Rural Tourism as a Factor of Rural Revitalization and Sustainability in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Due to negative natural changes in the population and intense emigration over the past three decades, from the end of the 20th century, the Republic of Serbia (RS) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) have faced a demographic decline of villages. Even villages closer to larger cities struggle with natural population decrease. Agriculture has an increasingly smaller impact on rural sustainability. Rural tourism is one of the activities that can save villages. The aim of this study is to, using a comparative analysis of the attitudes of the citizens of the two aforementioned countries, determine their familiarity with rural tourism and available development support funds, their interest in engaging in rural tourism as an additional or primary activity, and their satisfaction with the involvement of the local community in providing education for rural tourism. To obtain a response, we carried out interviews with 12 respondents from RS and 12 from BiH. The research instrument was the semi-structured in-depth interview. The respondents from BiH are more determined and more engaged in rural tourism than in RS. They are aware of how important rural tourism is for villages, since that is their only option for recovery and sustainability. The respondents from both countries agree that they need the support of the local administration to develop rural tourism. This kind of tourism also requires the demographic improvement of villages, since, without human resources, it is more difficult for the majority of the older population to engage more intensely in rural tourism.

1. Introduction

With 85% of its territory meeting the OECD criteria for rural areas [1], Serbia is facing pronounced demographic challenges, including a significant loss of its rural population, especially in Vojvodina, where, since 1948, a decrease of 32.5% has been noted [2]. In that context, rural tourism has been identified as a strategic mechanism of economic diversification and a potential instrument for mitigating negative demographic trends [3,4,5]. This selective form of tourism integrates natural, cultural, and traditional values, offering an authentic experience of spending time in nature and a connection with agriculture [6,7]. Currently, traditional villages in Serbia are characterized by unfavorable economic living conditions compared to those found in cities [8,9], while the factors that lead to a decline in the rural population are linked to growing differences in the standard of living between centralized regions [10,11]. This dynamic is the result of more intense urbanization processes, due to which the rural population today makes up 38.2% of the total population of Vojvodina. At the same time, the average number of household members has decreased from 4.39 in 1948 to 2.47 in 2022, wherein single-member households are dominant [12]. On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the countries of Europe with an exceptionally high percentage of its rural population (approximately 60%) [13]. There is also a somewhat greater number of members per household, 3.05 [14].

Even though villages possess exceptional potential in the form of authentic gastronomic specialties [15,16], traditional crafts, and ecologically preserved areas [17], their exploitation remains fragmented due to a lack of systemic policies [18,19,20] and low levels of cooperation between the private sector and the local authorities. The number of tourists in Vojvodina in 2023 made up 17% (707,599) of all the tourists who visited Serbia (4,192,797). In Vojvodina, the domestic tourists average 2.8 overnight stays, while foreign tourists average 2.7 overnight stays [21]. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, tourists average 2.1 overnight stays, which is the average for both domestic and foreign tourists [22]. At the same time, rural tourism, responding to the global trend towards sustainability, also includes the principles of slow tourism [23], which incorporates longer stays, the use of local resources, and experiential engagement at the destination. According to existing research [24,25], during the last decade, a new increase has been noted in the interest for sustainable rural tourism on a global level [26], in particular, in the European and Asian regions. However, based on the survey of the World Tourism Organization [27], 68% of global tourists express a preference for authentic rural experiences, which points to the untapped economic potential of the Serbian countryside. However, most studies are focused on the perceptions of tourists and the quality of the services on offer [28,29], while the stimulations and obstacles from the point of view of farmers [30,31,32] as future tourist actors have been relatively neglected. This gap in the research leads to the need for a deeper understanding of the motivation, resources, and challenges that local agricultural producers face when taking part in tourism activities. In that context, this paper focuses on the analysis of the conditions under which agricultural workers consider or carry out tourism activities simultaneously with their basic agrarian activities.

This study analyzes the potential for the development of rural tourism as part of agricultural households, analyzing their resources, perceptions, and the impact of tourism on the socio-economic development of villages in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This paper consists of five sections. Following the Introduction, Section 2 provides an overview of the literature on the development of rural tourism in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the existing research on that topic, including theoretical and practical aspects. Section 3 outlines the methodological basis of this study. Section 4 presents the key results, with a particular focus on the opinions of agricultural producers on the diversification of activities and the challenges of rural tourism. Section 5 contextualizes the results through a discussion of the potential and limitations of rural tourism in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This paper ends with a synthesis of the conclusions and recommendations for the improvement of the policies regulating rural tourism.

The aim of this study is to, using a comparative analysis of the attitudes of the citizens of the two aforementioned countries, determine their familiarity with rural tourism and available development support funds, their interest in engaging in rural tourism as an additional or primary activity, and their satisfaction with the involvement of the local community in providing education for rural tourism.

This study contributes to the academic debate by analyzing the relationship between tourism and agricultural production, offering practical recommendations for the improvement of local strategies. Its social relevance lies in the support for the revival of rural economies and the preservation of cultural heritage in the context of global challenges. The contribution of this study is practical, realized through the recommendations for the development of rural tourism, and theoretical, as a contribution to the existing literature on the role of rural communities in sustainable tourism.

2. Literature Review

Tourism in the villages of Serbia began to develop as an organized activity in the 1970s. Initially, this type of tourism was only engaged in by individual households. In order to further develop rural tourism, tourist associations and municipal tourist associations began to be established, mainly in hilly and mountainous villages in Serbia. Later, rural tourism acquired a more mass character when households began to receive support from tourist organizations and other government authorities [33]. According to the Program for the Development of Sustainable Rural Tourism in the Republic of Serbia (2011), the first significant results in the development of rural tourism were recorded in the first decade of the 21st century, in the areas of Vojvodina, Central Serbia, and Western Serbia. There are several planning documents that establish a selective approach, with rural tourism listed as one of the priority products of the Republic of Serbia [34,35,36].

The rural area in the Republic of Serbia is characterized by a large number of natural resources, namely, agricultural land, forests, and water, with preserved ecosystems and biodiversity. In addition, one of the advantages of these areas is the wealth of cultural resources, as well as the preserved folk traditions of the people living in rural areas [37]. In addition to natural and cultural resources, human resources also constitute the most important elements of the rural base of the Republic of Serbia [38,39]. The rural areas of Serbia differ from each other in economic, social, and demographic characteristics. These differences arise from geomorphological characteristics (mountainous, hilly, and lowland areas), population structure, the level of economic development, the quality of infrastructure, transport connections, and environmental conditions. Therefore, it can be said that rural development is based on various socio-economic activities that are defined by rural policy and adapted to the needs of these areas. The goal of these activities is to improve the living conditions and economic sustainability of the rural areas through investments in agriculture, construction, and renovation of infrastructure, education of the population, the preservation of cultural heritage, protection of the natural environment, and the development of rural tourism [38,40].

