Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Croatia–Slovenia Cross-Border Rural Area: Attitudes of Local Residents and Visitors

Abstract

This paper explores the attitudes and involvement of tourism development in rural and remote cross-border areas in Croatia and Slovenia. These locations were selected due to their valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources. The purpose of this study was to identify how tourism can contribute to the sustainable development of these areas through the identification of positive and negative impacts based on perceptions obtained through a survey of residents and visitors. Results found that the local population positively assessed employment and quality of life as benefits generated by tourism, while identifying negative consequences such as price increases and crowds. Visitors highlighted negative aspects (environmental impact, availability of services), while recognizing the contribution of tourism to the preservation of space. The results emphasize the importance of harmonizing the interests of local communities and visitors in the planning of sustainable tourism, through continuous involvement of local stakeholders, periodic monitoring of attitudes, and preservation of natural and cultural resources as the basis of tourism development. Because tourism can change the area and culture of any destination, it is important to measure key stakeholder attitudes specific to tourism development in cross-border rural areas.

1. Introduction

Tourism is an activity that is widespread among people worldwide. While some tourist destinations are struggling with too much pressure from tourists, others have no developed tourist offers or tourist activities at all (usually rural and remote areas). Rural areas of many European countries, isolated from the usual tourist flows and away from recognizable tourist centers, are becoming increasingly more interesting to contemporary tourists. Rural areas are generally associated with a lower quality of life, lower income levels, less developed infrastructure, and usually without access to the agglomeration advantages of urban areas, and the problems increase with distance from large centers. These areas often have two problems: underdevelopment and peripherality at the same time [1]. Rural and remote tourist areas (RRA) can be described as locations that are undeveloped compared with those developed tourist destinations [2]. The direction of development of remote regions provided by tourism is treated as one of the elements of multifunctional development. This stems from the enormous potential to boost other sectors, as well as create new jobs [3,4]. Furthermore, tourism supply and demand do not recognize the territorial boundaries of States and the boundaries of counties, municipalities, and cities; therefore, they do not represent barriers but rather possible links with new and increasingly diverse tourism offers, and often these areas are located in rural and remote areas.

The regions located in the immediate vicinity of the border are usually remote and remain marginalized to a greater or lesser extent in many ways, especially economically and politically. The problem of peripheral position is a significant issue that has been taken up by the European Union. The emergence and development of cooperative relations between border regions have been supported by a series of European Commission initiatives [5]. Tourism is a possible link of cross-border cooperation, and the proximity of possible tourist centers on both sides of the border can also contribute. Tourism is an addition to the cross-border regional development planning toolkit, but it cannot be operationalized in isolation from larger politically driven institutionalization processes [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Authors [11] point out that border tourism cannot develop without the support of border communities, and an important step towards obtaining support is understanding how border residents feel and react to the impact of tourism development. According to [12], in its early stages of development, border tourism can be one of the mechanisms for launching the development of cross-border cooperation with subsequent transformation into a diversified economic hub, thanks to the effect of multiplying entrepreneurial initiatives. Entrepreneurial initiatives are necessary to create a tourist offer in RDA areas, and if tourism is viewed as a system, tourism can generate multiple benefits in all spheres of life of the indigenous population [13]. Border regions are problematic places for the development of tourism from the point of view of innovation and competitiveness, and knowledge flows are key to innovation, while borders limit them, but also open up new opportunities for knowledge mobility (transaction costs of knowledge and increasing the innovation potential of tourism in these regions) [14]. Ref. [14] emphasizes that the successful examples of collaboration between Croatia and Slovenia, in particular, provide a model that can be adapted and scaled in other European regions, where shared sustainability goals could similarly benefit from cooperative frameworks.

Modern tourists are ready for new challenges that bring fresh experiences and knowledge about the areas they visit [15], which are not usually considered developed tourist destinations. Modern tourists are researchers, discovering new areas, learning about the cultural identity of these areas, and these areas are precisely RRA. Rural border areas are destinations that are often far from developed tourist destinations with a rich and recognizable resource base, but are most often not recognized in tourist offers, and the local population of these areas is not directed towards tourist initiatives. That is, they do not see the possibility of economic development of these areas not only through the creation of a tourist offer but also of the economy in general.

Previous research points to the need for tourism development on the principles of sustainable development in RRA [8,16,17,18,19,20] in cross-border destinations with special emphasis on all pillars of sustainability, including all stakeholders relevant for the optimization of tourism development [21,22]. During the research, there is a noticeable lack of research aimed at the development of tourism in the areas of two problem situations, namely the first that the explored tourist destinations are located in rural and remote areas, and the second that these are cross-border tourist destinations [20]. Also, the research so far is focused on certain stakeholders [4,6,7,23,24,25], while this paper deals with visitors and the local population and explores their stakeholders related to the sustainable development of tourism in cross-border rural and remote areas. Most of the research so far has been focused on European cooperation projects that have created initiatives and foundations for the creation of a tourist offer, but not a concrete survey of the attitudes of stakeholders, such as the local population and visitors. Furthermore, this paper does not explore the creation of a common cross-border product of destinations separated by a border line, but contributes in the direction of defining the attitudes of stakeholders in the development of tourism in certain rural cross-border areas of the two countries.

Despite the growing literature on sustainable rural tourism, research about border rural areas remains relatively rare. In particular, empirical studies that simultaneously analyze the attitudes of residents and visitors and compare their perspectives in the context of local development, social cohesion, and resource conservation are lacking. Existing paper tends to focus on a one-way perspective, most often on the attitudes of residents, while comparative insights into the perceptions of both groups, as well as their role in shaping sustainable development policies, are rarely systematically considered. This research gap is particularly visible in the border areas of Croatia and Slovenia, which share common cultural patterns, resources, and development challenges, but at the same time are under different management and institutional frameworks. Although previous studies confirm that tourism can act as a mechanism of revitalization and driver of local development, how residents and visitors perceive the positive and negative effects of tourism in small border communities and to what extent their perceptions overlap or differ are still not sufficiently investigated. Therefore, this paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing the attitudes of residents and visitors in the rural border areas of Croatia and Slovenia. The research is based on identifying the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism that both groups perceive as crucial for sustainable development. This provides a theoretical and empirical basis for formulating hypotheses that arise from previous research and the current context of local development: (1) that residents and visitors have different perceptions of tourism impacts, especially regarding negative aspects; (2) that positive impacts of tourism have a higher degree of agreement between the groups; and (3) that differences in perceptions may be related to the level of involvement in tourism, awareness and socio-demographic characteristics.

The research area of this paper—the cross-border area of Croatia and Slovenia—is an area that is not tourist-developed and does not have a recognizable tourist offer, but there are both cultural and historical resources and natural resources connecting these areas. The emphasis on local values (such as gastronomy) and the preservation of natural resources and cultural and historical heritage is crucial in the tourism development of cross-border areas. Each stakeholder plays a key role in shaping the offer, and their cooperation enables continuous and competitive development and adaptation to modern tourist needs.

The goals of this research are to examine, on the one hand, the attitudes of the population, and on the other hand, the attitudes of the visitors of the local border RRA on the development of tourism, further identifying factors that may negatively or positively affect tourism development from the point of view of the local population and visitors. The goal is to determine the potential benefits of tourism development, as well as the attitudes of the local population, to meet the challenges.

