Water Quality Estimation and Population’s Attitudes: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective of Environmental Implications in Tara National Park (Serbia)

Abstract

The paper analyzes the water quality of hydrological resources in the wider area of Tara National Park (NP Tara) in Serbia and the opinions of the local community and the national park visitors about the grade of the possible damage. The pollution level of the Drina River at the Bajina Bašta hydrological station was analyzed using the Water Pollution Index. The results showed that water quality corresponded to classes II (clean water) or III (moderately polluted water) and revealed the presence of organic pollution. In addition, using a survey combined with field research, the perceptions of local inhabitants and national park visitors related to environmental pollution were analyzed. The community believed that tourism does not cause significant damage to the environment. However, the older and more educated groups of residents and visitors had a more critical perception of the environmental impact of tourism. The results also indicated that the perceptions of visitors were mostly in agreement with measured water quality in the Drina River. The findings of this study have important implications for the management of protected areas and future policies related to national parks.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Water Quality Estimation and Population’s Attitudes:
A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective of Environmental
Implications in Tara National Park (Serbia)
Jovana Brankov 1, 2, * , Ana Milanovi´c Peši´c 1, Dragana Milijaševi´c Joksimovi´c 1, Milan M. Radovanovi´c 1,2 and
Marko D. Petrovi´c 1,2


Citation: Brankov, J.; Peši´c, A.M.;
Joksimovi´c, D.M.; Radovanovi´c,
M.M.; Petrovi´c, M.D. Water Quality
Estimation and Population’s
Attitudes: A Multi-Disciplinary
Perspective of Environmental
Implications in Tara National Park
(Serbia). Sustainability 2021,13, 241.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010241
Received: 30 October 2020
Accepted: 24 December 2020
Published: 29 December 2020
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Geographical Institute “Jovan Cviji´c” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ðure Jakši´ca 9,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia; a.milanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs (A.M.P.); d.milijasevic@gi.sanu.ac.rs (D.M.J.);
m.radovanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs (M.M.R.); m.petrovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs (M.D.P.)
2Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, 76 Lenin Ave.,
454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia
*Correspondence: j.brankov@gi.sanu.ac.rs
Abstract:
The paper analyzes the water quality of hydrological resources in the wider area of
Tara National Park (NP Tara) in Serbia and the opinions of the local community and the national
park visitors about the grade of the possible damage. The pollution level of the Drina River at
the Bajina Bašta hydrological station was analyzed using the Water Pollution Index. The results
showed that water quality corresponded to classes II (clean water) or III (moderately polluted water)
and revealed the presence of organic pollution. In addition, using a survey combined with field
research, the perceptions of local inhabitants and national park visitors related to environmental
pollution were analyzed. The community believed that tourism does not cause significant damage
to the environment. However, the older and more educated groups of residents and visitors had a
more critical perception of the environmental impact of tourism. The results also indicated that the
perceptions of visitors were mostly in agreement with measured water quality in the Drina River.
The findings of this study have important implications for the management of protected areas and
future policies related to national parks.
Keywords:
Drina River; NP Tara; population’s perceptions; tourism impact; Water Pollution Index (WPI)
1. Introduction
In many European countries, including Serbia, special attention is paid to the protec-
tion and preservation of water resources and the environment, as they are identified as
crucial for sustainable development in the 21st century. Therefore, in 2000, the European
Union adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) as a guide-
line for action regarding the protection, restoration and improvement of water bodies. For
all surface waters, the EU WFD requires a good ecological status, i.e., a low level of changes
of the natural state due to human activities [
1
]. Also, it is noteworthy that the protection
and improvement of water resources have become one of the most important segments of
the broader debate about the sustainable development of tourism in the 21st century. The
intact natural environment, where water resources are dominant, is an asset that can create
a competitive advantage for any tourist destination. For that reason, the awareness of the
visual qualities and the level of water pollution are essential when planning and managing
tourist activities related to hydrographic sites. This is particularly important for different
categories of protected natural areas, where water resources are dominant.
The adequate protection of water resources includes activities such as water monitor-
ing, water classification and the regulation of water quality standards. When implementing
these activities, it is very important to evaluate water quality indicators (physical, chem-
ical and biological), which have been referred to in many studies [
2
–
10
]. The concept of
Sustainability 2021,13, 241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010241 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 2 of 18
indexing water with a numerical value to express its quality, based on physical, chemical
and biological measurements, was developed in 1965 by the National Sanitation Founda-
tion (NSF) in the United States [
11
], and it has been known as the Water Quality Index
(WQI). This index is often used to assess the quality of both surface water [
12
–
17
] and
groundwater [18,19].
As the evaluation of water quality and pollution requires an assessment of the ecologi-
cal and chemical status of water resources, it is necessary to interpret the results in simple
and objective terms by combining a large data set of physical, chemical and biological
quality elements. For this purpose, researchers often use the Water Pollution Index (WPI) as
a simple set of water pollution indicators, which facilitates the evaluation of water quality
status in different water bodies. It has already been used for the river water quality and
pollution assessment in Latvia [
20
], Serbia [
21
,
22
], China [
23
–
26
], and Indonesia [
27
]. In
addition, the WPI index has also been used for the water quality assessment of the White
Sea [
28
], the Danube–Tisza–Danube canal system in Serbia [
21
] and the Tapi Estuary in
India [29].
As society’s concern for the health of water resources and the natural environment
is increasing, the influence of public perceptions on environmental management and
policy is becoming more intensive. According to some authors, social factors are crucial
for environmental management and conservation because humans play a central role in
shaping the processes of environmental change [
30
–
34
]. Moreover, it has become broadly
accepted that engaging with the human dimensions of conservation and environmental
management is required to create productive conservation policies and effective outcomes
and actions [
35
–
37
]. In this context, the opinions of residents living within protected
areas, as well as visitors to these areas, should be interpreted as an important indicator
of the current state of natural resources, as well as of the emerging problems regarding
environmental protection. Tourism may be a reason to protect and preserve resources, but
it may also damage them, as is often the case in attractive and fragile ecosystems. This
lays focus on the importance of environmental awareness and the sensitivity of the local
people [38–43].
There is a consensus in the literature that the support of the host communities is
essential for the successful development of tourism in a community. Residents’ hostile
behavior toward tourists could interfere with tourism development; by contrast, a friendly
attitude could support the progress of the tourism sector [
44
]. It is also known that
economic benefits arising from tourism do not always result in socioeconomic benefits and
environmental sustainability [45].
Local residents are often aware of the duality of environmental impacts in their com-
munity: they are both positive and negative [
46
]. Residents value the fact that tourism
improves the appearance of their community and surroundings [
47
] and helps preserve
natural resources [
48
]. On the other hand, residents are also aware that tourism stimulates
noise [
49
] and overcrowding [
49
,
50
], causes pollution [
46
] and increases the quantity of
garbage in the community [
51
]. This tourism-related inconvenience and damage can give
rise to negative perceptions of tourism among the local population [
44
]. Community atti-
tudes toward tourism and its impact on the natural environment have specific importance
at a time when privatization of the natural resources, ecological problems and an increasing
trend toward governance all intersect [38].
Visitors’ experiences in national parks may influence their level of support for a pro-
tected area. If a national park does not meet their needs, they may be unlikely to support
such parks, and this may indirectly affect biodiversity conservation and social equity [
52
].
Due to this, it is suggested that understanding visitors’ perceptions is of great value to
resource managers [
53
]. Also, the perceptions of the management body of the national
parks can provide valuable information for future actions [
54
]. Visitors to natural sites
are increasing in number and the study of perceptions can help identify visitor types,
eventually leading to more successful management [
55
]. To measure visitors’ satisfaction
and perception, numerous studies have been conducted [
52
,
56
–
62
]. The literature data

