-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2013-0053 Popesku, J. 2011: Menadžment turističke destinacije. Belgrade. Prideaux, B. 2009: Resort Destinations-Evolution, Management and Development. Oxford. Shunnaq,M.,Schwab,W. A.,Reid,M. F.2008:Communitydevelopmentusingasustainabletourismstrategy: acasestudyoftheJordanRiverValleytouristway.InternationalJournalofTourismResearch1-14.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.620 Smrekar, A. 2011: From environmental awareness in word toenvironmentalawareness indeed:The case of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51203 Trawoeger, L. 2014: Convinced, ambivalent or annoyed: Tyrolean ski tourism stakeholders and their perceptionsofclimatechange. TourismManagement40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.010 Volgger, M., Pechlaner, H. 2015: Governing networks in tourism: what have we achieved, what is still to be done and learned? Tourism Review 70-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-04-2015-0013 Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., Hawkins, R. 2013: Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2012.10.008 WCED – World commision on environment and development: Our common future – Brutland report. Oxford, 1987. Yasarata, M.,Altinay, L.,Burns, P., Okumus,F.2010: Politicsand sustainable tourismdevelopment –Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus. Tourism Management 31-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2009.03.016 Young,O.R.,Osherenko,G.,Ekstrom,J.,Crowder,L.B.,Ogden,J.,Wilson,J.A.,Peach,R.2007:Solving the CrisisinOceanGovernance:Place-BasedManagementofMarineEcosystems.Environment49-4.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.4.20-33