This research contributes to the reflection and development of tourism in cross-border areas, rural and remote areas, through an analysis of the attitudes of the local population and visitors. This analysis is crucial for creating a common cross-border offer based on cultural, historical, and natural values. Only through joint integrated action by all stakeholders, especially the local population and visitors, can a competitive and recognizable tourist offer be created.

2. Tourism in Rural and Remote Border Areas

Previous research on tourism in rural and border areas indicates a growing interest in the role of tourism as a driver of local development, especially in regions that are both peripheral and demographically weakened [26]. This aligns with the increasing importance of rural areas as points of interest for tourists [27,28,29,30], as well as the fact that tourism is the preferred development option for policymakers. The literature emphasizes the importance of tourism for diversifying the local economy, strengthening cultural identity, and revitalizing communities, but also warns of a number of limitations associated with infrastructural deficiencies, depopulation, and sensitive natural and cultural resources. It is particularly emphasized that development in such areas requires the involvement of the local population, adapted management models, and the harmonization of economic benefits with the social and environmental constraints that characterize these communities. Previous research has often focused on individual stakeholders, most often local residents, while comparative analyses of the perceptions of visitors and residents in specific cross-border rural settings are almost entirely absent. This is why it is still not sufficiently clear how the positive and negative impacts of tourism are perceived on both sides of the border, how these attitudes differ, and how such differences can influence long-term planning for sustainable tourism. It is necessary to additionally emphasize that the rural border areas of Croatia and Slovenia are in the early phase of tourism development and that they have specific resources, from intangible heritage to natural values, which are often not sufficiently researched or valorized. In such a context, analyses based on the perceptions of the local community and visitors represent a key tool for understanding the carrying capacity of the space, the community’s readiness for tourism development, and the real development possibilities of the destination. Therefore, this research is necessary because it fills gaps in the existing literature and brings empirical evidence from an area that is simultaneously rural, cross-border, and underdeveloped in tourism. Comparing the attitudes of residents and visitors contributes to understanding the dynamics of tourism in such environments and provides a basis for making informed decisions that can guide the destination towards sustainable development.

The dispersion of tourist interests, as well as the increasing trends towards the need of modern guests for a kind of escape to nature and less populated areas of RRA, gives a strong perspective for positioning on the tourist market in the future. Thus, trends in the tourist demand market open up the possibility of strengthening tourism activities in RRA. Motivations include the desire for freedom, relaxation, trying different experiences in contact with the local population and untouched nature, and an interest in becoming familiar with authentic ways of life, local culture, and historical background. A study conducted in Extremadura, Spain, highlighted new motivations for tourists when choosing a rural destination, such as authenticity, personalized educational and emotional experiences, and direct contact with one’s roots [27,31,32]. In doing so, it is necessary to plan this same development very carefully, accepting the attitudes of the local population [33], since tourism in these areas should be developed with the main purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of life of the local population, while preserving valuable ecosystems of RRA.

Permanent economic and social degrowth of rural areas can be considered a crucial factor threatening the sustainability of RRA. Those processes and changes have had a negative impact on the whole rural community settlement, including economic, social, and cultural aspects of the local area. RRA has suffered from emigration, especially of younger people into cities for better opportunities, and this depopulation has eroded the vitality of rural services and rural communities. In such conditions, rural tourism is increasing the economic viability of RRA in marginalized areas, stimulating social regeneration and improving the living conditions of rural communities [34,35,36,37,38].

In the global development context, the model of sustainable development is recognized as the only realistic global plan. Habitat sustainability assessment of RRA is a critical management tool to grasp the development status of rural areas in real-time and enable dynamic adjustment of policies [30]. Tourism is seen today as a signifier of economic activity that can contribute to the development of the RDA by mobilizing local resources, while making such a development route desirable for the local population at the same time, and RRA areas are most often located in cross-border areas. Therefore, the problematic situation of the tourist region is more complicated [8]. With the aim of developing different and effective forms of activities that will integrate local people and local entrepreneurs, cross-border regionalism is important. In this process, the promotion of ethno-cultural interaction and economic development with tourism has a significant role [39]. The potential for the development of tourism in the border area cannot be predicted by any factor. It is certainly necessary to assess a set of variables, such as geographical distance from core population areas, political environment, economic conditions, means of communication, and sociocultural cohesion [21,40]. These stakeholders are in tourism. The development of tourism in cross-border regions presents special challenges, but also opportunities. The experience between Spain and Portugal shows the potential of cross-border tourism to enrich rural communities, promote cultural exchanges, and create unique, destination-based tourism development models [41]. Cross-border tourism offers many opportunities for cultural integration, shared economic growth, and sustainable development of the whole region [42] points out that tourist destinations in cross-border regions have traditionally developed within the constraints of competing national situations.

Rural tourism in rural and remote cross-border areas should be developed in accordance with the sustainable development concept, as this concept promotes controlled growth and development through the maximum preservation and rational exploitation of resources. This would provide long-term economic and social development for the region, prioritizing the benefits for the local population. Therefore, sustainable tourism development must coordinate economic, sociological, and cultural aspects with environmental protection, social and cultural identity, and the quality of life of the local community [43]. Due to common rural constraints such as the scarcity of local entrepreneurs, capital, and expertise, it is sometimes justified to seek external or exogenous capital [44].

In the development of tourism in RRA, it is necessary to acknowledge the diverse interests and attitudes of different groups, organizations, and institutions that, in a direct or indirect manner, influence tourism development on the local level. In order to implement such a concept, it is obligatory to understand their attitudes; otherwise, it is not possible to develop communication and partnership, which is an essential prerequisite for the implementation of sustainable tourism development, a concept that is particularly relevant for rural and remote areas. Community involvement includes sharing knowledge, gaining commitment from the communities, and participation in the decision-making process, and these will, in turn, achieve tourist satisfaction and sustainable rural tourism development [19,45,46]. Ref. [47] points out that understanding the interrelationship between tourism, the environment, and local communities is crucial. Stakeholders’ permanent communication and effective cooperation, however complex, is a key starting point for any long-term perspective for the development of sustainable tourism in rural areas.

Today, tourism destination development is heading towards mutually beneficial partnerships and balanced tourism development. In other words, a lot of understanding, research, and cooperative efforts will be needed in shaping and sustaining initiatives required for the tourism of a competitive tourism destination. Hence, destination management must support and mobilize local interests, focusing on the creation of a competitive destination product with the impact of many tourism-supply providers.

Tourism has various types of consequences in RRA, the main categories being economic, social, and ecological. This corresponds with the dimensions of sustainability of rural tourism development explained by [46] in exploring the importance of involving local communities in the development of rural training from the perspective of the local population. Accordingly, it is of particular importance to base decisions related to tourism development in the RRA on the views of the local population and to align them with their interests and expectations. Tourism must undoubtedly be aimed at simultaneously satisfying the needs of visitors, but also be developed on a concept that will maximize its contribution to the overall development of the local community.

Furthermore, ref. [48] states that the creation of jobs and other economic opportunities, the improvement of local livelihoods, and the preservation and promotion of cultural and natural resources are recognized, inter alia, as the most important opportunities that tourism can bring for the development of rural areas. It is especially important when developing rural tourism to preserve the traditional economic activities that have taken place in rural areas. The significance is multiple. First of all, these traditional economic activities contribute to the authenticity of the rural tourism offer. Furthermore, what is particularly important is that this ensures the resistance of the rural community to possible market changes, since tourism is extremely sensitive to the external influences of various factors (economic crisis, health crisis, pandemics, and others). Therefore, it is necessary to consider the development of rural tourism as an integral part of rural community development, presenting a new opportunity for the local population without suppressing other segments of the local economy [49].

