Research Note
Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nemanja Šarenac
University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Economics Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina
nemanja.sarenac@ekofis.ues.rs.ba
Mladen Rebić
University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Economics Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina
rebicmladen@yahoo.co.uk
Milica Bojat
University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Economics Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina
milicabojat@yahoo.com
Sustainable tourism development is based on ecological sustainability, ways of using
renewable and non-renewable resources, and socio-cultural and economic sustain-
ability. Stakeholders of the tourism sector have an important role in tourism devel-
opment, in which the public represents one of the critical segments of sustainable
tourism development. This paper aims to analyse and determine the most effective
way of sustainable tourism development for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Understand-
ing different approaches to tourism development and their inclusion in the process
can significantly increase the sustainability of future tourism development. The re-
search was conducted as a population survey on the entire territory of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. The sample size was appropriate, based on the total population and
included more than 385 respondents of different demographic categories. The main
hypothesis of this paper emphasises that citizens’ education about the significance of
the concept of sustainable tourism represents a fundamental approach for the further
development of tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The analysis of the approach
to sustainable tourism development has shown that most respondents consider the
reduction of environmental pollution as the most critical instrument for sustain-
able tourism development in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They also emphasise the im-
portance of providing the active participation of all stakeholders in the creation of
tourism products, with a particular emphasis on local governments. In accordance
with the obtained research results, it was concluded that the main hypothesis was
not confirmed.
Keywords: sustainable development, economic sustainability, socio-cultural
sustainability, ecological sustainability, cultural heritage
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.12.207-217
Introduction
Today, the sustainable tourism concept is considered
to be a crucial link to the economic growth and de-
velopment of a country. Mihalic (2016) concludes that
the concept of responsible tourism is gaining increas-
ing attention from scholars in the tourismdomain. Ac-
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 207
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
cordingly, we can confirm the existence of many defi-
nitions that put social equity and environmental qual-
ity into their focus. Pearce, Markandya, and Barbier
(1991) list more than twenty definitions of sustainable
tourism. The term ‘sustainable tourism’ was first de-
fined by the United Nation World Tourism Organi-
zation (unwto) in 1996: ‘Tourism that leads to the
management of all areas, in such a way that the eco-
nomic, social and environmental needs are fulfilled by
cultural integration, ecological processes, biodiversity
and support for the development of society’ (Fennel,
2003). unwto also specifies that sustainable tourism
considers the needs of current tourists as well as the
needs of future generations. Buckley (2009) lists the
most important activities that characterise sustainable
tourism:
• optimal usage of natural resources, adequateman-
agement of environmental processes, and efforts
to preserve biodiversity;
• respecting the socio-cultural attitudes of the local
community, preserving cultural and traditional
values, as well as undertaking activities in the
field of intercultural understanding and toler-
ance;
• providing real and long-lasting economic pro-
cesses that would enable the growth of thewelfare
of society, employment stabilisation, and oppor-
tunities to earn income;
• the long-term success of tourism depends on
whether the tourism sector is able to manage
and reconcile economic, social and environmen-
tal aspects, which, at the same time, represent the
dimensions of sustainable development.
The underlying assumptions of sustainable tourism
are precisely formulated in international documents,
such as the Charter for Sustainable Tourism (see http:
//www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/charter.html) and the
Global Sustainable Tourism Council (see http://www
.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria).
Vehbi (2012) mentioned that sustainability as a
concept stands for long term economic, environmen-
tal, and community health. Wearing and Nail (2012)
define the dimensions of sustainable tourism develop-
ment in the following way: ecological dimension – en-
vironmental quality and natural resources quality cre-
ate the level of attractiveness of the place for tourists.
Therefore, any activity that affects the environment or
natural resources, in the long run, aggravates attrac-
tiveness from the point of view of tourists, which leads
to fewer visitors and less income from tourists. Socio-
cultural dimension – the social and cultural heritage
of a region have a crucial role in tourism, especially in
regions with particularly rich cultural and artistic her-
itage, or places where local tradition and values have
a meaningful role. In these places, tourism can sig-
nificantly contribute to creating new jobs, protecting
cultural heritage, but it can also contribute to the de-
pendence of these regions on foreign companies and
tourist operators. Economic dimension – refers to the
financial aspects of tourism activities that are reflected
in the profit achievement, respecting the principles
of the sustainable development concept. If we do not
comply with the concept of sustainable development
and do not consider the ecological and socio-cultural
dimension, the results of future projections can distort
the picture and lead to inappropriate planning.