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 3 of 18
show that the experiences of visitors and their level of satisfaction with the visit to a pro-
tected area may be affected by numerous factors. Studies have shown that higher levels of
visitor satisfaction are related to repeated visits to a tourist destination because the pleasure
experienced motivates people to visit the same area once again [
63
]. Multiple studies have
found that demographic (gender, age) and socioeconomic factors (socioeconomic status,
cultural traits, previous experience, etc.) influence the perception of the environment’s
quality in the protected area [32,64,65].
In light of the above, this study was focused on the assessment of the water quality
in the Tara National Park in Serbia, as well as on the analysis of opinions related to
environmental pollution. Two groups operating on the tourism market—local residents and
national park visitors—have participated in the survey research related to environmental
pollution, which partly included the quality of water resources. Although the tourism of NP
Tara is mostly based on natural resources (primarily the Drina River), little is known about
the population’s perception toward the state of these resources. Moreover, no research has
been carried out to investigate if the real (measured) quality of river water is in agreement
with the opinion of different segments of the population. To fill these gaps, our research
aims to identify the possible matches and to improve the knowledge on the importance
of clean hydrographic resources for the overall sustainable development of this protected
area. Also, this study presents a new perspective on water quality in the context of tourism
development.
2. Study Area
The Tara National Park is located in the west part of Serbia, on the border with Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and it covers the largest part of the Tara Mountain. The Tara Mountain
is delimited to the north and west by the elbow valley of the Drina River, to the southwest
by the valley of the Rzav River, and to the south by the Kremna valley, which separates
it from the Zlatibor Mountain (Figure 1). This mountainous area is a unique geographic
entity, reaching about 45 km in length and up to 18 km in width; the average elevation is
1200 m a.s.l., and its highest peak is Kozji Rid (1591 m a.s.l.) [66].
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
parks can provide valuable information for future actions [54]. Visitors to natural sites are
increasing in number and the study of perceptions can help identify visitor types, eventu-
ally leading to more successful management [55]. To measure visitors’ satisfaction and
perception, numerous studies have been conducted [52,56–62]. The literature data show
that the experiences of visitors and their level of satisfaction with the visit to a protected
area may be affected by numerous factors. Studies have shown that higher levels of visitor
satisfaction are related to repeated visits to a tourist destination because the pleasure ex-
perienced motivates people to visit the same area once again [63]. Multiple studies have
found that demographic (gender, age) and socioeconomic factors (socioeconomic status,
cultural traits, previous experience, etc.) influence the perception of the environment’s
quality in the protected area [32,64,65].
In light of the above, this study was focused on the assessment of the water quality
in the Tara National Park in Serbia, as well as on the analysis of opinions related to envi-
ronmental pollution. Two groups operating on the tourism market—local residents and
national park visitors—have participated in the survey research related to environmental
pollution, which partly included the quality of water resources. Although the tourism of
NP Tara is mostly based on natural resources (primarily the Drina River), little is known
about the population’s perception toward the state of these resources. Moreover, no re-
search has been carried out to investigate if the real (measured) quality of river water is in
agreement with the opinion of different segments of the population. To fill these gaps, our
research aims to identify the possible matches and to improve the knowledge on the im-
portance of clean hydrographic resources for the overall sustainable development of this
protected area. Also, this study presents a new perspective on water quality in the context
of tourism development.
2. Study Area
The Tara National Park is located in the west part of Serbia, on the border with Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and it covers the largest part of the Tara Mountain. The Tara Mountain
is delimited to the north and west by the elbow valley of the Drina River, to the southwest
by the valley of the Rzav River, and to the south by the Kremna valley, which separates it
from the Zlatibor Mountain (Figure 1). This mountainous area is a unique geographic en-
tity, reaching about 45 km in length and up to 18 km in width; the average elevation is
1200 m a.s.l., and its highest peak is Kozji Rid (1591 m a.s.l.) [66].
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
The NP Tara was declared in 1981 and it extends over the territory of the Bajina Bašta
municipality. Its special feature is the Drina canyon, reaching up to 1000 m in depth.
Its average altitude is about 1100 m a.s.l. Two tourist settlements are located at the site:

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 4 of 18
Kalu ¯
derske Bare and Mitrovac [
66
]. The unique natural features (complex relief, diverse
geological substrate and climate characteristics) and the isolated position of the mountain
have enabled the development and survival of a variety of plant and animal species, with
a significant percentage of endemic and relic species. One of the crucial features of the
NP Tara is the forest ecosystems, which cover more than 78.8% of the total area of the
mountain [67].
The area of the national park is dominated by natural tourist values: geomorphological
(mountainous areas, gorges and canyon river valleys), hydrological (rivers, waterfalls and
lakes) and biogeographical (forest ecosystems, endemic and relict species). The most
significant anthropogenic tourist values belong to the category of artistic with historical
character (Raˇca monastery and the archeological sites). The basic form of tourist traffic
is recreational tourism, and there are also ecotourism, adventure, children’s and youth,
rural and event tourism. The basic tourist facilities are the hotels Omorika and Beli Bor in
Kalu ¯
derske Bare, as well as the hotel Drina in Bajina Bašta and the garni hotel Villa Drina in
Peru´cac (the last two outside the borders of the national park). Among the complementary
capacities, the Children’s Resort in Mitrovac stands out and a large number of private
houses and apartments that are rented out to tourists within several tourist settlements on
the mountain and at its foot (Kalu ¯
derske Bare, Šljivovica, Sokolina, Osluša, Predov Krst,
Mitrovac). Catering capacities are present in Kalu ¯
derske Bare, Mitrovac and Peru´cac and
are mainly specialized in the national cuisine. All information for visitors are provided
in Tourist Information Centers in Mitrovac and Bajina Bašta, as well as the Information
Checkpoint on the shores of Lake Peru´cac. For visitors, there are six pedestrian paths that
mainly lead to the viewpoints, for which the NP Tara is especially famous, with appropriate
signage, info-boards and arranged rest areas. The first trail for disabled visitors in Serbia
was constructed in NP Tara on Mitrovac. A network of marked hiking trails 290 km long is
also available to visitors. The complex of indoor and outdoor sports facilities is available
at Kalu ¯
derske Bare within the two mentioned hotels, as well as at Mitrovac within the
Children’s Resort. The organization of tourist activities in the area of the national park is
handled by the public enterprise Tara National Park, tourist organization of Bajina Bašta
and several receptive tourist agencies. Domestic tourists dominate among the visitors,
staying on average 3.8 nights, while the period of stay of foreigners is somewhat shorter
(3.2) [68].
The main water resource of the NP Tara is the Drina River, which surrounds the
mountain from the northwestern and northern sides, running along its foothill from the
confluence of the Derventa River into Lake Peru´cac. The most important part of the
stream, with deep cliffs, is the most recognizable tourist attraction of the area. The cruises
organized along the Drina include boat cruises through the river canyon, and trans-border
tourist tours, i.e., sailing from Peru´cac (Serbia) to Višegrad (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
By damming the river at the village of Peru´cac in 1962, the Lake Peru´cac was formed
(more than 50 km long, 80–500 m wide and 85 m deep) [
66
]. As the maximum water
temperature of the lake is around 22
◦
C, and the mean temperature is about 18
◦
C, the
bathing season lasts from July to August. Due to the cliffy character of the valley, owing
to which the coastline is significantly shifted when water levels are changing, the natural
terrain is almost unusable for beach recreation. For this reason, pontoon beaches are used
for recreational purposes [
69
]. On the Drina River, numerous cultural, tourist and sporting
events are organized. A specific type of event, for which the area is famous, is regattas,
which are organized to celebrate the long tradition of rafting on the Drina River.
3. Materials and Methods
In two independent studies (the assessment of the water pollution level in the Drina
River and the survey of the local population and the visitors of the NP Tara), we used
different methodological approaches. These two pieces of research were implemented to
make useful comparisons and draw constructive conclusions.