Stakeholders such as the local population and visitors are very important for the integral and sustainable tourism development of local border rural areas and are therefore involved in this research.

2.1. Local Population of the Cross-Border Area

Local involvement is important for tourism: local people, their culture, the environment, lifestyle, and tradition are important factors that attract tourists to the destination. Furthermore, borders encourage mobility due to the functional, sociocultural, and physical differences between the two border regions that attract people to each other, such as a different assortment of goods, entertainment facilities, but also cultural events, atmosphere, and customs [50]. The dynamics of cross-border tourism development can affect the lives and habits of residents [51]. Different intensities and qualities of tourism development bring changes in the quality of life. Tourism development has created both positive and negative impacts on communities. As a result of such experiences and examples, local populations have different attitudes towards tourism development [52]. Therefore, the needs and aspirations of the local population must be fully supported in tourism development. Sustainably developed tourism can provide real economic, environmental, and cultural benefits to the community [53]. In rural areas, the presence of tourists can cause positive influences (e.g., pride about their own past, tradition, satisfaction with the progress of places, raising self-esteem, etc.) and negative influences for the local population (e.g., sense of occupancy and destruction of space, intolerance towards tourists, etc.). The attitudes of the local population are also supported by the advantages of tourism development such as increasing the income of the population, construction of utility infrastructure, stimulating small entrepreneurship (crafts, OPGs, etc.), creating a recognizable tourist offer of the destination and branding the indigenous offer, encouraging the return of the population, etc., but also by the shortcomings of such development such as depopulation, exceeding the acceptability potential, destroying natural and cultural resources, etc. [2,51,52,53]. The development of tourism enhances the quality of life for the local population through its impact on the area’s economic development, which in turn creates new employment opportunities. Furthermore, tourism activity in rural areas of cross-border areas is seen as beneficial for the diversification of recreational alternatives (outdoor activities) and the improvement of general infrastructure [33,54,55,56]. The local population is situated at the very center of sustainable development, as both indirect and direct support for local population participation is the basis for implementing the sustainability paradigm [57,58,59]. Tourism is often seen as a key force for local development, especially when the local population is aware of the quality of the unpolluted environment and the uniqueness of natural resources [60]. Nevertheless, the main weakness is a lack of competence and lack of experience in the tourism business, which operates in a global competitive market. It is important to focus not only on the percentage of the needs of tourists, but also on the development of tourist destinations, assuming the principles of sustainability and the preservation of natural resources and landscapes [61].

2.2. Visitors to the Cross-Border Area

Tourists are interested in visiting regions with specific attractions rather than administrative areas. Borders are not a problem for them. Cross-border cooperation could represent a unique opportunity for the development of tourism in both sides of the border areas. The lack of accommodation and catering facilities, the lack of tourist equipment, and the lack of visibility of cross-border tourist destinations in RRA usually only bring visitors who are accidental or intentional and take part in some traditional events or are in the area to explore their origin. Visitors in the area stay only temporarily, and the tourist activity is minimal [6].

Furthermore, due to the growing tendency of visitors to seek new tourist destinations, focusing on their personal preferences, the tourism industry has experienced tremendous expansion and diversification in recent decades. The intensive growth of the tourism industry has serious risks; tourism generates social, economic, and environmental benefits, but at the same time also imposes several negative impacts on the destination community [62]. Tradition, cultural values, and natural resources are the basis for the tourist activism of visitors to RRA. Heritage is a growing tourist product that provides tourists with experiences based on (not) tangible remnants of the past. Due to the lack of other options, policies applied in remote areas often highlight heritage tourism—the most valuable activity for launching a more sustainable development process [63].

Based on the previous literature on tourism impacts in rural and cross-border areas, as well as empirical findings regarding differences in perceptions between local residents and visitors, several assumptions can be derived to guide the empirical part of this study. The theoretical insights related to tourism’s economic, social, and environmental effects, along with factors influencing stakeholder perceptions, provide the foundation for formulating the research hypotheses presented below:

H1. 

The attitudes of local residents toward the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism in rural cross-border areas significantly differ from a neutral position, reflecting a distinct pattern of their perceptions.

H2. 

Visitors’ attitudes toward the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism in rural cross-border areas vary systematically across impact dimensions, indicating a specific perceptual pattern.

H3. 

Visitors express more positive attitudes toward the social and environmental impacts of tourism than local residents, whereas local residents express more positive attitudes toward the economic impacts of tourism.

3. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted as part of the activities of the CROCUS project in rural cross-border areas that lack developed tourism activities, specifically in the municipality of Matulji in Croatia and the municipality of Ilirska Bistrica in Slovenia. The aim was to analyze the attitudes of two groups of stakeholders, the local population and visitors, towards the positive and negative economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism.

Matulji municipality is located in a rural area. It has no significantly developed tourism, but there are some forms of tourism activity, based on local resources, which provide a good basis for further development. There is no hotel accommodation in the territory, but only private accommodation in holiday homes, apartments, and rooms. This is confirmed by statistical indicators according to which a total of 97,101 overnight stays were recorded in Matulji in 2023. In terms of accommodation capacities, 244 renters and 39 holiday homes were recorded in Matulji the same year, with a total of 1665 permanent and 294 additional beds. In the Matulji area, the most important events during the year are those related to the carnival and the methods and reviews of bell-ringing groups that have been featured in the Representative newspaper of the Intangible cultural Heritage of humanity since 2009, which is especially attractive to visitors due to their authenticity, uniqueness, and connection with local tradition. In the neighboring border area of Slovenia, there is the municipality of Ilirska Bistrica, which is also not a developed tourist destination and has no hotel accommodation, but only accommodation with private small renters. In 2023, 16,531 overnight stays were recorded in Ilirska Bistrica. The total number of accommodations was 57, of which 18 were holiday apartments or holiday homes, 11 were Apartments, 7 were guesthouses, 6 were accommodations for the night, 5 were tourist farms with accommodations, 5 were other accommodation establishments, 3 were mountain homes or cottages, and 2 were boarding houses. In the area of the municipality of Ilirska Bistrica, there are also traditional carnival events, traditionally attended by bell-ringers. Both rural areas have a gastronomic offer with indigenous groceries. The work explores the attitudes of the local population and visitors on how they see the potential impact of tourism development (social, economic, and environmental aspects) in these rural areas.

Below, in

Table 1. Attractions and activities in selected destinations.

Destination	Matulji	Ilirska Bistrica
Attraction/Activity	Souvenir making and sales
	Traditional crafts and trades
	National costumes
	Parade of bell ringing groups
	Parade of carnival groups
	Andrejići (protected hamlet in Rukavac)	The village of Prem with the church of St. Jelena
	Village of Žejane	Podgrad
	Lipa Village & Memorial Center—Lipa Remembers	Mašun hunting ground
	Protected Cultural Heritage of the Village of Veli Brgud	Novak’s household
		Hodnikov’s Mill
		Old Town of Ilirska Bistrica—Church and Ruins of Gradina Castle
	Local Restaurants and eno-gastronomy
	Cooking and Pastry Workshops and Events
	Eno-gastro workshops and events
	Art workshops and events
	Music workshops and events
	Literary workshops and events

Source: Research result.

, are the most significant tourist attractions and activities in Matulji and Ilirska Bistrica, with an emphasis on cultural heritage, traditional customs, creative workshops, and eno-gastronomic offer. The list includes elements of tangible and intangible heritage, natural and cultural resources, and specific events that form the basis of the tourist offer of both neighboring border destinations.