Serbia’s agricultural policy reforms are being implemented in line with the European integration process, with the greatest progress being made through the establishment of institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development (IPARD). The implementation of the IPARD II program in the Republic of Serbia began at the end of 2017. By mid-June 2022, 566 investments had been implemented, with a total public support of EUR 36.1 million, of which the European Union contributed EUR 27.1 million. The third public call for applications for project approval under the IPARD III investment incentive program was opened in December 2024 [41].

Given that the rural development policy is implemented at the level of local communities, one of the key reasons for the under-utilization of IPARD funds is the lack of capacity of local governments, both in terms of infrastructure and human resources. Since agricultural and rural development require a multi-sectoral approach, some of the common challenges for candidate countries in the process of using IPARD funds are administrative obstacles and insufficient coordination of the Ministry of Agriculture with other line ministries [42].

The heritage of traditional rural areas in Serbia provides a solid basis for the dynamic development of rural tourism, as these areas have preserved their authentic landscape, architecture, traditional crafts, services, and rich gastronomic offers, with significant cultural and historical diversity. However, without a clear strategy and adequate support for this segment of rural development, the development of rural tourism faces numerous challenges. Key obstacles include the lack of quality road and tourist infrastructure (restaurants, accommodation facilities), limited financial support for the restoration of historical sites, weak coordination of development plans and activities, as well as insufficient promotion of the tourist potential of rural areas. However, the most pronounced problem that rural communities in our society face today is depopulation, which hinders the sustainability and development of the rural economy [43]. This process is particularly reflected in the fact that young people mostly leave villages and agriculture. Given that the majority of the population in our villages is tied to agriculture, depopulation is manifested through the aging of the population, the devastation of agriculture and all rural areas that are located far from main traffic routes, larger cities, and municipal centers, and place that do not have industrial plants, communal services, social infrastructure, or development perspectives [44]. Rural areas also face numerous economic problems, which means that the number of farmers is decreasing, the number of elderly households is increasing, and, thanks to industrial growth, the amount of agricultural land is being reduced [45]. In addition, rural areas often lack essential services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, water, and sanitation while facing increasing pollution and resource depletion [46]. Researchers highlight the need for a systemic transformation to enhance productivity, sustainability, climate resilience, and the attractiveness of rural areas for residents and tourism [43,47,48]. Tourism-driven rural revitalization is crucial for achieving these long-term objectives.

Rural tourism plays a crucial role in revitalizing declining or inactive areas. Its development can reduce youth migration by improving living conditions and infrastructure. With better opportunities and an enhanced quality of life, young people are more likely to remain in their family homes, as rural living standards increasingly meet modern expectations [49]. For sustainable rural revitalization, it is essential to address the diverse needs of the community. The most effective approach is active community involvement or community-led initiatives. A strong partnership between local residents and external developers fosters ongoing collaboration, ensuring sustainable tourism development [50]. Also, local communities should actively engage in tourism and equitably benefit from its economic, social, and cultural impacts, particularly through job creation. Local communities should be actively involved in sustainable tourism projects by motivating them to participate, because their involvement is key to the long-term sustainability of tourism initiatives. However, local self-governments in Serbia are still not sufficiently developed in terms of personnel, technological resources, and organization to effectively deal with rural development. In most local governments, there are offices for assistance to the countryside and agriculture, and a certain part of the budget is directed to the development of these areas. However, most local governments do not have developed plans for the development of agriculture, rural areas, or tourism, including specific programs for rural tourism [51].

Cvijanović et al. [52] state that a crucial aspect of rural tourism, particularly in economically underdeveloped regions, is tourism within agricultural households. This can include providing accommodations—ranging from renting out vacant rooms in family homes to investing in the renovation and modernization of dedicated facilities—developing camping sites, opening restaurants, and selling agricultural products. Some households have reduced their agricultural activities because tourism provides greater financial benefits, leaving agriculture at a symbolic level [53].

It is important to point out that the approach to rural revitalization varies based on the type of rural community. In agricultural villages, economic growth can be stimulated by enhancing the distribution channels for agricultural goods and expanding the processing of related products. In industrial villages, shifting from farming to industrial labor helps improve employment opportunities and economic stability. In tourist villages, residents often engage in service-related occupations, playing a key role in supporting the local tourism economy [54,55].

Tourism is increasingly influenced by external environmental factors and the rising need to preserve its natural foundation. The Sustainable Rural Tourism Development Program of Serbia is fully aligned with the Law on Tourism of the Republic of Serbia, and its main goal is to contribute to the overall development of tourism in the country, with special emphasis on the enormous potential of the Serbian countryside. Rural tourism has the ability to stimulate the wider economy of Serbia by creating numerous business initiatives through linking agriculture and tourism. This type of tourism includes not only visible elements, such as natural landscapes, architecture, special folk architecture, and gastronomy but also intangible values, such as hospitality, customs, communication methods, beliefs, and legends of the local population. The distinctiveness of rural tourism is reflected in the authentic experience of the village and direct contact with the locals, which enables tourists to get to know the unique way of life of a certain community [38]. Serbia also has a wealth of natural, cultural, historical, and other resources, which represent a significant potential for the development of rural tourism. However, these resources are not sufficiently utilized, nor is there an adequate infrastructure to support them, which has been confirmed through key international projects dealing with the development of this form of tourism [56].

Previous research on the impact of tourism on rural areas has most often been considered through three domains: economy, society, and the environment [57]. In this regard, some studies investigated the quality of life of residents [58], the attitudes of residents regarding the impact of tourism, as well as their willingness to engage in this activity [59]. In a study conducted by Dai et al. [57], it was shown that the local population is marginalized in the development of rural tourism due to a lack of knowledge and power. They state that, in remote and less developed rural areas, the government plays a leading role in the development of rural tourism, which means that it scientifically directs the planning, construction, and sustainable development of rural tourism. In the case of Serbia, Cvijanović et al. [52] confirmed that the local rural population in Serbia generally has a positive attitude towards the impact of tourism on rural development. The authors also emphasize the importance of the role of local residents who are key to providing high-quality services, while revitalizing rural areas can enhance the governance structures in these regions. This implies one of the key objectives of this study, to analyze the perspectives of rural residents towards rural tourism, assess their interest in participating in tourism-related activities, and evaluate the impact of this economic sector on the development of their rural areas.

The revitalization of rural areas through tourism and the sustainable development of tourism in one country represent a complex and continuous process based on a comparative analysis of the experiences of other countries, the application of preventive and corrective measures, the adoption of innovations and similar approaches, with the aim of achieving a higher level of tourist satisfaction and their return to tourist destinations in rural areas. Also, it is essential to study the existing experiences of other countries, that is, to analyze rural tourism in countries that offer similar services and tourist products in rural areas.