Furthermore, sustainable tourism should (unwto,
2017):
• optimally use ecological resources that are a cru-
cial element in the development of tourism, as
well as maintain basic ecological processes and
contribute to the preservation of natural and bi-
ological diversity;
• respect the socio-cultural authenticity of the lo-
cal community, preserves its material and cul-
tural heritage, traditional values and contributes
to intercultural understanding and tolerance;
• preserve the vital and long-term goals of eco-
nomic and business growth, providing socio-
economic benefits for all interested parties, em-
ployment, income and social services for the local
community and contributing to poverty reduc-
tion.
Huang (2011) found that non-conventional meth-
ods of assessing tourism sustainability failed to pro-
vide reliable results. To fill this gap, numerous activi-
ties have been undertaken to develop a relatively com-
prehensive and logical assessment methodology (Rei-
208 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
hanian, Hin, Kahrom, & Mahmood, 2015; Dupeyras
& MacCallum, 2013). Some critical reasons call for
an urgent assessment of the sustainability of tourism.
Very poor ecological settings and cultural sensitivity
of the sites call for the consistent monitoring and eval-
uation of the impact of tourism. In addition, the dy-
namic, unstable and unpredictable nature of the in-
dustry encourages the consistent implementation of
the assessment and tracking progress towards sus-
tainable tourism development (Asmelash & Kumar,
2019).
Many tools can be used to assess the sustainable
development of tourism. As one of the most widely
accepted assessment tools, we indicate indicators or
instruments of sustainability because they are both
considered relatively reliable and easy to apply, and
they contain qualitative and quantitative data. How-
ever, the absence of well-developed sustainability in-
dicators greatly influences the adequacy of tourism
sustainability assessments (Asmelash & Kumar, 2019).
Nevertheless, Reihanian et al. (2015) propose several
instruments that can adequately assess the develop-
ment of sustainable tourism, especially emphasising
the systematic organisation and measurement of in-
dicators, based on which the state can make adequate
conclusions and decisions for the sustainable develop-
ment of tourism.
It is necessary to note that most of the studies car-
ried out on the topic of tourism sustainability assess-
ment applied positively and negatively expressed in-
dicators (Cottrell, Vaske, & Roemer, 2013; Ayazlar &
Ayazlar, 2016). Thus, indicators/instruments provide
an insight into the state of development of sustainable
tourism, or its particular aspect, at a given point in
time, but this cannot be a final assessment of the state
of the given occurrence. Therefore, indicatorsmeasure
information that can enable the authorities to reduce
the chances of making bad decisions unconsciously
(Jovičić, 2014).
Sustainable tourism is highly dependent on its abil-
ity to increase financial benefits, including the abil-
ity to maintain social, cultural, and ecological her-
itage (Janusz & Bajdor, 2013). The concept of sus-
tainable development has led to numerous controver-
sies. The approaches are different: from those who
see it as the only acceptable concept of future de-
velopment to those who accept it as a theoretically
conceived conception and philosophical paradigm
but dispute its applicability in practice. The concept
of sustainable development is directly related to the
improvement of the quality of the tourist destina-
tion. The preserved natural environment, cultural-
historical heritage, positive relation of inhabitants to-
wards tourists, cultural identity – those are the ele-
ments of the quality of a tourist destination, for which
sustainable development stands. In this way, a positive
interaction between tourism and the environment is
created. Tourism brings revenue and part of it is in-
vested in improving the quality of the environment.
The preserved environment is an essential element of
the tourist attraction of the destination.
Sustainable tourismdevelopment shouldmaximise
the benefits of tourism and, at the same time,minimise
damage or costs and direct and limit tourism devel-
opment in line with the requirements of sustainable
tourism development. We can observe that the con-
cept of sustainable development is based on the princi-
ple of intergenerational equity and that sustainable de-
velopment requires harmonisation between economic
growth, social justice, and a healthy environment. The
violation of this principle causes environmental dam-
age, which, although done today, is shifted to the next
generation, endangering economic development and
the development of tourism.