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 5 of 18
The water quality of the Drina River has been analyzed in several studies and papers
by applying different methodologies. Thus, physicochemical parameters were analyzed
on 12 selected sites in the Drina River basin in 2013 for irrigation in agriculture [
70
], water
quality on the Drina River in Serbia was analyzed at four hydrological stations in the period
2004–2011 by using the WQI [
71
], and at two hydrological stations in the period 2006–2010
by using the WPI [
69
]. Also, the assessment of the water–food–energy ecosystems nexus
and the benefits of transboundary cooperation in the Drina River basin was done by the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in 2017 [
72
]. In order to analyze water
quality and water pollution level in the Drina River the WPI was used in this study.
The Water Pollution Index (WPI), as a combined index, includes physical, chemical
and microbiological quality elements for water quality assessment. It provides a good
explanation of the main pollution factors and enables an easy comparison of the water
quality data for various water bodies. According to Lyulko, Ambalova, and Vasiljeva [
20
],
the WPI is the sum of the ratios of the measured annual average value parameters (Ci) and
the prescribed maximum values of water quality class I (SFQS) for each parameter, divided
by the number of used parameters (n):
WPI =
n
∑
i=1
Ci
SFQS ×1
n. (1)
For the given water quality classes, each country defines the standard threshold values
for all parameters. In Serbia, they are established at the national level by several legal
documents: the Regulation on Parameters of the Ecological and Chemical Status of Surface
Waters, and the Parameters of the Chemical and Quantitative Status of Ground Waters [
73
],
the Regulation on Emission Limit Values for Pollutants in Surface and Ground Waters
and Sediments and the Deadlines for Their Reaching [
74
] and the Regulation on the Limit
Values of Priority Substances and Priority Hazardous Substances Polluting Surface Waters
and the Deadlines for Their Reaching [75].
The calculated WPI values for watercourses can be classified into six different classes
(Table 1). Based on this methodological approach, the obtained results in this study enabled
us to determine the water quality classes for the Drina River.
Table 1. Water quality classification according to the Water Pollution Index (WPI) [20].
Class Characteristics WPI
I Very pure ≤0.3
II Pure 0.31–1.0
III Moderately polluted 1.01–2.0
IV Polluted 2.01–4.0
V Impure 4.01–6.0
VI Heavily impure >6.01
In this paper, the pollution level of the Drina River was analyzed at the Bajina Bašta
hydrological station. It is not located within the national park; however, it is the closest
hydrological station. Apart from the analysis for this station, there was no possibility for
more detailed WPI analyses on other hydrological resources of the NP Tara, primarily on
Lake Peru´cac, Lake Zaovine and larger tributaries of the Drina. The reason is that there
were no continuous measurements of physical, chemical and biological parameters of
water quality at these hydrological resources. Also, on the Drina River, the parameters for
water quality were measured at four hydrological stations (Bajina Bašta, Ljubovija, Jelav,
Badovinci) until 2011, and since 2012 they have been observed only on two profiles, Bajina
Bašta and Badovinci, which is downstream from Bajina Bašta, near the confluence of the
Sava River into Drina River.
In order to analyze the WPI, the data of 18 physical, chemical and biological parameters
were used. They were collected between 2007 and 2018 by the Republic Hydrometeorologi-

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 6 of 18
cal Service of Serbia (RHSS) using relevant standard methods. The parameters included:
dissolved oxygen (DO), SRPS H.Z1.135; oxygen saturation (OS), SRPS H.Z1.135:1970; pH
value, SRPS H.Z1.111; suspended solids (SS), 13.060.30 SRPS H.Z1.160; biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), SRPSISO 5813:1994; chemical oxygen demand (CODMn), JUS ISO 8467,
ISO 8467; nitrite (NO
22−
), SRPS ISO 6777; ammonium (NH
4
), SRPS ISO 5664; metals (Fe
and Mn–APHA 3111-B: 1998; Ni–APHA 3113-B: 1998 EPA 249.2; Hg–EPA Method 245.5;
Cu–APHA 3113-B: 1998 EPA 220.2; Cd–EPA 6800:2007); sulfate (SO
42−
), APHA AWWA
WEF 4500SO4; orthophosphate (PO
43−
), APHA AWWA WEF 4500-P; saprobic index (S)
and coliform bacteria (CB).
Having completed the first part of the research, we conducted a survey of the local
population and visitors to the NP Tara to assess the perceived state of the environmental
issues. Also, one of the main goals of the research was to compare the perceptions of
the surveyed population with the results of the WPI analysis. The survey was part of
wider research on the indicators of sustainable tourism development in NPs in Serbia [
69
].
Some results of this research have already been published [
65
,
76
]. The authors used two
questionnaire models recommended by the UN World Tourism Organization [
77
] for the
analysis of sustainable development indicators related to the local community satisfaction
and the satisfaction of tourists. This paper addresses the sections of the surveys related to
environmental issues and the impacts of tourism on nature. The questionnaire analysis
was conducted following selected socio-demographic indicators.
When it came to community, the data gathering procedure involved the use of the
structured self-administered questionnaire. The interviewer personally distributed this
document to the households and invited one person from each family to participate in
the survey, with a short explanation of the subject and purpose of the research (persons
under the age of 18 did not take part in the study). Due to the fact that local residents
were mostly unfamiliar with survey procedures, questions were asked directly to the
respondents, and the interviewer filled in the questionnaire after getting the oral answers.
Community members were informed the survey was anonymous and stimulated to give
credible judgment.
The questionnaire consisted of various claims representing the four spheres of tourism
influence (economic, socio-cultural, legal/moral and environmental impacts). However,
in the case of this particular research, only the environmental sphere was investigated,
especially the statements directly/indirectly connected to water resources. To measure
the residents’ opinions, four items were evaluated: environment, utilization of natural
resources needed by the local population, infrastructure quality (roads, water supply,
sewerage, garbage collection) and opening new services (health, communal). The last two
variables could also indicate the economic and social aspects of the impact of tourism. The
measurement items of the recognized impacts were constructed so that respondents had
the autonomy to determine the degree to which they observed those impacts as being
positive or negative (with a bipolar scale ranging from 1 = Significantly worsening to
5 = Significantly enhances (stimulates)).
The survey also contained an open-ended question regarding the current problems of
tourism development, where the answers of the respondents were coded and classified
into certain thematic categories in order to interpret the obtained results.
The procedure of collecting the field data included a stratified random-sampling
method. The sample of the local population included the respondents from the settlements
within or along the boundaries of the NP Tara, where contacts between the community
and tourists were the most intensive. The survey was conducted in five villages (Rastište,
Solotuša, Raˇca, Beserovina and Peru´cac), as well as in the municipal center (Bajina Bašta),
on a sample of 210 randomly selected respondents.
Similar to the previous group, the data gathering procedure involved the use of a
structured self-administered questionnaire for visitors. The research was conducted in
the form of an intercept study, which implies personal contact, generally in a public place.
The interviewers mostly started a conversation with the potential respondent near tourist