Rural tourism represents a significant potential for the economic and social development of rural areas in neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, which recognize the development of rural tourism as a key strategy for the revitalization of their rural areas. The revitalization of rural areas represents one of the strategic directions that goes beyond the scope of sector policy and represents an integral and spatial approach to development based on the potential of the rural area of the Republic of Srpska in terms of the territorial capital that constitutes the rural area, such as natural potentials and resources, human and social potential, as well as cultural and historical heritage. Unfortunately, due to the lack of appropriate rural policy measures, for a long period, rural capital has been damaged, and its potential reduced. With the aim of stopping negative trends and activating the unused resources of the rural area, in the Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Areas of the Republic of Srpska (2021–2027, p. 74) [36], it is clearly emphasized that the revitalization of rural areas is necessary.

As stated by Krajnović et al. [60], one of the key problems in the development of rural tourism in this country is the weak economic strength of households that would like to deal with agriculture and tourism in parallel. Other problems, which also occur, include insufficient financial incentives, the failure to recognize the importance of rural tourism for the entire tourist offer of the destination, a lack of expertise in small family businesses, inadequate laws that deal with rural tourism issues, as well as the very poor marketing activity of rural households or even its complete absence.

For the Republic of Srpska, it is extremely important to stop the demographic changes in rural areas in order to ensure rural revitalization through rural tourism. Population migration from rural to urban areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska has a long tradition. In addition, there are also non-economic factors that encourage migration from villages to cities. Life in the countryside is traditionally considered difficult, and many parents support their children’s migration to the city for education and do not expect them to return to the countryside after completing secondary or higher education [61]. Experiences of individual countries from regions that have become members of the European Union confirm that the older population, especially those with a lower level of education, is less likely to accept innovations. In addition, this population group often expresses distrust of institutions and is generally unwilling to comply with the requirements of complex administrative procedures, such as those that are an integral part of the IPARD program [42].

In addition to essential and specific demographic problems, the key barriers to the development of rural tourism in the Republic of Srpska are reflected in the infrastructural underdevelopment and the insufficient training of people who could engage in rural tourism. In Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, the poor quality of road infrastructure is noticeable, as well as the lack of tourist signs in rural areas [62]. As stated by Činjarević et al. [63], in order to provide the necessary conditions for the development of rural tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, it is necessary for the authorities to strategically plan investments in the infrastructure of rural areas. Also, since the marketing strategies of small tourism businesses and households that offer accommodation facilities in rural areas are not proactive, it is necessary for local authorities and tourism organizations to implement training programs for entrepreneurs in the rural tourism sector [63].

What is common to both countries is the natural beauty of their rural areas, which is still visible in many areas, original and undamaged by the negative impact of development. It represents an extremely valuable potential, which, together with traces of historical and cultural heritage, can be valued as a new economic and social element of development. Although the experiences in this area differ to a certain extent, the basic aims of the development of rural tourism are not focused only on strengthening agricultural production in rural family households but also on the preservation of natural and social values in rural environments, their sustainability, and their placement as products of rural tourism. Then, the following goals can be worked toward: indirect employment of the local and surrounding population, the continuous increase in the number of tourist services and income, reducing the depopulation of rural areas, and encouraging the return of the population from the cities to the villages. These goals can only be achieved if rural tourism becomes a profitable activity that provides a stable income to tourism service providers, thereby gaining the status of a strategic interest of the state.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Research Area

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the opinions of citizens regarding rural tourism and its importance for the revitalization and development of rural areas. This study was carried out in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Republic of Serbia, it included the villages of Berkasovo, Erdevik, Ljukovo, Stari Slankamen, Novi Slankamen, Morović, Rakovac, and Ledinci (Figure 1). These settlements in Serbia encompass different rural communities in Vojvodina located in the vicinity of urban centers.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this study included the following settlements: Mokro, Saice, Podgrab, Koran, Gornja and Donja Ljubogošta, Kasidoli, and Klanac. These settlements are found in the eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Republic of Srpska (Figure 1), and are areas closer to the urban centers of East Sarajevo, Trnovo, and Pale. These rural settlements show greater diversity in terms of proximity to urban centers and the type of terrain.

The studied areas in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in a physical-geographical sense, are characterized by significant differences. The area where the rural population of Bosnia and Herzegovina was surveyed encompasses the surroundings of East Sarajevo, Trnovo, and Pale, that is, the central part of the country. It is a mountainous area—located mostly on the slopes of Romanija and Jahorina. The part of this study carried out in the Republic of Serbia included villages that are located on the slopes of the low mountain of Fruška Gora, as well as villages located at the foot of the mountain. They are located in the vicinity of the cities of Novi Sad, Šid, and Inđija. Of these three Serbian municipalities, the municipality of Šid is located on the border with the Republic of Croatia, so that half of the settlement where the rural population of Serbia was interviewed belongs to a municipality with a border character. Border areas on the territory of the Republic of Serbia experience pronounced depopulation, more so than other regions in the country [64,65,66]. The physical-geographic environment certainly has an impact on the rural population itself, which is actively involved in agricultural production, and on their decision-making process, in terms of whether they will be expanding their production but also whether they will be interested in becoming involved in rural tourism, where a considerable role is played by the features of the space itself, as well as existing social values, which, when taken together, can have an additional impact on attracting tourists.

In the Republic of Serbia, the villages included in the survey are located on the north, east, and west slopes of Fruška Gora. Since the border between the mountain Fruška Gora and the loess plateau (lower geomorphological areas) is located at an elevation of approximately 100 m, most settlements are found on the slopes of the mountain. One settlement, Morović (79 m in elevation), is located at the foothills of the mountain, in the lowlands. The settlements with the highest elevation are Ledinci (184 m in elevation) and Rakovac (177 m in elevation), located on the north slope of the mountain. The remaining settlements are located between an elevation of 100 and 150 m. On the other hand, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the studied settlements are located at a much higher elevation. Mokro is located at an elevation of approximately 1000 m, while Saice, Koran, and Podgrab are at an elevation of approximately 900 m. The position of the settlements themselves has an impact on their functions, the activity that is dominant in their surroundings, but also on which branch of agriculture will be predominant. This study includes various rural settlements in the two countries, which enables a comparison of opinions in the context of various socio-economic conditions.