The population of a local community, region, en-
tity, or country represents one of the most critical
stakeholders in sustainable tourism development. If
the population is not involved in the decision-making
process, then the development process does not have
a great chance to succeed in the long run. They will
take a negative attitude about both existing and future
tourism development. This paper aims to determine
the perceptions of the population towards the devel-
opment of tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina from
the perspective of sustainability. The research in the
work was carried out based on the scientific method
of deduction and analysis for the interpretation of sec-
ondary data sources, and the primary research was
carried out based on the descriptive statistical analy-
sis method. Secondary data were collected from offi-
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 209
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
cial reports of tourist organisations, scientific works
of experts in the field of sustainable tourism and rele-
vant websites. Also, we obtained a list of sustainability
indicators from an extended literature review and in-
terviews with some key informants, with a particular
emphasis on the European Tourism Indicator System
(etis).
Literature Review
In recent years, sustainable development and sustain-
able tourism development have become a very impor-
tant subject of numerous research papers around the
world. Sustainability has become a significant link of
tourism development, especially for tourist destina-
tions, because the environment and its quality are an
essential segment of tourist attraction (Bramwell &
Lane, 1993; Butler, 1999; Garrod & Fyall, 1998; Stabler
&Goodall, 1997; Inskeep, 1991;Wahab& Pigram, 1997;
Hudson & Miller, 2005; Lynn & Brown, 2003; Ross &
Wall, 1999). The primary aim of sustainable tourism
development is to provide economic benefits, to max-
imise visitors’ satisfaction, to protect the environment
and improve the quality of life of the population of
the relevant destination (Akis, Peristianis, & Warner,
1996; Aronsson, 2000; Bramwell et al., 1998; Choi &
Sirakaya, 2006;McIntyre, 1993;Mowforthand&Munt,
2003).
Sustainable tourism development greatly facilitates
and accelerates local economic development, envi-
ronmental protection, as well as cultural heritage, as
confirmed in numerous international resolutions and
agreements (Carta di Rimini per il turismo sosteni-
bile, 2001; European Commission, 2000, 2006, 2007;
unwto, 1995). Also, it should be emphasised that the
real effect of sustainable tourism can only be achieved
if local communities and the state truly understand
that sustainable tourism development greatly con-
tributes to the improvement of social well-being (Ha-
nafiah, Azman, Jamaluddin, & Aminuddin, 2016).
Neto (2003) andmanyother authors (Godde, Price,
& Zimmermann, 2000;Milne &Ateljevic, 2001;Wells,
1997), confirmed the positive correlation of sustainable
tourism and local development, which makes it clear
how vital sustainable tourism is for the local and re-
gional development and the whole economy.
Indicators and standards for sustainable tourism
development have been proposed by several organisa-
tions. In 1995, for example, the United Nations Com-
mission for Sustainable Development (csd) launched
a five-year programme to create sustainability indica-
tors. However, the indicators obtained were focused
on the global (not local) and environmental (not cul-
tural, economic, or institutional) dimension of sus-
tainability (Cottrell, Vaske, & Shen, 2007; Cottrell,
Vaske, Shen & Ritter, 2007).
unwto has also produced 11 key indicators for
sustainable tourism, which are divided into four cat-
egories: ecological, social, economic, and planning
(Cottrell et al., 2013).
The European Commission launched the Euro-
pean Tourism Indicator System (etis) in 2013 to help
destinations to monitor and measure their sustainable
tourism performance by using a common compara-
ble approach. The etis was based on 27 core indica-
tors and 40 optional indicators, subdivided into four
categories: destination management, social, and cul-
tural impact, economic value, environmental impact
(the list indicators can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/
growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/indicators/
index_en.htm). Choi and Sirakaya (2006) also pro-
posed six dimensions for measuring the sustainability
of community-based tourism: political, social, ecolog-
ical, economic, technological, and cultural indicators.
Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy (2013) believed that the per-
ception of the well-being of the inhabitants under
tourism can influence the development, and tourism
policy and planning. Consequently, well-being can be
used as an indicator of testing the perceptions of res-
idents for encouraging the development of tourism.
Woo, Kim, and Uysal (2015) say the population feels
that life satisfaction is a key indicator for supporting
sustainable tourism development. To achieve the sus-
tainable development of community-based tourism,
the population should be provided with life satisfac-
tion sustainability such as material, emotional, health
and safety, and well-being.
In their paper, Edington and Edington (1986) anal-
ysed and confirmed the impact of tourism on the envi-
ronment, culture, and social and economic conditions;
tourism also relies heavily on the natural and socio-
210 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
cultural environment. Gratton and Van der Straaten
(1994) also stated that sustainable tourism develop-
ment is only possible when environmental capacities
are not endangered.
Sustainable tourism is becoming increasingly rel-
evant for other forms of tourism, regardless of scope,
including mass tourism, which implies the fact that
the concept of sustainable tourism brings together so-
cial, cultural, economic, and political alongside envi-
ronmental issues (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller,
2017). In recent years, some critical issues in sustain-
able tourism have changed. For example, it has been
found that research and policies within sustainable
tourism are too focused on the behaviour of individ-
uals, rather than considering the broader social rela-
tionships and structures, institutional rules, and other
factors. (Nunkoo, 2017; Bramwell et al., 2017; Hall,
2013).
According to Choi and Sirakaya (2005), any form
of tourism development can be sustainable, but only if
the population is the focal point of the mentioned de-
velopment. The population attitudes are the basis for
successful sustainable tourism development. Gursoy,
Chi, and Dyer (2010) concluded that the population
aspires to have positive attitudes towards the concept
of sustainable tourism because they see tourism as a
tool for economic development.
Perceptions of population can be influenced by de-
mographic factors – age, gender, education, and years
of residence (Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-Mejia, & Porras-
Bueno, 2009), community attachment (Lee, 2013),
tourism planning, environmental sustainability (Choi
& Murray, 2010), the state of the local economy (Gur-
soy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002), and the stage of tourism
development (Lundberg, 2015; Hunt & Stronza, 2014).
Populations with positive perceptions will become
major stakeholders in tourism planning and manage-
ment (Lee & Hsieh, 2016).
Methodology
The empirical research results, as the most important
part, will be processed by descriptive statistical meth-
ods, as well as appropriate tests to compare variables
within each dimension. These statistical methods will
be particularly useful in the presentation of survey re-
sults, for which the demographic impact on individ-
ual decisions, perceptions and preferences will be pro-
cessed. The questionnaire, as the main segment of this
research, consists of:
• demographic data of respondents (gender, age,
education, employment);
• an open question of the eight instruments of sus-
tainable tourism development that could best be
applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A Likert scale for measuring the value of attitudes
with five responses provided, which are coded in num-
bers from one to five will be used to evaluate the atti-
tudes of the respondents. The questionnaire will con-
sist of open and closed questions, meaning statements
with offered responses (or without intensity-yes/no
answers) and statements without an offered response.
The questionnaire will be implemented in written and
electronic form in two ways: individual and by post
(or e-mail). The survey aims to analyse and imple-
ment the concept of sustainable tourism development
in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The population (basic set) in this survey are res-
idents of Bosnia and Herzegovina who, according to
the available official data of the Agency for Statistics
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, number 3,531,159 (data for
2013). The sample will be probabilistic andwill be cho-
sen by a simple random method, assuming a normal
pattern of the sample and population (the sample is
n > 30, and the probability of each unit’s choice is
the same). Of course, such a choice will include all
demographic categories of respondents who differ by
gender, age, education, income. A sample that has at-
tributes of impartiality, representativeness and econ-
omy is calculated according to the formula for calcu-
lating the minimum sample size:
n =
Z2p(1 − p)
c2
=
1.962 · 0.5 · (1 − 0.5)
0.052
=
0.9604
0.0025
= 384.16.