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 7 of 18
attractions or visitors’ centers and invited them to participate in the survey while briefly
interpreting the subject and the purpose of the research. If tourists agreed to participate,
the interviewer read the questions and entered the answers or, in some cases, gave the
questionnaire to the respondents to fill out themselves. In accordance with the common
practice in this type of the research [
61
,
78
], the visitors were informed their involvement
was anonymous and they were encouraged to answer honestly.
The questionnaire comprised three sections: the characteristics of the visitor and visit,
activities undertaken and perceptions. In this paper, the authors focused on the part of
the survey related to visitors’ perceptions, i.e., on attitudes related to the environmental
state, which partly included the state of water resources. For this purpose, four items were
used: overall cleanliness of destination, cleanliness of hydrological objects, beaches and
wider coastal areas, presence of garbage in public places and overall environment statein
the form of statements. The respondents were required to rate the state of the environment
in the NP by using the Likert-type scale (with a scale ranging from 1 to 5).
The visitors were approached randomly and they were surveyed in the two largest
tourist settlements within the NP Tara—Kalu ¯
derske Bare and Mitrovac—on a sample
including 206 respondents. The respondents were at least 18 years old and they lived
outside the area of the NP Tara. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were used to
identify the relationships between the socioeconomic variables and the perceptions of the
local community members and visitors.
4. Results
4.1. WPI Values
The results of the study covering the 2007–2018 period, presented in Table 2, showed
a low-to-moderate degree of water pollution in the Drina River. The WPI values recorded
at the Bajina Bašta station were in the 0.45–1.23 range, corresponding to classes II (pure
water) or III (moderately polluted water).
Table 2. WPI values, water classes at study sites in the 2007–2018 period.
Year
Bajina Bašta (Drina River)
WPI Class
2007 0.78 II
2008 1.13 III
2009 1.23 III
2010 0.73 II
2011 0.68 II
2012 0.84 II
2013 0.74 II
2014 0.55 II
2015 0.96 II
2016 0.92 II
2017 0.85 II
2018 0.45 II
A comparison with other studies showed that similar results for water quality were
obtained by Lešˇcešen et al. [
71
], who analyzed the water quality status and the spatial
and temporal trends along the Drina by applying seven WQI parameters to data from
an eight-year public database (2004–2011). Based on the seven chemical parameters (pH,
conductivity, BOD5, suspended solids, total oxidized nitrogen and CB) results of this study
showed that water quality was very good at the Bajina Bašta station and the other three
hydrological stations. The water of the Drina River was pure all along its course and it
was completely suitable for exploitation and utilization [
71
]. Also, the results of the WPI
analysis in the period 2006–2010 gave similar results for the Bajina Bašta station, while
at the Ljubovija station the water was assessed as moderately polluted. When it came to

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 8 of 18
the influence of individual parameters on water pollution, increased values of S and CB
were registered, which indicated moderate organic pollution [
69
]. According to the three
monitoring cycles of 11 parameters (t, pH, ECw, TDS, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, K
+
, Na
+
, Cl, SO
42−
,
SAR) on 12 selected sites in the Drina River basin during 2013, it was also concluded that
water samples belonged to a class of water for drinking and irrigation [70].
Out of the 18 parameters used to calculate the WPI, the values of ten (DO, OS, pH,
SS, CODMn, Ni, Cu, Cd, SO
42−
and PO
43−
) were always within the permissible values
for class I. The values of two analyzed parameters (S and Mn) mainly belonged to class I,
with occasional minor deviations. For example, in 2013, the measured value of the saprobic
index (2.46) and manganese (0.063 mg/L) fell into class II. It is important to highlight
that the value of Hg was about 0.1 and, according to the previous regulation, this was a
permissible value for class I. According to the new regulation, the permissible value is
0.07, and therefore the Hg value may be classified as increased. The other five analyzed
parameters that deviated more or less from the permissible values for class I, thereby
affecting the WPI values, are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Parameters above the prescribed values for class I at the Bajina Bašta station (Drina River).
Year Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) NO22−NH4Fe Coliform Bacteria (CB)
2007 II I I II I
2008 II I I III II
2009 I I I I II
2010 I II I I II
2011 II II I I II
2012 I I I I II
2013 I II II I II
2014 I I I I II
2015 I I II I II
2016 I I II I II
2017 I I II I II
2018 I I I I II
It can be concluded that the indicators of organic pollution (BOD5, NO
22−
, NH
4
and
CB) had a significant impact on increased WPI values. With increased nutrient loads,
eutrophication occurs, causing problems such as water quality deterioration, changes in
the biotic population structure, oxygen depletion, etc. Generally speaking, the increased
values of ammonium (Figure 2), as well as nitrite, indicated the organic pollution of the
Drina River in the wider zone of NP Tara.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Figure 2. Values of ammonium in 2007–2018. (Source: The authors, based on the data of Republic
Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia (RHSS)).
Based on an analysis of the WQI results for the Drina River in 2004–2011, Leščešen et
al. [71] concluded that BOD5, total oxidized nitrogen and CB, as the indicators of organic
pollution, had the greatest impact on water quality. High values of CB may indicate fecal
pollution, which mainly originates from untreated sewage wastewater from Bajina Bašta
[71]. Also, among the four hydrological stations where the BOD5 parameter was meas-
ured, the greatest values were recorded at Bajina Bašta. Our results, presented in Table 3,
confirmed slightly increased values of BOD5 in 2007, 2008 and 2011, as well. However,
water quality could be described as satisfactory according to this parameter, which was
confirmed by the results of this study, as well as by the results of the abovementioned
studies. The values of heavy metals (except Fe in 2007 and 2008) were generally within
the permissible limits and their impact on pollution was relatively small.
4.2. The Perceptions of the Local Population and the Visitors
As previously mentioned, we researched a sample of 210 randomly selected mem-
bers of the local community. The socio-demographic profile of the respondents in the NP
Tara was marked by the domination of women (52.9%) and the 30–39 age category
(33.8%). Furthermore, 61.4% of the respondents living in the NP Tara had secondary edu-
cation, whereas the respondents employed in tourism, or those with at least one family
member employed in this activity, accounted for 20.5%.
To examine their perceptions of the different impacts of tourism on the environment,
several specific impact variables were taken into consideration in relative terms—the
mean value of the variable between 1 and 2.4 showed a negative attitude, 2.5–3.4 neutral,
and 3.5 and higher revealed a positive perception (Table 4).
Table 4. Perceptions of the local population on the various influences of tourist activity.
Variables Mean SD
Environment 3.4 1.1
Utilization of the natural resources needed for the local population (water, fish, etc.) 3.4 0.9
Infrastructure (roads, water supply, sewerage, garbage collection) 2.3 1.1
Opening new services (health, communal, etc.) 2.2 1.0
“How does tourism in your municipality/settlement affect the following activities?” Scale: 1-Significantly worsening; 2-Worse; 3-Does not affect
(does not make a difference); 4-Improves (stimulates); 5-Significantly enhances (stimulates)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Measured values
Prescribed values
for class I
Figure 2.
Values of ammonium in 2007–2018. (Source: The authors, based on the data of Republic
Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia (RHSS)).