3.2. The Method

As part of a qualitative approach, the semi-structured interview was selected, enabling a deep understanding of the experiences and opinions of the respondents and providing an understanding of the similarities and differences between the opinions recorded in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This study includes demographic characteristics, previous experiences in tourism, the potential for its development, and institutional support. The sample consists of 12 farmers in the region of Fruška Gora (the municipalities of Inđija and Šid, and the City of Novi Sad) in the Republic of Serbia and 12 from the mountainous areas of Jahorina and Romanija (East Sarajevo, Trnovo, and Pale) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, selected by random sampling. This study used an approach known as convenience sampling, which is a sampling method in qualitative research that meets the criteria of easy accessibility [67]. In both cases, in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the starting point was personal acquaintances. Then, the interviewees were asked to refer to other households that met the requirements of this study. The study sample can also be considered within snowball sampling [68].

The research questions imposed the choice of a predominantly qualitative analysis. That was why this study required that interviews be carried out. The data were collected by means of a semi-structured interview. It is also known as the in-depth or flexible interview [69,70]. In order to implement this method, the researchers developed a semi-structured form that provided guidelines for the interviews, adapted to the aims of this study. Initially, a draft of the form was prepared, which was then followed up by a preliminary interview with two inhabitants from the Serbian countryside. Insights from this preliminary interview, combined with the relevant literature, provided additional information for the development of an improved form for the interview.

The draft of the interview was then reviewed by academic professionals with experience in phenomenological qualitative studies or qualitative research in general. Based on the feedback received from three university professionals, the form for the interview was revised and finalized. A pilot study was carried out, with the revised design, which included two respondents from rural areas involved in agricultural production. During this process, two questions that were determined to be superfluous, as the respondents provided similar answers to both of them, were excluded in order for the form to be precise.

3.2.1. A Description of the Sample

The empirical basis of this study was an interview process, which included 12 respondents each from the Republic of Serbia and of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or 24 in total. The structure of the respondents is shown in

Table 1. The structure of the respondents in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Characteristics	Structures	The Republic of Serbia	Bosnia and Herzegovina
	Total	12	12
Gender	Male	4	9
	Female	8	3
Age group	18–20	/	/
	21–30	1	2
	31–40	2	2
	41–50	5	2
	51–60	2	2
	61+	2	4
Occupation	Student	1	1
	Employed	5	6
	Pensioner	2	3
	Unemployed	4	2
Level of education	High school	7	7
	Community college	1	1
	University	3	4
	Master’s degree	1	/
	Doctoral degree	/	/

.

Among the respondents who took part in the interview process, women were more predominant in Serbia, while men were more predominant in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The gender structure of the respondents from Serbia included 33% men (4) and 67% women (8), while, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that ratio was 75% men (9) and 25% women (3).

When it comes to the age structure, in Serbia, the respondents mostly belonged to the middle-aged population group, while, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, older respondents were predominant. Based on the age structure of the respondents from Serbia, most belonged to the 41–50 age group (5 individuals), while the fewest were from the 18–20 and 21–30 age groups. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, most of the respondents were older than 61 (4 individuals), while the younger age groups (18–30 years of age) had the fewest representatives.

In terms of profession, most of the respondents from Serbia were employed (42%), while the unemployed and pensioners were almost equally prevalent. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, most of the respondents were employed (50%), followed by pensioners (25%), while the least prevalent group was the unemployed and students.

A high-school education is dominant in both samples, but Bosnia and Herzegovina has a somewhat greater percentage of individuals with a university education. Such a state of affairs is in line with that of rural areas and indicates that this study is focused on the average population living in these areas.

3.2.2. The Interview Protocol

The interviews were carried out from July to September 2024. On average, they lasted 30 to 45 min. Participation in this study was voluntary. Twenty-four respondents who agreed to be recorded were interviewed. Prior to every interview, the respondents were informed about the aims of this study, the interview process, and the importance of the recordings, in randomly selected villages that were in the vicinity of urban settlements. Considering that certain responses tended to recur or that responses were obtained that did not differ significantly from one another, the researchers resorted to terminating the interview in the case of 12 of the respondents from the Republic of Serbia. The same situation occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the researchers agreed to terminate further interviews as they were not obtaining specific and significantly different information compared to the previous respondents. More specifically, the theory of “saturation” was applied [71,72,73,74], which refers to the moment when the responses ceased to provide “new insight”. The sessions took place face to face in a private, comfortable environment, which enabled the respondents to express themselves freely. As needed, breaks were taken to ensure the comfort of the respondents taking part in this study. The interviews were later transcribed for the purpose of writing a paper. All of the conversations were recorded and then carefully played back and converted into written text, i.e., transcribed. The researchers read the text, i.e., the transcript, several times. The texts of the responses to each question were grouped based on similarity, and, during the analysis, certain responses were set aside and included in the text of this study. There are instances where multiple responses were recorded. The respondents were grouped in alphabetical order, and each one was assigned a code. The respondents from the Republic of Serbia had codes that ranged from RS1 to RS12, and the respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina ranged from RRS1 to RRS12 (

Table 2. The socio-demographic structure of the respondents from the Republic of Serbia and from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Respondent’s Code	Gender	Age	Occupation	Level of Education	Place of Residence
The Republic of Serbia
RS1	female	65	pensioner	high school	Stari Slankamen (Inđija)
RS2	female	63	pensioner	high school	Novi Slankamen (Inđija)
RS3	female	45	unemployed	high school	Ljukovo (Inđija)
RS4	female	51–60	unemployed	high school	Berkasovo (Šid)
RS5	male	31–40	employed	university	Erdevik (Šid)
RS6	male	41–50	employed	university	Erdevik (Šid)
RS7	female	41–50	unemployed	high school	Rakovac (Novi Sad)
RS8	female	51–60	employed	high school	Ledinci (Novi Sad)
RS9	male	41–50	employed	university	Ledinci (Novi Sad)
RS10	female	21–30	student	university	Morović (Šid)
RS11	female	41–50	employed	high school	Berkasovo (Šid)
RS12	male	31–40	unemployed	high school	Berkasovo (Šid)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
RRS1	female	51–60	unemployed	high school	Mokro (Pale)
RRS2	male	51–60	pensioner	elementary school	Saice (Pale)
RRS3	male	41–50	employed	university	Podgrab (Pale)
RRS4	male	41–50	employed	high school	Koran (Pale)
RRS5	female	21–30	employed	university	Donja Ljubogošta (Pale)
RRS6	male	21–30	student	high school	Gornja Ljubogošta (Pale)
RRS7	male	61–70	pensioner	high school	Mokro (Pale)
RRS8	male	31–40	employed	university	Mokro (Pale)
RRS9	female	51–60	unemployed	high school	Kasidoli (Pale)
RRS10	male	61–70	pensioner	university	Klanac (Trnovo)
RRS11	male	61–70	employed	high school	Mokro (Pale)
RRS12	male	31–40	employed	university	Saice (Pale)

Source: Data obtained from respondents.

).