For the 95 level of reliability Z = 1.96, reliability
interval (c) ± 5, population estimation in b&h of
3,531,159, response rate of (p) 50. This led to a sample
of 385 respondents. The sample rate (step) isR =N/n =
2227970/385 = 5786.93. The rate of choice or coverage
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 211
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
Table 1 Statistical Analysis of Sustainable Tourism Instruments that Could be Applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Instruments () () ()
() Education of citizens about the importance of sustainable tourism . . .
() Reduction of environmental pollution . . .
() Maintaining natural and cultural heritage . . .
() Improving tourism management . . .
() Establish an integrated natural resource management system . . .
() Enable the public-private partnership model . . .
() Ensure active participation of all stakeholders, especially local communities,
in the creation of tourism products
. . .
() Complete integration of the term sustainable tourism into strategic planning . . .
Average . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) mean, (2) standard deviation, (3) coefficient of variation.
Table 2 Comparison of Respondents by Gender
Item () () () () () () () ()
Mean Rank Male . . . . . . . .
Female . . . . . . . .
Mann-Whitney U test . . . . . . . .
Wilcoxon W . . . . . . . .
Z –. –. –. –. –. –. –. –.
Asymp. significance (-tailed) . . . . . . . .
Notes For column headings see instruments in Table 1.
of the sample by the population is f = n/N = 0.00017
< 0.05 (n > 30).
Since a large amount of data on indicators rele-
vant to sustainable tourism has been collected and
analysed, a statistical method from general scientific
methods will be used. The technique to be used in
this research will be primarily cabinet or ‘desk’ re-
search. An insight into the available literature in the
field of research subjects (books, articles in scientific
journals, collections from scientific conferences, elec-
tronic sources, etc.) will be done. The collected data
were analysed using spss software. Data analysis us-
ing this software will consist of descriptive statistical
methods (arithmetic mean, frequencies, standard de-
viation, correlation coefficient), as well as appropriate
inferential statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney’s U test
and Kruskal-Wallis H test).
Research Results
The method of descriptive statistics was used to cover
the generalities of respondents such as gender, age and
education. A total of 385 peoplewere tested. In the total
sample, there were many females, but this is not sig-
nificant for the purpose of the research. Of the total
number of female respondents, there were 221 (57.4)
female and 164 males (42.6).
Regarding age structure, the highest percentage of
respondents is from 18 to 30 years old (61), followed
by subjects aged 31 to 40 (24.20), 41 to 51 years (9.4)
and respondents over 51 years (5+.5). The survey in-
cluded 191 persons with high school diploma, then 163
with bachelor’s degrees, 30 master’s degrees, and one
doctor of science.
In the opinion of the population, the highest rat-
ing received an instrument that refers to the mainte-
212 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
Table 3 Comparison of Respondents by Age
Item () () () () () () () ()
Mean Rank – . . . . . . . .
– . . . . . . . .
– . . . . . . . .
+ . . . . . . . .
Chi-Square . . . . . . . .
Degrees of freedom        
Asymp. significance . . . . . . . .
Notes For column headings see instruments in Table 1.
Table 4 Comparison of Respondents by Education
Item () () () () () () () ()
Mean Rank High Sch. . . . . . . . .
bch . . . . . . . .
msc . . . . . . . .
phd . . . . . . . .
Chi-Square . . . . . . . .
Degrees of freedom        
Asymp. significance . . . . . . . .
Notes For column headings see instruments in Table 1.
nance of natural and cultural heritage (4.09), followed
by the instrument of inclusion of all stakeholders in
the creation of tourism products (4.06). There are two
instrumentswith ratings above 4: the reduction of pol-
lution and the improvement of tourism management.
The average deviation from the average rating is 0.966.
The dispersion of the opinion of the respondents about
the instruments is moderate (coefficients of variation
amount to between 21 and 28). Non-parametric
tests (Mann-Whitney’s U test and Kruskal-Wallis H
test) will be used to determine whether there are sta-
tistically significant differences between demographic
groups, in the direction of instruments of sustainable
tourism development can be applied in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
Based on the test results shown in Table 2, conclu-
sions about the attitudes of men and women towards
the instruments of sustainable tourism development
can be drawn:
• there is no statistically significant difference in at-
titudes between men and women, except on the
second instrument about reducing pollution of
the environment, where the difference is statisti-
cally significant p = 0.047 < 0.05;
• as shown in the average of the ranking of instru-
ments, six of the eight instruments women, un-
like men, considers more important.