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 9 of 18
Based on an analysis of the WQI results for the Drina River in 2004–2011, Lešˇcešen
et al. [
71
] concluded that BOD5, total oxidized nitrogen and CB, as the indicators of or-
ganic pollution, had the greatest impact on water quality. High values of CB may indicate
fecal pollution, which mainly originates from untreated sewage wastewater from Bajina
Bašta [
71
]. Also, among the four hydrological stations where the BOD5 parameter was
measured, the greatest values were recorded at Bajina Bašta. Our results, presented in
Table 3
, confirmed slightly increased values of BOD5 in 2007, 2008 and 2011, as well. How-
ever, water quality could be described as satisfactory according to this parameter, which
was confirmed by the results of this study, as well as by the results of the abovementioned
studies. The values of heavy metals (except Fe in 2007 and 2008) were generally within the
permissible limits and their impact on pollution was relatively small.
4.2. The Perceptions of the Local Population and the Visitors
As previously mentioned, we researched a sample of 210 randomly selected members
of the local community. The socio-demographic profile of the respondents in the NP Tara
was marked by the domination of women (52.9%) and the 30–39 age category (33.8%).
Furthermore, 61.4% of the respondents living in the NP Tara had secondary education,
whereas the respondents employed in tourism, or those with at least one family member
employed in this activity, accounted for 20.5%.
To examine their perceptions of the different impacts of tourism on the environment,
several specific impact variables were taken into consideration in relative terms—the mean
value of the variable between 1 and 2.4 showed a negative attitude, 2.5–3.4 neutral, and 3.5
and higher revealed a positive perception (Table 4).
Table 4. Perceptions of the local population on the various influences of tourist activity.
Variables Mean SD
Environment 3.4 1.1
Utilization of the natural resources needed for the local population (water, fish, etc.) 3.4 0.9
Infrastructure (roads, water supply, sewerage, garbage collection) 2.3 1.1
Opening new services (health, communal, etc.) 2.2 1.0
“How does tourism in your municipality/settlement affect the following activities?” Scale: 1-
Significantly worsening; 2-Worse; 3-Does not affect (does not make a difference); 4-Improves (stimu-
lates); 5-Significantly enhances (stimulates).
According to the results, the respondents believed that tourism did not affect (either
positively or negatively) the environment. Also, they believed that tourism did not (either
positively or negatively) influence the use of natural (primarily water) resources needed by
the local community. As regards the perceptions of the activities related to environmental
pollution, local people believed that tourism had a negative impact on the establishment of
new utility services in their place of living. A similar opinion was also present regarding
the impact of tourism on the communal infrastructure.
Bivariate statistical analysis was used in this research to explain the relationship
between socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education, employment in tourism) and
perceptions of local community members. The correlation analysis indicated a statistically
significant correlation between the respondents’ opinions about the utilization of natural
resources by tourism and the respondents’ ages (r = 0.16). The one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) revealed that the perception of the impact of tourism on the environmental
quality was more negative among the older population (age group 50–59) than among
younger respondents (30–39) (M = 2.94 vs. M = 3.57, F = 3.1, p= 0.03). The perceptions of
the respondents with secondary education were more negative than the perceptions of the
respondents with elementary education (M = 2.94 vs. M = 3.47, F = 3.6, p= 0.03).
In order to get an insight into the perceptions of the current problems of tourism
development, residents were asked an open-ended question (“What is the most worrying
thing about the development of tourism in your municipality?”). After finishing the survey,
we defined the main categories of the answers (Figure 3).

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 10 of 18
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
According to the results, the respondents believed that tourism did not affect (either
positively or negatively) the environment. Also, they believed that tourism did not (either
positively or negatively) influence the use of natural (primarily water) resources needed
by the local community. As regards the perceptions of the activities related to
environmental pollution, local people believed that tourism had a negative impact on the
establishment of new utility services in their place of living. A similar opinion was also
present regarding the impact of tourism on the communal infrastructure.
Bivariate statistical analysis was used in this research to explain the relationship
between socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education, employment in tourism)
and perceptions of local community members. The correlation analysis indicated a
statistically significant correlation between the respondents’ opinions about the utilization
of natural resources by tourism and the respondents’ ages (r = 0.16). The one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the perception of the impact of tourism on the
environmental quality was more negative among the older population (age group 50–59)
than among younger respondents (30–39) (M = 2.94 vs. M = 3.57, F = 3.1, p = 0.03). The
perceptions of the respondents with secondary education were more negative than the
perceptions of the respondents with elementary education (M = 2.94 vs. M = 3.47, F = 3.6,
p = 0.03).
In order to get an insight into the perceptions of the current problems of tourism
development, residents were asked an open-ended question (“What is the most worrying
thing about the development of tourism in your municipality?”). After finishing the
survey, we defined the main categories of the answers (Figure 3).
Figure 3. The distribution of the community members’ answers to the question “What is the most
worrying thing about the tourism development in your municipality?”
Regarding the effects of tourism development in the NP Tara, the highest percentage
of the respondents pointed out that they were the most concerned about the impact of
tourism on environmental quality (53 respondents, 25.2%), highlighting the pollution of
Lake Perućac with solid waste and the formation of frequent wild dumps on its coast as
the main problem. They also emphasized the unregulated communal activities—waste
removal, neglected public areas, wild landfills, incomplete and unfinished sewer
construction, etc.
The sample of the visitors surveyed in the NP Tara included 206 respondents. The
socio-demographic profile of the surveyed visitors was marked by the prevalence of
women (NP Tara 64.1%) and the 30–39 age category (42.7%). The youngest age group (18–
29) accounted for 25.2% of the sample. Visitors with secondary education prevailed
(49.5%), while the percentage of visitors with a college (18%) or a university degree
(32.5%) was significant. Visitors whose daily expenditures were USD 5–10 prevailed
010 20 30 40 50 60
Other
Incompetent staff
Illegaly built objects
Insufficient investments
Utility and transport infrastructure
Impact on the quality of the environment
Number of the respondents
The opinion of community
members
Figure 3.
The distribution of the community members’ answers to the question “What is the most worrying thing about the
tourism development in your municipality?”
Regarding the effects of tourism development in the NP Tara, the highest percentage of
the respondents pointed out that they were the most concerned about the impact of tourism
on environmental quality (53 respondents, 25.2%), highlighting the pollution of Lake
Peru´cac with solid waste and the formation of frequent wild dumps on its coast as the main
problem. They also emphasized the unregulated communal activities—waste removal,
neglected public areas, wild landfills, incomplete and unfinished sewer construction, etc.
The sample of the visitors surveyed in the NP Tara included 206 respondents. The
socio-demographic profile of the surveyed visitors was marked by the prevalence of
women (NP Tara 64.1%) and the 30–39 age category (42.7%). The youngest age group
(18–29) accounted for 25.2% of the sample. Visitors with secondary education prevailed
(49.5%), while the percentage of visitors with a college (18%) or a university degree (32.5%)
was significant. Visitors whose daily expenditures were USD 5–10 prevailed (57.8%) in the
sample, as well as the tourists who had visited the NP Tara more than three times (58.7%
of the sample).
Visitors’ perceptions on the state of the environment in the NP Tara are presented in
Table 5. According to the results, the visitors’ opinions about the overall cleanliness of the
NP Tara were positive. As regards the cleanliness of hydrological sites, beaches and wider
coastal areas, the perceptions were neutral. The tourists who visited NP Tara claimed that
garbage was not present in public areas within the national park and their overall opinion
about the state of the natural environment in the national park was positive.
Table 5. Visitors’ perceptions on the state of the environment in the national park.
Variables Mean SD
The cleanliness of the destination 4.2 0.9
The cleanliness of hydrological sites, beaches and wider coastal areas 3.3 1.1
The presence of garbage in public places 2.3 1.2
Environment state 3.7 1.0
The correlation analysis between socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education,
daily consumption and repeated visits) and visitors’ perceptions identified a statistically
significant correlation between certain variables. A moderately negative correlation was
found for the variables related to the perceptions of the cleanliness of hydrological sites,
beaches and wider coastal areas and socio-demographic variables: age (r =
−
0.41) and
education (r =
−
0.39). This means that the perceptions of older and more educated visitors
regarding this issue were more negative. A weak negative correlation was determined for
the same variable and the visitors’ daily expenditures (r = 0.20). The correlation analysis