It is evident that Matulji and Ilirska Bistrica have a rich and diverse offer based on traditional crafts, cultural events, rural spaces, and local gastronomy. Matulji stands out with specific intangible elements such as bell ringers, protected sites, and creative workshops, while Ilirska Bistrica is categorized by a combination of historical sites, natural resources, and eno-gastronomic content. Together, these attractions show the potential for the development of joint cross-border tourism products, especially in the areas of cultural and rural tourism, creative experiences, and the valorization of local heritage.

3.1. Definition of the Population and the Sample

A total of 200 respondents, 50 local residents and 50 visitors in both municipalities, were examined. The data collection relied on a convenience sampling method, targeting the local population and visitors who were present in the destination during the carnival period in 2025. The survey of visitors was conducted in early March 2025, while the survey of the local population was conducted in April 2025, during the carnival period, when traditional bell-ringing group events are especially active in the cross-border area, attracting both the local population and visitors. A convenience sample was used due to the nature of the research, which was conducted in the specific, time-limited context of the carnival period, a time when cultural events that generate significant tourist and social activities are most active in the rural border areas of Matulji and Ilirska Bistrica. Since these events are crucial for understanding local and visitor perceptions of tourism, it was necessary to collect data during the period when the presence of both stakeholders is most pronounced. Such seasonality increases the availability of participants, but can lead to certain limitations in representativeness, which is clearly stated in the paper. A convenience sample is therefore appropriate for exploratory research of this type, but is also additionally justified by the fact that these are rural and border destinations with a limited population and low intensity of regular tourist flows.

3.2. Measurment Tool

A quantitative research approach based on a structured online questionnaire was used, which enabled data collection in two neighboring but culturally and administratively different environments. A structured questionnaire was developed in Croatian and English, with language versions tailored to each target group and survey location. Local population and stakeholders in both Matulji (Croatia) and Ilirska Bistrica (Slovenia) completed the questionnaire in Croatian, as all respondents were proficient in the language, eliminating the need for a Slovenian translation. Visitors in Matulji could choose between the Croatian and English versions, while those in Ilirska Bistrica completed the questionnaire exclusively in English, due to their predominantly foreign or cross-border background and familiarity with English. The questionnaire was created on the Google Forms platform. The survey was conducted in the field, i.e., in the mentioned municipalities, using laptops and mobile phones.

The questionnaire included 7 sections: informed consent, demographic information, cross-border activities (local population only), travel behavior (visitors only), perceived impacts of tourism, tourism-related attitudes and values, and importance (from 1—not important at all to 5—very important) or satisfaction (0—not visited the attraction/not participated in the activity to 5—very satisfied) with specific cultural attractions measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents primarily rated statements using a 5-point Likert scale for agreement (1—strongly disagree, 5—strongly agree). The perceived impacts of tourism were measured through three main dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. In total, the construct comprised 24 items, all of which were assessed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with variables adapted for this study based on similar research [34,64,65,66,67].

Some negative statements were reverse-coded for consistent interpretation, with a lower score indicating a higher level of agreement, i.e., greater concern or negative attitude. The data was analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 software using descriptive statistics, more specifically the arithmetic mean and standard deviation, to process the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. An independent sample t-test was used to compare and analyze the differences in attitudes between the local population and visitors. All respondents gave their informed consent to participate, and the study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of scientific work and the protection of personal data. The data was anonymized and used exclusively for scientific purposes.

The first part of the questionnaire for the local population included questions on the respondent’s socio-demographic profile, such as age, gender, education, employment status, place of residence, employment in tourism or hospitality, and a subjective self-assessment of economic well-being. The second part concerned cross-border mobility, specifically the regular involvement of residents in activities such as trade, visiting, working, or participating in cultural cross-border events. The questionnaire also included questions on the importance of tourism for the region and municipality, as well as over 20 statements on the perceived economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism, such as job creation, property prices, public services, cultural heritage preservation, congestion, and pollution. In addition, the commitment of the local population to the place and quality of life was examined, including attachment to the place, satisfaction with life in the community, and support for tourism development. Respondents also rated the importance of and satisfaction with cultural attractions and activities, tailored to each area of the living laboratory. Finally, an open-ended question allowed respondents to express their opinions or suggestions.

The visitor questionnaire also included demographic data. It then examined traveler behavior, including frequency and duration of visits to the destination, length of stay, type of accommodation, and sources of information used to plan the trip. The central section focused on attitudes towards the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism, with respondents indicating their level of agreement with statements on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire also measured satisfaction, intentions to revisit, emotional attachment, and value for money, providing insight into loyalty and the overall experience. In the final section, respondents rated the importance of and satisfaction with specific cultural attractions and activities within the destination.

3.3. Data Processing Methods

The reliability of the measuring instrument was evaluated using Cronbach’s α for all three dimensions (economic, social, and environmental). All coefficients exceeded the commonly accepted threshold value of 0.70, indicating a high level of internal consistency and confirming that the scales were reliable. To further assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted. The KMO values, which ranged from 0.78 to 0.85, demonstrated good sampling adequacy. Additionally, Bartlett’s test yielded statistically significant results (p < 0.001), confirming that the inter-item correlations were sufficiently strong to justify proceeding with the analysis of the latent structure.

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to address the potential influence of Common Method Variance (CMV) on data integrity. It was performed using Principal Axis Factoring with one-factor extraction for both respondent groups. For the local population sample, the first factor had an initial eigenvalue of 5.646 and accounted for 23.53% of the total variance, indicating that, since this value is well below the 50% threshold, no significant CMV issue was detected. In contrast, for the visitor sample, the first factor had an eigenvalue of 16.268 and accounted for 67.78% of the total variance, which exceeds the 50% criterion and thus indicates a possible presence of CMV, suggesting that part of the shared variance may originate from the common measurement method. However, several procedural measures were implemented during data collection (e.g., respondent anonymity, randomized item order, and clear, neutrally worded questions), which likely reduced the potential influence of method bias, and overall the results suggest that CMV was not a major concern in the local population dataset, while the visitor data may contain a limited degree of method-related variance that does not substantially threaten the validity of the findings.

To examine potential differences between local residents and visitors in their perceptions of tourism impacts, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted for each observed variable. The results indicate that significant differences exist for several items related to the environmental and social effects of tourism.

Statistically significant differences in the perception of economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism between local residents and visitors in the municipality of Matulji (Croatia) and Ilirska Bistrica (Slovenia) were tested with an independent samples t-test was applied. In addition, descriptive statistics, including mean values and standard deviations, were used to provide an overview of the central tendencies and variability within each group.

4. Results

The aim of the survey was to compare views on the effects of tourism (economic, social, environmental) between visitors and local inhabitants in the cross-border areas of Matulji municipality and Ilirska Bistrica. A sample of 200 subjects in

Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of subjects.