Based on the results shown in Table 3, it can be con-
cluded that:
• there is no statistically significant difference be-
tween respondents in relation to their age be-
cause all values are p > 0.05;
• respondents aged 31–40 years, unlike the other
age groups, consider certain instruments of sus-
tainable tourism development more important
than the other age groups do;
• respondents aged 41–50 years, unlike the others,
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 213
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
consider the reduction of pollution more impor-
tant, while respondents above 50 years old con-
sider the participation of all stakeholders in creat-
ing a sustainable tourism product to be the most
important.
Based on the results shown inTable 4, it can be con-
cluded that:
• there is no statistically significant difference be-
tween respondents in relation to their educa-
tion, except on the sixth instrument (enabling
the public-private partnership model) for which
p = 0.007 < 0.05;
• respondentswith a university degree, unlike those
who are categorised in the other education groups,
give greater importance to certain instruments of
sustainable tourism development;
• respondents with a master’s degree, unlike the
others, consider reducing pollution of the envi-
ronment, maintaining natural and cultural her-
itage, and improving tourism management to be
more important.
Conclusion
It is necessary to emphasise that this work is not com-
prehensive. Despite the contribution of this paper,
which mainly refers to extending the knowledge of
sustainable tourism development and makes a sig-
nificant contribution to relevant literature, it has sev-
eral limitations that need to be considered for future
research on the assessment of tourism sustainabil-
ity. The population perceptions were measured based
on three dimensions (economic, socio-cultural, and
environmental). To overcome this shortcoming, it is
necessary to include some additional dimensions and
their respective indicators such as technological sus-
tainability, infrastructural sustainability, information,
communication technology, and stakeholder collabo-
ration. In this paper, the emphasis was placed on per-
ceptions of local residents using a survey conducted
during one year. Consequently, future research should
have a long-term qualitative approach (in-depth in-
terviews, focus groups, participative observations and
ethnography). Also, this study was conducted when
b&h was in a politically instable time and, thus, the
perception of respondents might be negatively af-
fected.
Based on the obtained results of this empirical re-
search, the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina
has shown positive perceptions towards sustainable
tourism development. All instruments of sustainable
tourism development were rated with a high rating.
That means that the respondents do not have an un-
decided attitude about their application. A priority is
given to the maintenance of natural and cultural re-
sources, as the main impetus for the implementation
of sustainable tourism. Also, it can be concluded that
all the population groups possess certain knowledge
about sustainable development and the ways it can be
applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In the future development of sustainable tourism
in b&h, it is necessary to actively implement all prin-
ciples of sustainable development in the ecological
(preservation and protection of natural resources),
the socio-cultural (protection of cultural and histor-
ical material and intangible heritage), and the eco-
nomic principles of sustainable development. The eco-
nomic principles of sustainable tourism development
in b&h are easier to accomplish in big cities (Sarajevo,
Banja Luka, Mostar), where there is a broad range of
tourism services and facilities, and attractiveness is
based largely on cultural and historical heritage.
It is vital that the future conceptualisation of sus-
tainable tourism issues involves local communities
and the public sector. If the public sector does not
implement training activities and a sustainable devel-
opment policy, it is difficult to expect the interest and
active role of other stakeholders in the realisation of
sustainable development. If the population does not
recognise the benefits that a sustainable development
policy will bring, the public sector and its policy will
not have the support of the population.
b&h chronically faces the problem of a lack of
quality tourism development strategies. Perhaps the
biggest problem that b&h faces in terms of develop-
ing development strategies is the lack of understand-
ing of the importance of long-term planning. Specifi-
cally, long-term planning implies a period of over ten
years and is still rarely used in development strategies
in b&h. The lack of a long-termvision of development
214 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
can prevent the implementation of the same. We em-
phasise that the sustainable development of tourism
relies on a long-term perspective, and therefore re-
quires a strategy that covers a period of more than
ten years. Consequently, we can conclude that in b&h
exist a problem of implementing the principles of sus-
tainable tourism, both at the level of state administra-
tion and the level of local self-government.