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 11 of 18
also showed a weak statistically significant correlation between the perceptions of the
presence of garbage in public places and the respondents’ ages (r = 0.25).
Tourists with lower daily expenditures (USD 5–10) had a more positive opinion of
the overall cleanliness of the site than those with higher daily expenditures (over USD 10)
(M = 4.34 vs. M = 3.92, F = 4.8, p= 0.01). As far as expenditures were concerned, identical
relationships were identified for the perceptions of the cleanliness of hydrological sites,
beaches and wider coastal areas (M = 3.62 vs. M = 3.04, F = 3.2, p= 0.04). Tourists with
secondary education had a more positive perception of the cleanliness of hydrological
sites, beaches and wider coastal areas than the visitors with university education (M = 3.61
vs. M = 2.64, F = 24, p= 0.000). In this case, a great influence of the tested social variable
(education) was observed. The oldest visitors (50+) were more aware of the presence of
garbage in public areas within the NP Tara than the youngest category of visitors (18–29)
(M = 2.79 vs. M = 1.94, F = 4.5, p= 0.005). Similarly, the visitors with a university education
were more aware of the presence of garbage in the NP than the tourists with a college
education (M = 2.63 vs. M = 2.14, F = 3.3, p= 0.04).
5. Discussion
This study is the result of interdisciplinary research. In the first part, the water quality
in the Drina River was analyzed using the WPI. In the second segment, the use of a survey
and field research analyzed the opinion of the local residents and NP visitors on the state
of the environment, and in part on water resources quality and pollution. Similar to
some previous studies [
65
,
79
], our results showed that the local population’s perceptions
matched, to a certain degree, the measured water quality.
The water quality of the rivers in the wider zone of the NP Tara was generally sat-
isfactory, which is important for the development of specific types of tourism that are
related to environmental protection (nature tourism, ecotourism, geotourism, etc.). The
calculated values of the WPI in the 2007–2018 period indicated low or moderate water
pollution of the Drina River in the NP Tara sector. Based on these results, as well as the
results of other studies that assessed the natural environment on Drina River flow [
72
,
80
],
it can be concluded that the Drina River basin is a water-rich river basin characterized by
untouched landscapes and a high level of biodiversity [
72
]. However, numerous analyses
and the WPI results showed that water quality is affected by the discharge of solid waste
into the Drina River basin and reservoirs in its basin (Uvac, Lim, Peru´cac), a large number
of wild landfills in river valleys, large quantities of liquid waste that mixes with river water
upstream (in Sjenica and Nova Varoš) due to inadequate sanitation, and the uncontrolled
discharge of untreated wastewater in the wider zone of the NP Tara.
Principally, the underdeveloped and poorly regulated utility infrastructure in the
wider area of the NP Tara is a major problem. In the Bajina Bašta municipality, within the
NP Tara, wastewater is discharged directly into the watercourses without prior purification,
through a partially regulated sewage system. A special problem highlighted in official
documents on spatial development [
81
,
82
] is the pollution of Lake Peru´cac with municipal
waste. Due to the presence of various pollutants in the upper sector of the Drina and its
tributaries, Lake Peru´cac and the NP Tara zone are contaminated with several dozen cubic
meters of floating waste a year, forming the so-called “floating dumps.” The residents
highlighted the importance of this problem in their answers to the open-ended question
regarding the current problems connected to tourism development.
Another problem is groundwater pollution, which is a result of the inadequate use
of agrochemicals and procedural waters from landfills. This situation is caused by the
unplanned development of numerous weekend settlements (Kalu ¯
derske Bare, Sokolina,
Mitrovac, Osluša, Krnja Jela, Raˇcanska Šljivovica, Oštra Stena, etc.), which are not supplied
with appropriate infrastructure. This is particularly pronounced on the shores of Lake
Peru´cac near the Klisura Derventa Nature Reserve, where more than 100 buildings were
illegally built until 2012. They endanger the living species and the NP area in several ways:
by endangering natural habitats of species and destroying the fauna, as well as through