The first column in Table 2 provides the ordinal number that was used during the interview analysis to link the responses to the respondents. Multiple similar responses were grouped, and no codes were added to any of the respondents. Certain codes were assigned to the respondents only where the responses were specific and characteristic of the respondents themselves. For certain topics, only representative responses were provided, under which the remaining responses were subsumed due to their similarity.

3.2.3. The Structure of the Interviews

According to the guidelines of scientific methodology used to obtain qualitative data [75], the structure of the interview questions was initially tested on two respondents from the Republic of Serbia, after which changes were made to the questions, which were then used in the further data compilation. Questions were grouped based on the research questions included as part of the aims of this paper:

• The first part refers to questions regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as gender, profession, level of education, and place of residence (displayed in the description of the sample).
• The second part of the interview refers to obtaining information regarding the basic characteristics of the household: what they produce, whether they are selling their surplus produce, and how long they have been running the household.
• The third part of the interview refers to general opinions on rural tourism. These questions were meant to help us obtain the respondents’ opinions on the meaning of rural tourism, on the potential for the development of rural tourism in their village, on the advantages or shortcomings that the development of rural tourism could bring to their settlement, and any initiatives for them to become involved in the development of rural tourism.
• In the fourth part of the interview, the aim was to obtain information regarding the importance of national and international funds and subsidies for the development of rural tourism. The interviewed respondents were asked about what kind of support or which resources they needed to initiate activities related to rural tourism in their households, whether the local authorities and state had provided them with any measures of support for rural tourism, whether they were familiar with the IPARD measures of assistance, and, therefore, whether they would apply for subsidies meant for promoting rural tourism in their households.
• The fifth part of the interview refers to the mutual impact between the local community and rural tourism. The interviewed respondents were asked about how the local community views the development of rural tourism, whether there were any associations in their villages that act as a gathering force for the population and in some way contribute to the promotion, development, and sustainability of the village itself, what potential impact rural tourism could have on agricultural households in rural areas, what its effects would be on the local economy, and how rural tourism would impact social life in villages. Then, they were asked about the importance of rural tourism for rural revitalization and local development, as well as the impact of rural tourism on the local environment, natural resources, and cultural heritage. And, finally, the interviewed respondents were asked to present their vision of the future in terms of the development of rural tourism, as well as about the steps that need to be taken in order to provide its sustainable development.

4. Results

4.1. The Basic Characteristics of the Households

The respondents who took part in the interviews were agricultural producers from the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most of them produce vegetables, breed livestock, keep bees, produce fruit, are involved in fish farming, as well as other activities that could be classified as part of the tourist offer if the members of the rural population were to decide that their basic or additional activity could be rural tourism. All of the respondents were farmers, most were fruit producers as well, while some were involved in viticulture and livestock breeding. Two families keep the final products from livestock breeding in their households, so they take part in the sale of dried meat products, cheese, and milk. This provides them with greater security, since, if the yield from one branch of agriculture in a year was not satisfactory, there was a greater possibility that the yield from some other branches would be greater. In addition to agriculture, the respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina take part in other activities that might be of interest to tourists, such as iconography, the manufacture of the gusle musical instrument, etc. These are individuals who mostly work on their family farms. Some of them have revitalized the properties owned by their ancestors. Over time, they have expanded their farms with the plan of taking part in rural tourism. However, the research results indicate that the respondents who took part in this interview are not involved in rural tourism. One of the aims of this study was to determine how many of those not actually involved in rural tourism were ready to invest their time, money, energy, and ideas into motivating more of their fellow agricultural producers, into introducing them to different jobs so that they could all, as a community, benefit from it. On the other hand, this would contribute to young people staying on their farms, as well as contribute to the sustainability of the life of farms, and thus the revitalization and sustainability of the villages themselves.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, all the respondents were interested in and were thinking about getting involved in rural tourism on their farms and the inclusion of tourists in the process of agricultural production, if they showed signs of interest. One of the respondents provided a condition for his participation and said that he would take part in rural tourism if “tax breaks” were provided (RRS1), while yet another said that he would like to “involve both his neighbors and the entire village” (RRS10). In the Republic of Serbia, the interviews with the members of the rural population provided different responses, as two-thirds of the respondents were not interested in rural tourism, while one-third was. People who did not express their interest have been involved in agricultural production for a long time and, according to them, they do not have enough time for additional activities on their farms. The respondents are of the opinion that, due to diverse agricultural products, “they are not sure that their involvement would contribute to the development of rural tourism”. Currently, they are not interested in independently initiating any activities related to rural tourism. The limiting factor is “the number of people living on the farms, if there are only two of them, it would be very difficult to take on additional tasks” (RS7). One of the respondents (RS9) “does not see his products (fruit production, the production of rakija) as the primary source of his income. But if the children would decide to take part in rural tourism, he would certainly support them in that”. On the other hand, the respondents from the Republic of Serbia see rural tourism as “an excellent addition to their work and income” (RS12). They were also thinking about organizing themselves and offering their products as part of the rural tourism offered in their area. The offer would also include “visits to and sightseeing of their households, orchards and apiaries, as well as the sampling of their products, but they would also organize workshops for making jam and rakija” (RS6). One of the female respondents was considering building apitherapy stations that would be the main product on offer in her household (RS3).

The respondents who took part in the interviews have been agricultural producers for a long time. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, six respondents (50%) have been producing for some ten years or so, and the remaining six respondents (50%) have been producing for approximately 30 years or so. There were those who have been agricultural producers for more than 40 years. Seven respondents from the Republic of Serbia have been agricultural producers for more than 30 years, one of whom has been active for approximately 40 years, and another for more than half a century. Of the remaining respondents, two have been agricultural producers for approximately ten years, and three for approximately 20 years. It is often the case that they continue the tradition of their parents, even grandparents. What keeps them in the villages is the desire to spend time in nature, maintain their family roots, the desire to have their children grow up in a healthy environment, to eat healthier food, and the like.