The positive attitude of the population towards
tourism development has key importance for the sus-
tainability of tourism in this area. To guarantee the
complete success of tourism development and its sus-
tainability, it is necessary to invest in natural and cul-
tural heritage, to ensure the active participation of all
participants in the creation of tourism product and
to continuously work on the education of human re-
sources in tourism. Accordingly, the authorities re-
sponsible for the development of tourism and its plan-
ners should further devote themselves to the develop-
ment of strategies and action plans for the implemen-
tation of instruments for sustainable tourism develop-
ment in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
References
Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ at-
titudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management 17(7), 481–494.
Aronsson, L. (2000).The development of sustainable tourism.
London, England: Continuum.
Asmelash, A. G., & Kumar, S. (2019). Assessing progress of
tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sus-
tainability indicators. Tourism Management, 74,, 67–83.
Ayazlar, R., & Ayazlar, G. (2016). Residents’ tourism support
behaviour: The role of sustainable tourism attitude. En-
lightening tourism: A PathMaking Journal, 6(2), 124–149.
Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G., Prat, A., Richards, G., &
Van der Straaten, J. (1998). Sustainable tourism manage-
ment. Tilburg, theNetherlands: TilburgUniversity Press.
Bramwell, B.,Higham J., Lane B., &Miller, G. (2017). Twenty-
five years of sustainable tourism and the Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism: Looking back and moving forward.
Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 1–9.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An
evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
1(1), 1–5.
Buckley, R. (2009). Ecotourism: Principles & practices. Cam-
bridge, ma: cabi Publishing.
Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state of the art
review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25.
Carta di Rimini per il turismo sostenibile. (2001). Retrieved
from http://www.sigeambiente.it/dati/carta-rimini.pdf
Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward
sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(4), 575–594.
Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’
attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of
sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 43(4), 380–394.
Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indica-
tors for managing community tourism. Tourism Man-
agement, 27(6), 1274–1289.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Roemer, J. M. (2013). Resi-
dent satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of
Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Manage-
ment Perspectives, 8, 42–48.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Shen, F. (2007). Modeling res-
ident perceptions of sustainable tourism development:
Applications in Holland and China. China Tourism Re-
search, 3(2), 219–234.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007). Resi-
dent perceptions of sustainable tourism in Chongdugou,
China. Society and Natural Resources, 20(6), 511–525.
Dupeyras, A., & MacCallum, N. (2013). Indicators for mea-
suring competitiveness in tourism: A guidance document
(oecd Tourism Papers 2013/02). Paris, France: oecd
Publishing.
Edington, J. H., & Edington, M. A. (1986). Ecology, recre-
ation and tourism. Cambridge, ma: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
European Commission. (2000). Treaty of Lisbon amending
the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establish-
ing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 De-
cember 2007. Official Journal of the European Union, c
306/1–271.
European Commission. (2006). A renewed eu tourism pol-
icy: Towards a stronger partnership for European tourism
(com(2006) 134 final). Brussels, Belgium: Commission
of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2007). Agenda for a sustainable
and competitive European tourism (com(2007) 621 fi-
nal). Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European
Communities.
Fennel, D. (2003). Ecotourism.New York, ny: Abingdon.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sus-
tainable tourism. Tourism Management, 19(3), 199–212.
Godde, P. M., Price, M. F., & Zimmermann, F. M. (2000).
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 215
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
Tourism and development in mountain regions. Oxon,
England: cabi Publishing.
Gratton, C., &Van der Straaten, J. (1994). The environmental
impact of tourism in Europe. In C. P. Cooper & A. Lock-
wood (Eds.), Progress in tourism, recreation and hospi-
tality management (Vol. 5, pp. 147–161). Chichester, Eng-
land: Wiley.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Locals’ attitudes to-
wardmass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine
Coast. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 381–394.
Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident atti-
tudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79–105.
Hall, C. M. (2013). Framing behavioural approaches to un-
derstanding and governing sustainable tourism con-
sumption: beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green
growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 1091–1109.