Variable	Visitors (%)	Local Population (%)
Gender
Male	37.4	38.4
Female	61.8	61.6
I don’t want to plead	0.8	/
Age
18–30	48.0	33.3
31–40	15.4	26.3
41–50	16.3	24.2
51–60	14.6	8.1
61–70	4.1	4.0
71 and above	1.6	4.0
Level of education
High school or lower	39.0	37.4
Professional diploma	17.9	27.3
Bachelor	19.5	10.1
Master’s degree	18.7	24.2
Doctorate	1.6	1.0
Other	3.3	/
Employment in a tourism/hospitality company
Yes	/	23.2
No	/	76.8
Employment status
Full-time employee	/	61.6
Part-time employee	/	20.2
Self-employed	/	3.0
Unemployed	/	8.1
Retired	/	7.1
Number of visits
1	14.6	/
2	4.9	/
3	6.5	/
4	2.4	/
5 or more times	71.5	/

Source: Research result.

presents their socio-demographic profile, which includes data on gender, age, and educational attainment for both groups.

Based on the data in the table above, the sample of local population and visitors is dominated by women, with over 61% in both destinations. Subjects aged 18 to 30 are the most represented, with a share of 33.3% in locals and 48% in visitors. The most common level of education in both groups is secondary education, with 37.4% of locals and 39% of visitors.

In addition, additional questions related to their specific characteristics were included in the questionnaire for a particular group of subjects. Data on employment status and employment in tourism or hospitality were collected for the local population, while data on the country of residence and number of visits were examined for visitors. According to the survey results, 34.0% of the local population in Matulji is employed in the Tourism or hospitality industry, while 66.0% have no connection to tourism. Regarding Employment status, 66% of the respondents are permanently employed, while 17% are employed temporarily. The proportion of pensioners is 8. 3%, while 4.3% are self-employed and 4.3% are unemployed. In the sample of the local population of Ilirska Bistrica, 86.5% of respondents are not employed in tourism or hospitality, while 13.5% are associated with tourism. In terms of Employment status, 57.7% of respondents have a full-time job, 23.1% work part-time, 11.5% are unemployed, 5.8% are retired, and 1.9% are self-employed. Matulji was visited once and twice by 5.2% of respondents, and four times by 1.7%. Ilirska Bistrica was visited five or more times by 64.1% and 23.4% of respondents, respectively. Two or three visits were made by 9.4% of respondents, and four times by 3.1%.

Table 3. Results of the Mann–Whitney U Test for Differences Between Local Residents and Visitors.

Statement	U	Z	p-Value
Tourism contributes to environmental protection in the region	4681.0	−1.994	0.046
Tourism helps preserve biodiversity in the region	4218.5	−3.745	<0.001
Tourism raises local residents’ awareness of environmental protection	4265.0	−3.659	<0.001
Tourism improves shopping, restaurant, and entertainment options for locals	4408.0	−3.030	0.002
Tourism provides more parks and recreational areas	4309.5	−3.414	<0.001
Other environmental/social items	—	−0.054 to −0.992	0.957–0.321

Source: Research result.

presents the results of the Mann–Whitney U test comparing local residents and visitors. The results indicate whether statistically significant differences exist between local residents and visitors across the analyzed tourism-impact dimensions. The p-value provides the basis for determining the significance of these differences. For all dimensions where p < 0.05, the difference between the two groups is statistically significant. In these cases, visitors reported higher mean scores for the social and environmental impact items, whereas local residents reported higher scores for the economic impact items. Conversely, for items where p ≥ 0.05, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed.

Previous surveys related to the impacts of tourism [68,69,70,71,72] found that there are three main types of impacts: economic, social, and environmental. The aim of this research was to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in views on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism between the local population and visitors. Results of conducted tests using descriptive statistics and t-test for independent samples are presented below in

Table 4. Views on the economic impacts of tourism.

Claims	Local Population A.S. (St. dev.)	Visitors A.S. (St. dev.)	t-test	Sig.
Tourism provides new job opportunities in the region	4.06	3.76	1.917	0.057
	(0.924)	(1.303)
Tourism increases living standards in the region	3.99	3.64	2.475	0.014 *
	(0.802)	(1.214)
Tourism provides more business for local people and small businesses	4.02	3.73	2.026	0.044 *
	(0.795)	(1.245)
Tourism increases local property value	4.01	3.68	2.289	0.023 *
	(0.839)	(1.246)
Tourism increases the cost of living in the region	3.71	3.38	2.082	0.039 *
	(0.982)	(1.268)
Tourism hinders the development of other economic industries in my community	2.84	3.42	−3.434	0.001 **
	(1.158)	(1.285)
Tourism increases competition in the local labour market from incoming workers	3.61	3.54	0.436	0.663
	(1.038)	(1.301)

Note: average scores range from 1 to 5; * significantly at 0.05; ** significantly at 0.01. Source: Research result.

,

Table 5. Views on the social impacts of tourism.

Claims	Local Population A.S. (St. dev.)	Visitors A.S. (St. dev.)	t-test	Sig.
The quality of public services in general (e.g., fire protection, police protection, public health services, welfare, and social services, etc.) in the region is better due to tourism.	3.58	3.54	0.253	0.800
	(0.991)	(1.301)
Tourism increases the quality of education in the region	3.65	3.43	1.419	0.157
	(0.951)	(1.271)
Tourism provides an incentive for the preservation of local culture in the region.	4.08	3.33	5.189	0.000 **
	(0.710)	(1.331)
Tourism improves shopping, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities for locals	4.02	3.26	5.293	0.000 **
	(0.845)	(1.228)
Tourism decreases the availability of publicly accessible utilities in the region	2.75	3.46	−4.441	0.000 **
	(1.034)	(1.280)
Tourism is likely to increase the crime rate in my community	2.42	3.21	−4.741	0.000 **
	(1.098)	(1.297)
Tourist companies misrepresent local culture to tourists	3.27	3.19	0.526	0.600
	(1.123)	(1.219)
Tourism increases social inequality in my community	3.53	3.02	3.004	0.003 **
	(1.043)	(1.401)

Note: average scores range from 1 to 5; ** significantly at 0.01. Source: Research result.

and

Table 6. Views on the environmental impacts of tourism.

Claims	Local Population A.S. (St. dev.)	Visitors A.S. (St. dev.)	t-test	Sig.
Tourism contributes to the protection of the natural environment in the region	2.92	3.51	−3.375	0.001 **
	(1.218)	(1.308)
Tourism preserves the biodiversity in the region	3.11	3.12	−0.029	0.977
	(1.160)	(1.320)
Tourism raises awareness among locals of environmental protection in the region.	2.86	3.04	−1.019	0.309
	(1.237)	(1.280)
Tourism increases water pollution in the region	2.92	3.27	−1.922	0.056
	(1.275)	(1.349)
Tourism increases air pollution in the region	3.87	3.20	3.997	0.000 **
	(1.122)	(1.321)
Tourism development destroys green areas in the region	2.51	3.20	−3.765	0.000 **
	(1.297)	(1.361)
Tourists pollute the region with their waste	3.83	3.28	3.354	0.001 **
	(1.069)	(1.317)
Tourism provides more parks and other recreational areas for locals	3.74	3.31	2.596	0.010 **
	(1.075)	(1.302)
Tourism development increases traffic congestion in the region.	4.10	3.30	5.183	0.000 **
	(0.886)	(1.328)

Note: average scores range from 1 to 5; ** significantly at 0.01. Source: Research result.

.

The analysis of views on the economic impacts of tourism between the local population and visitors shows statistically significant differences, with the results presented in Table 4. The local population generally assesses the economic impacts of tourism more positively than visitors, considering that tourism contributes more to increasing living standards (3.99), providing new jobs to the local population and small businesses (4.02), and increasing the value of local assets (4.01). Also, the attitudes of the local population, according to which tourism increases the costs of living in the region, compared to the attitudes of visitors, are statistically significant (p = 0.039). On the other hand, statistical significance is also present in the fact that, according to visitors, tourism hinders the development of other economic branches in the community (3.42) compared to the local population (2.84) (p = 0.001). It can be concluded that the local population generally has more positive views on the economic impacts of tourism than visitors who perceive more negative economic impacts. In view of the results, it is important to achieve a balance in the development of tourism with other sectors of the economy and involve the local population in tourism planning to exploit tourism’s economic benefits and reduce its negative impacts.