4.2. The General Opinions of the Respondents on Rural Tourism

The opinions of the respondents on rural tourism differ considerably, ranging from those who are fully aware of this issue to those who are not familiar with it, those who do not have a positive opinion about this kind of tourism, and those who are not optimistic that it could contribute to the improvement of the situation in their villages or to rural revitalization, both in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most of the respondents view rural tourism as a “kind of tourism which is based on an attempt to develop and improve villages and to bring them closer to people who don’t live in rural areas, for whom the ordinary, traditional way of life, the production of food, and all the goods and means needed to lives a kind of unknown (maybe they live in abroad or completely different areas, in urban environments)” (RS7). One female respondent said that rural tourism is “suitable for visitors and tourists to be introduced to the rural way of life, to see what it is like to produce various cultures, what it looks like to prepare food, taste specialties, and enjoy services related to accommodation” (RS8). None of the respondents stated that rural tourism also incorporates some other rural activities, not only what certain households are offering but also what a rural setting and its surroundings have to offer, that is, what the neighboring villages are offering as well. The results of the interviews indicate that the respondents living in Bosnia and Herzegovina are greater optimists when it comes to the rural revitalization and the survival of village life with the help of rural tourism. All their responses point to the fact that, according to them, rural tourism “is the key to the survival of villages and their development” (RRS1); “the motivator of development” (RRS7); “the instigator of a healthy society, an escape from a fast-paced life and the peace of a hedonistic spirit” (RRS6); “a return to a healthy way of life” (RRS9), “the future of rural development” (RRS10); and the like. All of the respondents, both those living in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Republic of Serbia, believe that the development of rural tourism is possible in their village and surroundings, that the potential is significant and should be taken advantage of. Some of the respondents see a problem in the insufficiently developed infrastructure, while, in other cases, it could also be an advantage, especially for those tourists who want to be as far as possible from large cities and spend time in places where nature is “wild”. They believe that rural tourism can lead to positive changes and economic development. They can recognize natural beauty in their environment and surroundings, as well as the cultural values that have the potential for the development of this kind of tourism. The respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize that the locations of their villages are favorable due to their proximity to certain natural attractions (the mountains of Jahorina and Romanija (Figure 2b), the Orlovača and Novakova caves, as well as the via ferrata Crni Medvjed, which links to the via ferrata Sokolov put and Crvene Stijene, lakes, lookout points, and the Skakavac waterfall), as well as cultural–historic values (churches, medieval tombstones, or stećci, which are protected by UNESCO). In the Republic of Serbia, the interviewed respondents also see natural values, where they first and foremost point out the NP “Fruška Gora”, lakes (Ledinačko), lookout points, and the Danube (Figure 2a) but also social values (cultural heritage and the traditions of various ethnic groups for which the areas of both Srem and all of Vojvodina as well are known in Serbia) and then the monasteries on Fruška Gora, churches, and hunting grounds (which are particularly attractive to local hunters and hunters from abroad). However, among the respondents, there were also those who view the proximity of the cities as a potential for the development of rural tourism, cities such as Sarajevo and Pale (RRS8) and Novi Sad (RS8).

According to the statements of the remaining respondents, for them, the proximities of the cities were not of great importance for the development of rural tourism, as rural tourism was primarily a choice precisely of city dwellers due to their need for rest in silence, in nature, far from the city hustle and bustle. Environments that offer natural attractions, as well as cultural wealth and rural traditions, are areas with the greatest potential for rural tourism. In the villages included in this study, in terms of their potential, of which the rural population was mostly aware, changes were noted as a consequence of the raised awareness among the general population during COVID and the return to rural life. Certain individuals have returned to the farms that their ancestors inhabited, while other farms have been bought by people living in larger city centers. Numerous respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina are aware of the changes that have taken place. It was noted that summer homes have been built and that the price of land and objects had increased, while two of the respondents believe that they were guilty of such changes because they were the first to start construction (RRS6; RRS8). What is positive is that, as of yet, new hotel complexes have not been built, even though the potential of the studied area in Bosnia and Herzegovina is considerable. Based on the responses, it would seem that the people living on the slopes of Fruška Gora have not noticed as many changes in the villages where they live. They have mostly noted that summer homes were being rented out, but they had not noted greater investment in rural tourism. Based on the provided responses, the greatest changes were noted by a respondent from the village of Stari Slankamen, who pointed out the numerous potentials that could prolong the tourists’ stay in that village and its surroundings. But he pointed out a fact that could be considered a negative factor and could deter tourists. Specifically, villages have also become places of interest for higher-ranking politicians. They have started to build summer homes and to open wineries, so this could be a separate issue based on which it would be possible to determine what the opinion of the local population is and whether they believe that people involved in politics would contribute to the development of rural tourism in Stari Slankamen or whether they would have a negative impact.

Being aware of the general good and the revitalization of an entire village by means of rural tourism is not characteristic of the respondents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since only two of them were thinking along those lines (RRS6 and RRS), while the responses of the other respondents were aimed at personal gain and improving their personal financial situation. However, in the Republic of Serbia, there are equal numbers of those who only think about their personal financial gain and those who point out that the progress of the entire community is a necessity. The latter expressed their opinions on the development of infrastructure, keeping young people and children in rural areas, and opening new job opportunities. Such trains of thought and action could lead to more long-term and stable development of rural tourism.

4.3. Subsidies and Rural Tourism

The Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina allocate funds to assist citizens in rural areas who would like to engage in rural tourism. Assistance is allocated for the construction of new facilities as part of existing service industry facilities, the expansion of objects, their reconstruction, adaptation, and for yard landscaping [76]. These funds provide financial support and encourage citizens to engage in rural tourism activities more intensely even if they do not have sufficient funding of their own and even if they engage in rural tourism to further develop it. IPARD measure 7 enables the rural population to apply for funding. European funds are available and provide support to initiate and develop rural tourism [77].

Most of the respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina (90%) indicated interest in getting involved in initiatives regarding rural tourism, while, in the Republic of Serbia, significantly fewer of them showed a willingness to become involved and begin working in this form of tourism. If one of them were, however, to decide on taking part in rural tourism, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the respondents were of the opinion that financial support would be a basic requirement. Out of all the respondents, only one was informed about the fact that the Republic of Serbia put aside funds to provide assistance for households that had made the decision to take part in rural tourism. On the other hand, when it comes to support, the respondents from the Republic of Serbia were of the opinion that infrastructure plays an important role, along with better cooperation with the local community, the workforce, as well as the security they would be given by the state (R7 and R9). As many as eight respondents from Serbia were aware that the state, via the IPARD program, provides assistance to those agricultural producers who would like their households to become involved in rural tourism, but they are disappointed that the municipality does not see rural tourism as an opportunity for the development of villages or municipalities. Almost none of the respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina knew that any measures of assistance existed. On the other hand, most of the respondents (nine of them) would apply for subsidies, if there were any, which they would invest in providing various additional services, purchasing riding horses (RRS3, RRS11), the construction of pools (RRS4), building log cabins (RRS9), or facilities for storing milk and dairy products (RRS10). The situation is somewhat different in Serbia, since five of the respondents (42%) had heard of the IPARD program of assistance for the development of rural tourism, while the others had not heard of it. This indicates a problem, both in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina—one of the poor dissemination of information, as well as poor promotion and weak activities on the part of the local authorities to raise awareness among agricultural producers regarding their options on the local level.