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 12 of 18
the accumulation of communal solid waste, wastewater, destruction of the ambient values
and tourist–recreational functions of the area. In the largest part of the park, the disposal
of municipal waste from containers placed in public areas has been organized. However,
there is no systematic waste management for household waste, which results in inadequate
disposal of solid waste and the formation of landfills in the national park [82].
Industrial plants built in the cities in the Drina River basin also contribute to its
pollution. Although some of the industrial plants have either ceased operation or are
operating with minimum capacities (Magli´c in Foˇca, Azot and Pobeda in Goražde, Varda
and Terpentin in Višegrad, Kotroman in Mokra Gora and FAP in Priboj), they still discharge
untreated or partially treated wastewater. According to the results of the List of Major
Pollution Sources, the Poliester corporation in Priboj can be identified as a source of
industrial waste pollution in the Drina River upstream from the NP Tara [
83
]. Finally,
the influence of the ´
Cehotina River, the Drina’s right tributary, is also noteworthy. It is
contaminated with rust from the former lead and zinc mine Šuplja Stijena near Pljevlja in
Montenegro [69].
Compared to other types of pollutants (wastewater, the use of agrochemical resources
and landfill waters), the pollution from the tourism sector is significantly lower, but not
negligible. The accommodation and catering facilities in the territory of NP Tara do not
have their own wastewater treatment systems. The only exception is the hotels owned by
the Tara Military Institution at Kalu ¯
derske Bare (Omorika and Beli Bor), where wastewater
has been purified through a biodiversity system since 2004. The technological process
used in the system is based on the presence of microorganisms, which help process fecal
and other wastewaters into the quality water of class IIA (the water quality level of the
Drina River). According to the “National Park Tara Management Plan for the period
2018–2027” [
82
], the significant expansion of tourist complexes and weekend settlements
on Tara Mountain over the past 10 years, and the wastewater from these facilities are a
growing threat to the quality of watercourses in the wider NP area.
Based on the spatial database of pollutants in the Drina River basin, Gaji´c et al. [
84
]
concluded that industry, gravel pits, intensive agriculture and communal wastewater
pollute the Drina River. Quarries and gravel pits lead to water pollution, as well as
landscape change, riverbeds and turbidity. Also, Djordjevic et al. [
85
] concluded that
apart from agriculture and urbanization, other factors have influenced the degradation of
watercourses and their riparian areas in the Drina River basin, more specifically, undefined
boundaries of water lands, pastures or agricultural households. In addition, it is important
to emphasize that coastal erosion is present in the Drina basin, which leads to landscape
degradation (lateral migration), socioeconomic (land loss, land-use change, economic
losses) and geopolitical consequences [86].
Although the development of tourism may be beneficial for the environment for
various reasons (better protection measures, growing awareness of the significance of
environmental resources, etc.) [
38
], the surveyed community members, for the most part,
did not agree that tourism in the NP Tara had positive effects on the environment. The
local population identified the negative effects of tourism regarding the activities related
to nature protection (establishing new communal services and improving the overall and
communal infrastructure). In the literature, this was explained by the fact that residents’
perceptions of the impact are affected by the distribution of benefits in the community,
the stage of tourism development and the degree of participation in the decision-making
process [
78
,
87
–
90
]. Accordingly, it can be concluded that tourism is an insufficiently
developed and inadequately planned activity and that the role of the local community in
its development is marginalized.
The results confirmed that age was a strong predictor of the population’s perceptions
of tourism’s effects on the local environment. These findings appear to agree with some
previous studies [
44
]. Compared to younger residents, the residents older than 50 perceived
tourism’s impact on the local environment as more negative. As they were mostly born in
rural, non-urban areas, they probably observe tourism as a way of attacking nature, and

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 13 of 18
they may be more sensitive to environmental degradation. The analysis also showed that
the perceptions of the respondents who were more educated were more negative. Com-
pared to those with elementary education, residents with higher education have received
more in-depth environmental education; consequently, they may be more concerned about
the environment than the population with the lowest level of education. Unlike some
previous studies [
38
], this study did not find a significant relationship between employment
in tourism and the perceptions of residents.
Although a neutral perception of the cleanliness of hydrological facilities and beaches
was observed, the overall opinion of visitors on the state of the environment was positive.
Education and age were the most significant variables determining the visitors’ perceptions
in the NP Tara. It was found that older and more educated visitors had a more critical
perception of the natural environment in this national park. In the literature, this was
explained by the fact that higher education indicates higher expectations [
91
]; accordingly,
if a protected area fails to meet the expectations, this will give rise to a critically oriented
attitude. The results also show that tourists with higher daily expenditures had a more
negative perception of the overall cleanliness of the destination. Unlike some previous
studies [92,93], repeated visits did not affect tourists’ perceptions.
6. Conclusions
The NP Tara, as well as other national parks, is an important tourist site due to its
preserved ecosystems, intact nature and attractive buildings and phenomena. As some of
the tourist activities are directly related to natural resources (hydrographical sites, forest
ecosystems), their diversity and the fact that they are available in their original form may
increase the attractiveness of a site. However, as national parks become attractive for
various economic activities, the pressure on nature is constantly increasing, resulting in
increased pollution and environmental degradation.
The main theoretical contribution of this research is to call attention to the unique link
between the quality of natural resources and the people established in national parks from
the aspect of rational use in tourism. This study advances knowledge about the state of
hydrological resources, as an undoubted requirement for sustainable tourism development
of protected areas. It also improves knowledge about the population’s perceptions of the
environment, as well as the predictors that condition the observations. As the outcomes of
particular relationships examined in this research represent authentic findings on national
park-related issues, the existing study also promotes remarkably the literature on this topic.
The water quality of the Drina River in the wider zone of the NP Tara is generally
satisfactory, which is important for the development of specific types of tourism that are
in accordance with environmental protection. The calculated WPI at the Bajina Bašta
station for the 2007–2018 period was in the 0.45 (2018) to 1.23 (2014) range, corresponding
to classes II (pure water) or III (moderately polluted water). Therefore, the water of the
Drina River is completely suitable for exploitation and utilization. However, out of the 18
analyzed parameters, five parameters (BOD5, NO
22−
, NH
4
, Fe, CB) deviated more or less
from the permissible values for class I, thereby affecting the WPI values. Their increased
values indicate the organic pollution of the Drina River in the wider zone of NP Tara. The
most important sources of water pollution in the Drina River can be grouped as follows:
(1) Industrial waste (especially from mines); (2) Agricultural waste; (3) Solid municipal
waste (especially wild landfills) and a limited number of sanitary landfills and (4) Urban
wastewater (including that from the tourism sector) due to lack of proper processing.
According to both the analysis of the WPI and the results of the survey conducted
among the local population and tourists, the pollution from the tourism sector is signifi-
cantly lower than the other types of pollution. Also, the analysis of residents’ perceptions
indicates that tourism has a poor impact on some segments of economic development re-
lated to environmental protection and the utilization of water resources. This is supported
by the fact that compared to other activities, tourism is not the dominant industry in the mu-
nicipality on whose territory the NP Tara is located (7% of the local population employed

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 14 of 18
in tourism in the municipality of Bajina Bašta) [
69
], so the impacts it creates, either positive
or negative, are still smaller than the influences of more developed branches of the local
economy. To make tourism a significant factor in the local economy, increased and targeted
investments in tourism are needed. They should be supported by the government and local
authorities, and special financial incentives for private individuals should be provided.
The mentioned activities follow the philosophy and basic principles of sustainable tourism
development, according to which it is necessary to provide stable employment, earning
opportunities and social services to the host communities.
The results of the study also revealed that visitors’ perceptions regarding the water
quality in the Drina River were mostly in agreement with the measured water quality.
Visitors agreed that the environment of the NP Tara was preserved, describing the des-
tination as “clean,” and the obtained WPI values confirmed this opinion—class II (pure
water) prevailed almost throughout the analyzed period. Since the Drina River is used
for swimming, nautical activities, sports and recreation, it is noteworthy that the values of
the elements that influence water pollution are within the permissible limits. In general,
despite the registered trend of the deterioration of water quality in the Drina River, its
tourist function has not been disturbed yet, although this could happen in the future if the
pollution trend continues.
The results of this study can be used for the future management of protected areas. To
ensure the ecological control of tourism development, it is recommended to upgrade the
communal infrastructure by constructing sewage systems and sewage treatment plants.
Water purification devices must also be provided for industrial plants built in the cities
in the Drina River basin, as well as for tourist facilities within the national park. The
Spatial Plan for the Special Purpose Area of the NP Tara [
48
] highlights the following factors
as the underlying weaknesses of the area: environmental degradation due to poorly
developed utility services, poor functioning of landfills that do not follow the modern
principles of municipal waste disposal; an insufficient and inadequate knowledge base
in the community to create the models of proper ecological behavior. In line with this,
it is necessary to define developmental priorities and future activities, but this requires
significant initial intervention on the part of the government through increased investment.
Environmental problems are increasing in scope and it is necessary to focus greater
attention on each specific problem. In line with this, our study confirms that the investiga-
tion of tourist perceptions can provide valuable data, which may be used together with
traditional monitoring in national parks. Information coming from perception analysis can
be useful for implementing specific visitor management strategies and simulation models.
This study also highlights the internal threats to sustainable tourism from the perspective
of the residents and offers the opportunity to take action. In order to ensure a better
understanding of this topic, we propose the implementation of comparative trans-border
research studies that will build upon the outcomes of this research.
Author Contributions:
The contribution of the authors are as follows: Conceptualization, J.B.,
A.M.P. and D.M.J.; Methodology, J.B., A.M.P. and D.M.J.; Formal analysis J.B., A.M.P. and D.M.J.;
Investigation, J.B., A.M.P. and D.M.J.; Resources, M.M.R.; Data curation, J.B., A.M.P. and D.M.J.;
Writing—original draft preparation, J.B., A.M.P. and D.M.J.; Writing—review and editing, J.B., A.M.P.,
D.M.J. and M.D.P.; Supervision, M.M.R.; Visualization, M.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technolog-
ical Development, Republic of Serbia.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments:
We are grateful to the members of the local community and visitors to the NP
Tara for their participation in the survey.