Statistically significant differences were also found in views on the social impacts of tourism between the local population and visitors (Table 5). According to the survey, the local population has more positive views on the social impacts of tourism than visitors, such as encouraging the preservation of local culture (4.08) and improving shopping, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities for the local population (4.02). These differences are also statistically significant (p < 0.01). In contrast, visitors show significant negative views on the social impacts of tourism and are of the opinion that tourism is reducing the availability of publicly available utilities (3.46) and increasing the crime rate (3.21), which is also statistically significant (p < 0.01). It is also important to point out that the local population and visitors share similar views on the overall quality of public services and the quality of education. In conclusion, the local population takes a more significant view of the positive social impacts of tourism, while visitors take a more significant view of certain negative impacts. The differences identified are of great importance for tourism management, as they underline the need to ensure quality utilities and safety in order to reduce the negative attitudes of visitors, but also to preserve cultural heritage and strengthen the positive impacts of tourism recognized by the local population.

The analysis of the environmental impacts of tourism between the local population and visitors, also represented in Table 6, shows significant differences in their attitudes. Visitors generally evaluate the environmental impact of tourism more positively, while the local population perceives the negative environmental impacts of tourism more negatively. Unlike the local population, visitors mainly express that tourism contributes to the protection of the natural environment in the region, which is also statistically significant (p < 0.01). On the other hand, the local population considers that tourism contributes significantly to air pollution, the destruction of green spaces, the generation of waste, and the increase in traffic congestion in the region compared to visitors, with differences also statistically significant (p < 0.01). The difference in attitudes between the local population and visitors that tourism increases water pollution in the region is not statistically significant, confirming similar attitudes about the negative impact of tourism. Visitors also have a majority opinion that tourism offers more parks and recreational areas for the local population, while the same local population is to a lesser extent recognized, and the difference is significant (p < 0.05). The results show that visitors take a more significant view of the positive environmental impacts of tourism, while the local population has more pronounced negative views. This is important for planning sustainable tourism development and involving the local community in decision-making processes. In addition to the need for better information and education of both groups, it is necessary to minimize the negative impacts of tourism in order for the local population to have a more positive attitude towards its environmental impacts.

The differences found between locals and visitors are statistically significant because they point to systematically different patterns of perception that are not the result of chance, but rather reflect real differences in the lived experience, exposure to tourism, and expectations of the two groups. Local communities experience the effects of tourism on a daily basis, from pressure on infrastructure to changes in social dynamics, and accordingly, their assessments of negative social and environmental impacts have a stronger intensity. Visitors, on the other hand, stay for a short time and are primarily motivated by positive experiences, and therefore emphasize the benefits of tourism, especially in preserving space and cultural heritage, which shows that attitudes are not homogeneous, but are shaped by different roles and experiences in the destination.

In the context of local development policies, these differences are highly relevant. The higher level of concern among local residents, especially on the Croatian side, where exposure to tourism is longer-term, points to the need to strengthen spatial management, transport, infrastructure, and utilities. Strong negative perceptions of environmental impacts among residents impose the necessity of applying stricter environmental standards, monitoring spatial loads, and involving the community in planning. At the same time, more positive perceptions of visitors represent an opportunity, and their recognition of the value of local heritage and nature can be used to develop creative, cultural, and ecotourism products. This simultaneously satisfies market trends and strengthens the identity of local communities.

The observed methodological gap between Croatian and Slovenian respondents is explained by contextual differences, rather than inconsistencies in the analysis. Croatian respondents come from areas with longer and more intensive contact with tourism, which naturally results in more critical attitudes and greater awareness of potential risks. Slovenian rural areas, which are just starting to be included in tourism flows, are expected to show greater optimism and emphasize the positive effects of development more strongly. Therefore, the differences reflect different phases of tourism development, which further confirms the justification of the comparison and makes an important contribution to understanding the dynamics of cross-border destinations.

The results of the Mann–Whitney U test show that local residents and visitors in several areas experience the impacts of tourism in significantly different ways. Visitors generally express more positive attitudes about the environmental and partly social impacts of tourism, while local residents react to the same phenomena more cautiously or critically. For example, visitors are more likely to believe that tourism contributes to environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, and raising awareness of the importance of natural resources. Their interpretations are based on short-term stays, experiences of organized activities, and the visual impression of a preserved space. In contrast, local residents, who live in the area every day and are the first to notice changes, are less convinced that tourism brings concrete environmental benefits. They emphasize that tourist activities can lead to pressure on the space, more visitors, and increased use of resources. A similar pattern is visible in the assessment of social impacts. Visitors perceive tourism as a stimulus for an expanded offer of content, better spatial organization, and a generally more pleasant stay in the destination. However, local residents, faced with tourism growth, more often point out the burden on public services, congestion, and negative consequences that affect the daily life of the community. In other words, while visitors view a destination through the perspective of “experience,” locals view it through the prism of “life.” That is why their assessments are not only different but also logical. Visitors see what tourism enables them, while locals see what tourism changes in their environment. The results show that the differences between the groups are statistically significant, but also substantively important, as they reveal two perspectives that complement each other. Understanding these differences is crucial for sustainable development planning, in which the local community must be actively involved in order to mitigate negative impacts, while at the same time capitalizing on the positive aspects that visitors recognize.

5. Discussion

In terms of views on economic impacts, for all these claims, except the last one, the local population exhibits a higher degree of agreement, which suggests a more significant view of the positive economic impacts of tourism as compared to visitors. On the other hand, only when claiming that tourism is holding back other industries, visitors are more concerned. As regards the social impacts of tourism, the local population expresses a higher degree of agreement with the positive social impacts of tourism, while visitors show a greater sensitivity to the potential negative consequences, especially in the context of public services and security. This shows different perspectives and experiences that both groups have in relation to the tourist development of destinations. In terms of environmental impacts of tourism, the results show that the local population perceives more of the negative environmental impacts of tourism, while visitors see certain potential benefits, especially in the context of environmental protection and preserved areas.

Based on the analysis of the results, it is evident that the local population and visitors have significantly different views on the impacts of tourism, which is confirmed by statistically significant differences. In terms of the economic impacts of tourism, the local population takes a more significant view of the benefits of tourism. This may be due to their immediate experience and increased interest in local development. At the same time, their concerns about infrastructure and environmental challenges, such as pollution and traffic jams, indicate a higher level of involvement in the daily consequences of tourism activities. Visitors, on the other hand, are more concerned about systemic or generally accepted negative impacts, such as reduced availability of public services and environmental distortions. This can be attributed to their shorter stay in the destination and, as such, they have the “observer” role. Their more positive attitude towards certain aspects of environmental protection can also be the result of a more superficial, tourist impression, which does not include local challenges of maintaining a balance between tourism and everyday life. It is also significant that the local population assesses more of the negative consequences of tourism, which indicates the complexity of their perception that tourism is both an opportunity and a source of pressure. Conversely, visitor attitudes remain in the medium to moderately positive perception range, which may indicate a lack of deeper insight into the local context. In conclusion, the research confirms the trend of observed differences from previous surveys, according to which the local population has a more intense perception, both positive and negative, while visitor attitudes are mostly more balanced and less polarized. These differences should be taken into account in planning the sustainable development of destinations, particularly in the context of aligning the interests of both stakeholder groups.