4.4. The Mutual Influence of the Impact of the Local Community and Rural Tourism

Local communities, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia, have mainly not made greater investments in the development of rural tourism. In most villages, these investments refer to individual cases of agricultural producers who carried out their ideas, while the local authorities rarely have a clear vision regarding what they should do to encourage the development of rural tourism as an opportunity for rural revitalization and sustainability. It is mostly associations of women that are the keepers of tradition and therefore promote villages themselves, which does lead to increased interest among the tourists, while no village, on the territory of either of the studied spaces, has taken any initiative that would include all the producers to jointly support development, nor is there any association that would focus on the development and promotion of rural tourism.

The respondents are optimists when it comes to the impact of rural tourism on agricultural producers themselves and the local economy since they all believe that this form of tourism might lead to the development of agriculture, the return of people to rural areas (RS10), an improvement in the economic position of agricultural producers (RS11), and thus to rural revitalization (RS12). Only one respondent from Serbia voiced no positive opinion and believes that “there are insufficient conditions in villages to provide full service, and thus does not see a greater impact on the local economy” (RRS10). All the respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina have a positive opinion and believe that rural tourism can only contribute to the development of villages.

Most of the respondents provided positive opinions, both those from Bosnia and Herzegovina and those from the Republic of Serbia, regarding the impact of rural tourism on social life in villages. They believe that village life could be very lively, that young people would return to their villages and that “villages would get a new energy and people would become involved in tourism in any way they can and could encourage new investments and employment” (RS4). In addition, they believe that “tourism would revitalize the social lives of villages, and that more visitors would bring new ideas, dynamics, and culturological exchanges” (RS6) and “new events and manifestations” (RS8) would “bring visitors from abroad who might be able to get to know the local tradition and customs” (RS12). A female inhabitant of the village of Ljukovo, in the municipality of Inđija, is a pessimist and does not believe that Ljukovo has the potential to develop rural tourism, so she believes that it cannot become interesting for tourists. With the exception of this female respondent from the village of Ljukovo, the respondents are unanimous that rural tourism would lead to the revitalization of settlements because it would “motivate young people to stay and encourage the development of infrastructure” (RS6) and agriculture (RS11), since these are precisely the factors that lead to the successful development of the tourist offer (RS11). They are convinced that “the development of rural tourism can contribute to the opening of new jobs, especially for the younger generation who should remain living in the countryside” (RS5), because, in almost all the villages, there are shortcomings that need to be overcome in order for more successful rural tourism activities to be achieved. Almost all the respondents cite that one of the main shortcomings is infrastructure and, first and foremost, poor roads. Furthermore, in certain villages, there are problems with sewage disposal systems, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, significant shortcomings also include “ignorance and lack of interest. In rural environments people have difficulties adapting to new things and new patterns of behavior” (RS7). “There is a lack of initiatives among the locals, which prevents the start of significant tourist projects. Villages are lacking in professionals and individuals with experience in the field of tourism, which additionally renders efforts to develop and realize tourist activities more difficult” (RS12). Another challenge is the fear “of excessive construction in villages, which would lead to villages—losing their soul”. “It is necessary to preserve what is natural in them and to ensure that it is not disrupted” (RS8). Respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina point out a considerable shortcoming, “that the government does not put any effort into protect areas where their villages are located, nor does it prioritize the development of villages, since without healthy villages there is no healthy society” (RRS1, RRS4, RRS6). One of the respondents pointed out the shortcoming of “villages being at great distances from large cities” (RS10), which is contrary to the demands of some tourists, who in fact want accommodation far from the hectic urban environment, with its, quite often, polluted air.

Rural tourism, in the settlements of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia in which the interviews were carried out, is not a massive occurrence. There is still a very small number of tourists coming in, so the respondents do not see the negative consequences on the local environment and natural resources. They point out that “if rural tourism is done in a way that prevents nature from being polluted and that the environment is not being endangered by the activities that are taking part in nature, then the development of tourism could have a good impact. People should advocate for the more rational use of resources from nature and in nature” (RS7). “The development of rural tourism to a considerable extent would not be suited to any village. Such activities should be performed in a planned fashion. That is why it is important for every local community to be involved from the start and for this activity to be well-thought out” (RS9). Almost all the respondents agree that rural tourism could have a positive impact on the local community. “Tourism contributes to the economic development without endangering natural resources, but the people are aware of the potential challenges which might emerge with the increase in tourism activities in the future” (RS11). All of the respondents are optimistic when it comes to the future of rural tourism, with the exception of some who retain a dose of reserve and doubt. Most have hope and faith that rural tourism would contribute to the survival of villages and keep the young population living there, so that, “in a dozen years or so villages will resemble those from the 1980s when there were a great many people living in them, especially young ones” (RRS3) and “they believe they will develop in a certain direction, while adhering to planned and standardized construction” (RRS4). The respondents from Serbia are of the opinion that “villages will develop more quickly and that their future is brighter than before thanks to the availability of numerous funds and the opportunities afforded by education” (RS7), and “they imagine the future of rural tourism over the following ten years or so as a period of intense development, and expect that the local community will be more involved in the tourism activity” (RS9). But there are those who are not quite convinced of the greater success of rural tourism and believe that “more interest from the local population is needed” (RS2), but they are also afraid that “it may lead to overcrowding in the villages and an increase in construction which will prevent the development of rural tourism” (RS8). Doubts are also persistent, and “they cannot estimate the future of rural tourism since the same potential existed before but there was no progress or it was very slight, and conclude that the future of rural tourism was uncertain due to unfavorable demographic indicators. The respondents do not like the fact that in the village of Stari Slankamen summer homes, land, and vineyards have been bought up by ministers and other individuals close to the powers that be, and do not think that it will contribute significantly to the development of rural tourism in their area” (RS1).

When asked what needs to be done to achieve the sustainable development of rural tourism in the settlements where the respondents live, responses differ, but all the respondents agree on several facts without which the viability of rural tourism is almost impossible. Planned construction is needed, specifically the protection of natural resources, and the purposeful and rational spending of these resources, education, and human resources, which will contribute to upcoming generations being able to enjoy the potential of every village. Individual respondents point out that it is necessary to have a clear promotional strategy to ensure rural tourism (RS4, RS6). And one of the respondents “does not see too much room for improvement when it comes to the sustainable development of rural tourism” (RS9).

5. Discussion

Great opportunities for the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska, as one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the survival of villages, especially villages in border regions, are linked to rural tourism. If agriculture, as an activity that produces food and promotes it on the market as raw material, does not encourage the survival of villages and does not lead to rural revival, it is necessary to look for other advantageous features that will link the production of raw food, ready-made food, and promote it among consumers. When promoting home-based agricultural production, the entire process of agricultural production is the one that is most worthwhile. And it is precisely rural tourism that enables agricultural producers to sell their products right where they are produced. Based on that, rural tourism has become a solution for some agriculture-related problems in rural environments [78]. But, in addition to agricultural products, agricultural producers need insight into other benefits of the local environment (natural features with culture and tradition) [79,80], which together could be offered to potential tourists.