Hanafiah, M. H., Azman, I., Jamaluddin, M. R., & Aminud-
din, N. (2016). Responsible tourism practices and qual-
ity of life: Perspective of Langkawi Island communities.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 406–413.
Huang, W. (2011). Good practice in sustainable tourism: De-
veloping a measurement system by providing a model
assessment procedure (Unpublished Masters’s Thesis).
Lund University, Lund, Sweeden.
Hudson, S., & Miller, G. A. (2005). The responsible market-
ing of tourism: The case of Canadian Mountain Holi-
days. Tourism Management, 26(2), 133–142.
Hunt, C., & Stronza, A. (2014). Stage-based tourism models
and resident attitudes towards tourism in an emerging
destination in the developing world. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 22(2), 279–298.
Inskeep, E. L. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and
sustainable development approach. New York, ny: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Janusz, G. K., & Bajdor, P. (2013). Towards to sustainable
tourism: Framework, activities and dimensions. Proce-
dia: Economics and Finance, 6, 523–529.
Jovičić, D. Z. (2014). Key issues in the implementation of sus-
tainable tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(4), 297–
302.
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism
in a community impact the quality of life of community
residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540.
Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident
support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism
Management, 34, 37–46.
Lee, T. H., & Hsieh, H. P. (2016). Indicators of sustainable
tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s Wetland. Ecologi-
cal Indicators, 67, 779–787.
Lundberg, E. (2015). The level of tourism development and
resident attitudes: A comparative case study of coastal
destinations. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 15(3), 266–294.
Lynn, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2003). Effects of recreational
use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1–2), 77–87.
McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide
for local planners.Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Orga-
nization.
Mihalic, T. (2016). Sustainable-responsible tourism discour-
se: Towards responsustable’ tourism. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 111(b), 461–470.
Milne, S., & Ateljevic, I. (2001). Tourism, economic develop-
ment and the globallocal nexus: Theory embracing com-
plexity. Tourism Geographies, 3(4), 369–393.
Mowforth,M., &Munt, I. (2003).Tourism and sustainability:
Development and new tourism in the third world. Lon-
don, England: Routledge.
Neto, F. (2003). A new approach to sustainable tourism de-
velopment: Moving beyond environmental protection.
Natural Resources Forum, 27(3), 212–222.
Nunkoo, R. (2017). Governance and sustainable tourism:
What is the role of trust, power and social capital? Jour-
nal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), 277–
285.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. B. (1991). Blueprint
for a green economy. London, England: Earthscan Publi-
cations.
Reihanian, A., Hin, T., Kahrom, E., & Mahmood, N. (2015).
A framework for implementing sustainable tourism in
national parks of Iran: Development and use of sustain-
able tourism indicators in Boujagh national park, Iran.
Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 13(1), 41–52.
Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congru-
ence between theory andpractice.TourismManagement,
20(1), 123–132.
Stabler, J. M., & Goodall, B. (1997). Environmental aware-
ness, action and performance in the Guernsey hospital-
ity sector. TourismManagement, 18(1), 19–33.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejia, M. D. L. Á., & Porras-
Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding residents’ attitudes to-
ward the development of industrial tourism in a former
mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3),
373–387.
Vehbi, B. (2012). A model for assessing the level of tourism
impacts and sustainability of coastal cities. In M. Kasi-
moglu & H. Avdin (Eds.), Strategies for tourism industry
(pp. 99–114). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
216 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Nemanja Šarenac et al. Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Development
Wahab, S., & Pigram, J. J. (1997). Tourism, development and
growth: The challenge of sustainability. New York, ny:
Routledge.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2012). Ecotourism: Impacts, potentials
and possibilities.New York, ny: Routledge.
Wells, M. (1997). Economic perspectives on nature tourism,
conservation and development (Environmental Depart-
ment Working Paper No. 55). World Bank, Washington,
dc.
Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and
support for tourism development.Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 50, 84–97.
unwto. (1995). Charter for sustainable tourism. Lanzarote,
Spain: World Tourism Organization.
unwto. (2017). Definition of sustainable development of
tourism.Madrid, Spain: United Nations World Tourism
Organization.
This paper is published under the terms of the
Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0) License.
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 217