The differences in the attitudes of Slovenian and Croatian respondents are not only statistically relevant, but also point to bigger structural and contextual differences between the two sides of the border area. Croatian respondents, both local population and visitors, often have a more critical or cautious attitude, especially with regard to the impact of tourism on the environment and society. This can be interpreted as a reflection of the fact that they have been more exposed to tourism development over time, which has led to a greater awareness of possible negative consequences, such as overcrowding, strain on infrastructure, and changes in community dynamics. In contrast, respondents on the Slovenian side, especially the local population, show a more optimistic attitude, which could be due to a relatively early phase of tourism development, where positive impacts such as increased visibility, improved services, and identity enhancement outweigh negative impacts. The different views of the respondents have a considerable impact on long-term tourism planning in cross-border regions, which can be seen firstly in the different planning priorities. Croatian destinations may need to focus more on visitor management strategies, environmental monitoring, and community balance, while destinations in Slovenia should focus more on community engagement, awareness-raising, and co-creation at an early stage of development. Furthermore, the asymmetry emphasizes the need for adaptive place-based planning rather than single cross-border strategies. The location seems to be particularly important. In Croatia, for example, respondents show less emotional attachment and less willingness to stay long, possibly reflecting feelings of detachment or fatigue in tourist-saturated destinations. On the other hand, the stronger attachment to place in Slovenia points to the adoption of inclusive tourism models that seek to align with community values. This needs to be taken into account when designing cross-border initiatives such as co-branding, infrastructure development, or cultural routes. A nuanced understanding of local perceptions can ensure that such initiatives are not only effective but also socially sustainable [73]. In summary, the results emphasize the need for differentiated and coordinated tourism management that takes into account the maturity levels, transport capacity thresholds, and socio-cultural dynamics on both sides of the border. Cross-border tourism strategies need to be flexible enough to support emerging destinations without repeating patterns of overdevelopment, while providing established destinations with tools for regeneration and diversification. Integrating stakeholder insights from both contexts can promote a more resilient and inclusive tourism for the entire region.

Based on the identified differences between the local population and visitors in the context of different life experiences and expectations in rural and remote cross-border areas, it can be concluded that the local population is more directly exposed to both positive and negative impacts of tourism, from potential economic opportunities to increased pressure on public infrastructure and social cohesion. Visitors, on the other hand, see the destination as a place of transient experiences and leisure, which often leads to a more favorable assessment. The different perspectives have certain consequences for long-term tourism planning. While the local population favors sustainable infrastructure and the preservation of local identity, visitors may be more interested in a rich experience and a diverse cultural offering. In this respect, planning activities should focus on a balanced approach to bridge this perception gap through participatory management, communication strategies, and the design of tourism products that are attractive to visitors and accepted by the local population.

The results coincide with previous research on this topic, which found that local populations often have more positive views on the economic impacts of tourism, especially when they experience direct benefits such as employment growth, improved infrastructure, or asset value increases. Similar evidence was shown by [64] in the context of Šibenik, where local respondents highly valued the economic benefits of tourism, but at the same time expressed concern about rising prices and changes in resource availability. This confirms the earlier knowledge that communities often recognize tourism as a development opportunity, especially in rural and border areas. The results of our research confirm that the local population perceived tourism as a generator of employment and standards, but also pointed to negative phenomena, such as the rising cost of living and traffic jams.

The results of previous studies have also confirmed the social impacts. (e.g., research in Tara National Park) [72]. The local population has positive views on the impact of tourism on cultural preservation and diversity of content, but responds more sensitively to everyday changes, such as crowds or changes in social dynamics. Visitors have more significant negative views, such as the problem of the availability of services and potential security breaches. This also confirms the results of research by [72], according to which demographic characteristics and life experience significantly shape attitudes towards tourism.

On the other hand, as in the studies [35,74], and in this survey, the local population is more concerned about the negative environmental impacts of tourism, such as air pollution, destruction of green spaces, and an increase in waste. At the same time, visitors highlight the potential positive environmental impacts of tourism, which is similar to the observations from the study [74] in national parks. Previously, ref. [64] was based on the importance of the attitudes of the local population, as the success of managing tourist destinations also depends on meeting the needs of the population. Additionally, the same authors state that the involvement of the local community in the development of the tourism process increases the efficiency of public administration. The results confirm the growing importance of the regional perspective in tourism development planning, especially in rural areas, which aligns with the research of [19], who emphasize the role of local knowledge and community involvement in creating sustainable tourism models. Similarly, ref. [15] states that tourism development in rural regions requires specific approaches based on territorial characteristics and a long-term participatory vision of development. Studies [5,10,66,67,75] further support the thesis that the resilience of tourist destinations increases through diversification of the offer, improvement of local infrastructure, and strategic management of spatial potentials. In this context, the results of this research, which indicate the importance of local community involvement, sustainable use of resources, and intersectoral cooperation, correspond with the findings of [8,21,76], who emphasize the need for adaptive and integrated development strategies. Additionally, ref. [68] emphasizes the importance of balancing economic benefits with social and environmental aspects of development, which is also recognized in this research through the role of the social dimension in strengthening cohesion within the community. Refs. [13,23] confirm that successful tourism management is possible only if the needs and capacities of local stakeholders are recognized, and cooperation between stakeholders is established. Finally, the results confirm the claims of [9] that long-term development is based on destinations that are not only attractive but also resilient, adaptable, make sustainable use of local potential, and actively involve the population in the decision-making process.

Numerous studies emphasize that residents tend to perceive tourism benefits more strongly when economic opportunities are directly linked to local development, which is consistent with the results of this research (e.g., employment, quality of life, and support for local businesses). Similar conclusions were reached by [31,34], who found that rural communities often value tourism as a tool for economic revitalization, but remain cautious regarding potential socio-environmental pressures.

When examining social impacts, prior research by [25,32,33] also confirms that tourism can strengthen cultural preservation and community identity, while at the same time creating concerns about overcrowding, service availability, and changes in local lifestyles. Mentioned papers echo the dual perspective identified in this work, where residents express stronger sensitivity to changes in everyday life compared to visitors.

Environmental perceptions align with findings from [40,53], who reported that local populations often show higher awareness of negative environmental consequences (pollution, waste, pressure on natural areas), while visitors who spend less time in the destination are more likely to notice only general improvements or aesthetic enhancements associated with tourism.

Finally, consistent with the insights of [18,19,21], this paper reaffirms the importance of involving local communities in planning processes, as their perceptions significantly influence acceptance of tourism development and long-term destination sustainability.