Rural tourism combines nature, tradition, culture, and gastronomy, and it can provide a specific tourist brand [81] based on which an environment can be recognized. New bearers of rural tourism are not just agricultural producers but people with other professions as well. The respondents who took part in the interview process differ in their level of education and in age. Younger respondents, as well as those with a higher level of education, are more ready to put effort and invest funds into engaging in rural tourism, while, in terms of gender, there are no distinctions. Both women and men are equally interested.

The studied environments, which included villages on the slopes and the foothills of Fruška Gora in Serbia and the mountains of Romanija and Jahorina in Bosnia and Herzegovina, have certain differences. Elevation, the diversity of the relief, and the abundance of spring water, as well as numerous other natural characteristics of the areas, are just some of the elements on which the studied environments differ. These differences have led to contradictory opinions among the respondents themselves on their readiness to engage in rural tourism. The respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina are more determined and ready to partake in new activities than the rural population in the Republic of Serbia, and they have more varied natural content to offer than the respondents from the Republic of Serbia. The latter could take advantage of the ethno-cultural wealth which, as it seems to us, they are still not aware of, they have not yet adequately offered such a product, or the offers are very similar, and, so, the tourists and visitors have yet to see any differences, which leads to a monotonous offer.

When it comes to the problems and shortcomings regarding the start of rural tourism, the respondents are aware of them, both in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are aware of numerous problems, ranging from the lack of human resources and an insufficiently qualified workforce, to problems with infrastructure, insufficient inclusion in the local environment, promotional activities, as well as other problems. It would seem that rural tourism is also facing some of these problems in countries where it is more developed and more prevalent. The problem of an unqualified workforce can be found in Spain since, in most cases, family members are employed in the household, where not everyone may be adequately qualified [82]. In Croatia, they are also facing a considerable decrease in their younger population in rural areas [83], since these people have moved to cities or moved abroad after Croatia joined the EU. The departure of young people from villages has led us to question the workforce in rural tourism. The problem of insufficient understanding and support from the local authorities is frequent in areas where rural tourism is developing [84,85]. This is a problem faced by respondents from Bosnia and Herzegovina but also from the Republic of Serbia. They lack advisory support but also the provision of good infrastructure. Considering that most of the respondents point out the lack of good quality infrastructure, it is evident that the local authorities have no understanding of the importance of rural tourism in rural revitalization. Agricultural producers have access to subsidies for agriculture, and there are certain investments and assistance offered for rural tourism through the IPARD program, but that is not enough for the rural population to opt for rural tourism. The rural population in Bosnia and Herzegovina is more ready for this kind of tourism than in the Republic of Serbia, where even those who possess larger agricultural households rarely think about rural tourism since they lack the workforce for it.

However, even though not all the respondents are willing to engage in rural tourism, they are optimistic and think that rural tourism is something that can give villages back their importance and help agricultural producers to sustain themselves. It would stop the young people from leaving, and maybe some of them would even return to their villages and revitalize abandoned areas. But, on the other hand, there is a fear of hindering nature. There is a fear of the “invasion” of construction sites if the more intense development of rural tourism were to ensue. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this is also a concern that, due to their high mountains, it would be winter tourism along with the construction of hotels that would develop rather than rural tourism.

There is an awareness of the existence of rural tourism and its shy emergence, but not the presence of a greater number of individuals active in rural tourism, nor the arrival of a greater number of tourists. In order to guide any potential future development of rural tourism, planned work is required, as well as joint actions [86,87], mutual assistance and work on education, and the timely protection and preservation of nature, tradition, and culture for future generations.

6. Conclusions

Population outflow to urban environments or abroad and the low birth rate have created a poor demographic profile of the villages in the Republic of Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The villages are inhabited by a primarily older population, which has led to a decline in the workforce. There are villages that are located on the outskirts of cities, much like the ones included in this study, specifically the cities of Novi Sad, East Sarajevo, Inđija, Šid, and Pale, but which still encounter demographic issues, which causes a lack in the workforce. Agriculture is the main activity, but it is insufficient to maintain villages and keep the population living in them. Rural tourism is an activity that can blend multiple potentials and different activities in villages and package them as a single product, which would be offered to the tourists. With the help of rural tourism, the local population can take advantage of natural potential, cultural wealth, tradition, customs, and their agricultural product, and offer all that for sale to the tourists. However, the respondents are not sufficiently aware of their natural environment or of the social values that can be offered to the potential tourist. They mostly only see their own households and are not aware of the overall wealth of their environment. That is what they potentially need, in addition to accommodation, to launch rural tourism. Furthermore, the population needs to be trained, that is, educated, which will help them to find a way to offer what is original and authentic, different from everything global, something that is characteristic only of them. It is also necessary to package what they have in the right and authentic way and then offer it on the market. It is necessary to show them the way and means of reaching the interested tourist. It is certain that a larger number of individuals, especially respondents from the Republic of Serbia, would be interested in engaging in this kind of tourism, and that they are more familiar with their options as well as the benefits. Greater participation on the part of the local authorities, through counseling, training, and infrastructure expansion, would contribute to a sense of safety among the citizens and to joint activities that would involve entire villages, where everyone would find their place in a certain segment of rural tourism. The local authorities should make the citizens more familiar with the possibility of using local development funds, which would lead to the construction of new objects or additions to existing ones. Planned and joint activities, local administration, and the population would contribute to the revitalization but also the sustainability of villages. Without the aforementioned, there is no more intense, safe, and sustainable development of rural tourism or the revitalization of villages in the studied regions. The problems, but also advantages, were noted by the respondents who took part in the interview process, who believe that rural tourism could contribute to the sustainability of villages, but they are afraid of the consequences of the development of rural tourism on nature. The changes are evident, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. COVID-19 contributed to certain individuals returning to the households where their ancestors lived, which also led to others becoming more interested in that space. For these reasons, the population is worried that the construction of hotels will ensue, which would preclude the possibility of developing rural tourism. On the territory of the Republic of Serbia, in the villages where the interviews were carried out, there are no significant changes, only in the village of Stari Slankamen. But these changes, according to the respondents, are what the population is afraid of, since, over the past few years, the increased presence of national politicians has been noted, who are buying up land. There is fear that this could lead to tourists leaving.

The physico-geographic and socio-geographic potential of the villages where this study was carried out in the Republic of Serbia and of Bosnia and Herzegovina is considerable; however, considerable investment is also needed, both from the local community as well as the local population who would like to engage in rural tourism. But there is the impression that the local community is not interested, since no substantial investment in the development of this important activity needed for the recovery of villages and their sustainability has been noted in either one or the other country.