At the local development level, the results provide concrete insights into how local residents and visitors experience the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism in border rural areas. Such information enables local governments and destination organizations to plan development activities in line with community needs, strengthen the acceptance of tourism projects, and ensure that tourism becomes a driver of the local economy. Of particular importance is the identification of elements that enhance the quality of life of residents and those that create pressure on space, which allows for more precise infrastructure planning, visitor management, and the creation of tourism products based on local values. At the level of regional policies, research contributes to shaping sustainable cross-border development strategies. Since two administrative systems and two neighboring countries are covered, the results provide useful guidelines for policy coordination in the area of resource management, cultural heritage, and infrastructure. Understanding the differences in perceptions between Croatian and Slovenian respondents helps decision makers to develop differentiated approaches, adapted to different levels of tourism maturity, but also to encourage joint programs that improve territorial cohesion and functional connection of rural border areas. At a theoretical level, the paper complements the existing literature on tourism in rural and peripheral areas by simultaneously analyzing two key stakeholder groups, local residents and visitors, in a specific cross-border context, which has been poorly represented in previous research. The empirical findings confirm theoretical assumptions about the importance of sustainable destination management, perceptual differences between stakeholders, and the role of the local community in the acceptance of tourism development. In addition, the results contribute to the development of theory in the field of tourism through a better understanding of the dynamics in border regions, where elements of peripherality, cultural proximity, and administrative separation intertwine, creating a unique model of destination development.

6. Conclusions

Tourism is an important activity of development in many destinations, but rural and remote areas, especially those in border regions, face specific development challenges. The literature highlights that such areas often have limited infrastructure, lower levels of economic activity, and pronounced peripherality, which makes them vulnerable, but at the same time potentially attractive for the development of sustainable forms of tourism. The research aimed to explore the attitudes of the local population and visitors related to tourism development in RRA. Although rural areas are increasingly interesting to modern tourists, research indicates that the effects of tourism in such local communities are not unambiguous and depend on the perceptions and expectations of key stakeholders, primarily local residents and visitors. The local population has more pronounced views on both positive and negative impacts of tourism, while visitors look at tourism more balanced. The local population is more aware of the economic benefits of tourism, which is understandable since tourism allows them new jobs, increased quality of life, and growth, but at the same time, they also experience negative consequences, such as price increases and crowds. Visitors often point to general negative aspects, such as environmental damage, while they better assess the contribution of tourism to the preservation of natural spaces.

The results show that the local population has different views on the development of tourism, especially when it comes to its social and environmental impact. Local population from Croatia is more concerned about the negative consequences of tourism, including crime (M = 2.71, reverse coded), social inequality (M = 2.82), and pressure on infrastructure (M = 2.24). This could be due to tourism saturation and distrust in management capacity. In contrast, the Slovenian local population expresses less concern about the above-mentioned aspects (M > 3.4), which may be related to the early stages of tourism development, when enthusiasm and expectations still prevail. This confirms the first hypothesis and points to the need for differentiated approaches to destination development in terms of maturity.

Visitors to both destinations see tourism as a driver of positive change and particularly emphasize its contribution to the preservation of cultural heritage (CRO M = 4.29, SLO M = 4.25), environmental protection, and education. Despite the predominantly positive attitudes, there are also differences. Slovenian visitors express greater emotional commitment (e.g., M = 3.63 emotional difficulties in leaving) and higher loyalty, while Croatian visitors are more rational in their judgments and more satisfied with the decision to visit (M = 4.12). Based on the results, the second hypothesis was confirmed, which emphasizes the need to profile the tourist offer according to the psychographic characteristics of visitors.

The test of the last, third hypothesis confirmed the existence of significant differences in the attitudes of the local population and visitors. The local population expresses more concern about the social and environmental impacts of tourism, while visitors emphasize the benefits that tourism brings. In terms of economic benefits, both groups recognize these, but visitors are more optimistic. In addition, visitors are more likely to see a positive impact of tourism on the preservation of the environment (e.g., SLO M = 3.75 vs. CRO M = 4.35 for environmental awareness). The results confirm the third hypothesis and point to perception gaps that should be addressed through participatory tourism planning strategies.

These research results should be taken into account when planning the sustainable development of destinations to harmonize interests on the one hand of the local community, and on the other hand to observe visitors’ views.

This research fills an important research gap by examining attitudes toward tourism development in cross-border rural and remote areas, which represent a context that is simultaneously peripheral, underdeveloped, and insufficiently explored in the existing literature. Previous studies have mainly focused on individual stakeholder groups or on broader cross-border cooperation frameworks, while no prior research has jointly analyzed the perceptions of both local residents and visitors in such areas. Therefore, the study contributes to science by providing empirical evidence on tourism impacts in regions that are both rural and cross-border, an area rarely addressed in past research; comparing two key stakeholder groups whose attitudes directly shape sustainable tourism development but have not been jointly examined in this specific territorial context and by strengthening theoretical understanding of tourism development in peripheral border regions through linking stakeholder perceptions with sustainable development principles and cross-border destination dynamics.

The research provides new insights into the perceptions of local residents and visitors towards tourism development in rural and cross-border areas of Croatia and Slovenia, showing that the two groups of stakeholders have markedly different perceptions of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism. Local residents experience both the positive and negative impacts of tourism more strongly, while visitors view the destination from a more balanced and less polarized perspective. This confirms the need to adapt tourism planning approaches to the specific needs and experiences of each group, thus enabling long-term sustainable development in a cross-border context. Regarding the theoretical contribution, the paper bridges the research gap because it simultaneously analyzes the attitudes of local residents and visitors in a context that is both rural and cross-border, and such a combination has so far been poorly represented in previous research. The paper contributes to the theoretical understanding of tourism development in peripheral, demographically sensitive, and administratively fragmented areas, connecting stakeholders’ perceptions with the concepts of sustainable development and cross-border destination dynamics. The results further confirm the theories that emphasize the importance of community participation, destination resilience, and territorial specificities in the development of tourism in rural regions. In terms of practical contribution, the results obtained provide a concrete basis for planning tourism activities in Matulji and Ilirska Bistrica. Insights into the attitudes of the local population indicate the need for careful management of living costs, traffic congestion, environmental protection, and identity preservation, while visitor attitudes show that the destination has significant potential for the development of cultural, creative, and natural tourism products. The practical value of the paper is reflected in the possibility of direct application of the results in the design of tourism programs, heritage interpretation, and the creation of cross-border tourism experiences.

7. Limitations and Further Research

This study provides valuable insights into the attitudes of the local population and visitors towards the development of tourism during the carnival period, but there are several limitations. Although the carnival season allowed for a higher response rate and richer insight into tourist experiences during the peak of cultural activities, it also introduced potential seasonal bias, as participants’ attitudes and behaviors may differ from those in off-season periods. This may limit the generalizability of the findings beyond the carnival context. In addition, demographic imbalances, such as the overrepresentation of certain age or educational groups, were not statistically corrected by weighting in this study. Therefore, it is suggested that future research apply stratified sampling techniques and demographic weighting to improve representativeness and mitigate bias.

Secondly, the sample comprises only two stakeholder groups, the local population and visitors, without including other important stakeholders in tourism, such as private entrepreneurs, tourism organizations, or local government representatives. Their inclusion in future research would contribute to a more holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities of destination development, especially from a management and strategic planning perspective. In addition, a cross-sectional design was used in this study. In contrast, a longitudinal approach, where the same stakeholders would be followed over multiple periods of the year or events (e.g., low and high season), would allow for a more detailed examination of changing attitudes, attachment to place, and perceptions of sustainability over time. This would also be useful to uncover the long-term effects of tourism seasonality, particularly in rural and cross-border areas where fluctuations in tourism intensity are pronounced.

By implementing these proposals, future research can provide even more detailed and comprehensive insight into the problem of tourism development of rural areas, especially in directing and creating an integral tourist offer to the satisfaction of all stakeholders involved in tourism of the destination (local population, tourists, bidders, policymakers). Tourism development in RRA must be planned sustainably because only in this way will all stakeholders be successfully involved, without destroying the natural and cultural values that RRA possesses.