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 15 of 18
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
The Europian Parlament and The Council of The European Union. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy; OJ L 327. Off. J. Eur.
Union 2000,43, 1–73.
2.
Jakovljevic, D. Serbian and Canadian water quality index of Danube river in Serbia in 2010. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic SASA
2012
,
62, 1–18. [CrossRef]
3.
Siqueira, G.W.; Aprile, F.M.; Miguéis, A.M. Diagnóstico da qualidade da água do rio Parauapebas (Pará, Brasil). Acta Amaz.
2012
,
42, 413–422. [CrossRef]
4.
Rocha, F.C.; Andrade, E.M.; Lopes, F.B. Water quality index calculated from biological, physical and chemical attributes. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 2014,187, 4163. [CrossRef]
5.
Walker, D.J.; Jakovljevi´c, D.; Savi´c, D.; Radovanovi´c, M. Multi-criterion water quality analysis of the Danube River in Serbia: A
visualisation approach. Water Res. 2015,79, 158–172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Barakat, A.; El Baghdadi, M.; Rais, J.; Aghezzaf, B.; Slassi, M. Assessment of spatial and seasonal water quality variation of Oum
Er Rbia River (Morocco) using multivariate statistical techniques. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016,4, 284–292. [CrossRef]
7.
Mladenovi´c-Ranisavljevi´c, I.; Žeraji´c, S.A. Comparison of different models of water quality index in the assessment of surface
water quality. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017,15, 665–674. [CrossRef]
8.
Dunca, A.-M. Water pollution and water quality assessment of major transboundary rivers from Banat (Romania). J. Chem.
2018
,
2018, 8. [CrossRef]
9.
Kumar, V.; Kumar, S.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, J.; Kumar, P. Water quality of river ganga with reference to physico-chemical and
microbiological characteristics during Kanwar Mela 2017, at Haridwar, India: A case study. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci.
2018
,3,
58–63. [CrossRef]
10.
Turki, S.A.; Maktoof, A.A. Assessment of water quality for Euphrates river in AL-Nasiriyah city by using organic pollution index.
J. Educ. Pure Sci. 2019,9, 58–68. [CrossRef]
11.
Lumb, A.; Sharma, T.C.; Bibeault, J.-F. A Review of genesis and evolution of water quality index (WQI) and some future directions.
Water Qual. Expo. Health 2011,3, 11–24. [CrossRef]
12.
Ismail, Z.; Sulaiman, R.; Karim, R. Evaluating trends of water quality index of selected Kelang river tributaries. Environ. Eng.
Manag. J. 2014,13, 61–72. [CrossRef]
13.
Sun, W.; Xia, C.; Xu, M.; Guo, J.; Sun, G. Application of modified water quality indices as indicators to assess the spatial and
temporal trends of water quality in the Dongjiang River. Ecol. Indic. 2016,66, 306–312. [CrossRef]
14.
¸Sener, ¸S.; ¸Sener, E.; Davraz, A. Evaluation of water quality using water quality index (WQI) method and GIS in Aksu River
(SW-Turkey). Sci. Total. Environ. 2017,584-585, 131–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Milijasevic-Joksimovic, D.; Gavrilovic, B.; Lovic-Obradovic, S. Application of the water quality index in the Timok River basin
(Serbia). J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic SASA 2018,68, 333–344. [CrossRef]
16.
Fathi, E.; Zamani-Ahmadmahmoodi, R.; Zare-Bidaki, R. Water quality evaluation using water quality index and multivariate
methods, Beheshtabad River, Iran. Appl. Water Sci. 2018,8, 210. [CrossRef]
17.
Babi´c, G.; Vukovi´c, M.; Voza, D.; Taki´c, L.; Mladenovi´c-Ranisavljevi´c, I. Assessing surface water quality in the Serbian part of the
Tisa River basin. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019,28, 4073–4085. [CrossRef]
18.
Aly, A.A.; Al-Omran, A.; Alharby, M.M. The water quality index and hydrochemical characterization of groundwater resources
in Hafar Albatin, Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Geosci. 2014,8, 4177–4190. [CrossRef]
19.
Baghapour, M.A.; Shooshtarian, M.R. Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking purposes using Water Quality Index
(WQI) in Shiraz, Iran (2011 to 2015). Iran J. Health Saf. Environ. 2018,5, 888–893.
20.
Lyulko, I.; Ambalova, T.; Vasiljeva, T. To integrated water quality assessment in Latvia. In MTM (Monitoring Tailor-Made)
III: International Workshop on Information for Sustainable Water Management, Proceedings of the MTM (Monitoring Tailor-Made) III,
Nunspeet, The Netherlands, 25–28 September 2000; Timmerman, J., Ed.; Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water
Treatment RIZA: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 449–452.
21.
Brankov, J.; Milijaševi´c, D.; Milanovi´c, A. The assessment of the surface water quality using the Water Pollution Index: A case
study of the Timok River (the Danube River basin), Serbia. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2012,38, 49–61. [CrossRef]
22.
Popovi´c, N.; Ðukni´c, J.; ˇ
Canak Atlagi´c, J.; Rakovi´c, M.; Marinkovi´c, N.; Tubi´c, B.; Paunovi´c, M. Assessment of the ecological status
of rivers: A case study of the Sava River, Serbia. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2016,68, 97–102.
23.
Qin, H.; Su, Q.; Khu, S.-T.; Tang, N. Water quality changes during rapid urbanization in the Shenzhen River catchment: An
integrated view of socio-economic and infrastructure development. Sustainability 2014,6, 7433–7451. [CrossRef]
24.
Li, R.; Zou, Z.-H.; An, Y. Water quality assessment in Qu River based on fuzzy water pollution index method. J. Environ. Sci.
2016
,
50, 87–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Zhang, Q.; Rui-Hong, Y.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X.; Xue, H.; Hao, Y.; Wang, L. Temporal and spatial variation trends in water
quality based on the WPI index in the shallow lake of an arid area: A case study of Lake Ulansuhai, China. Water
2019
,11, 1410.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 16 of 18
26.
Chen, J.; Lyu, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhao, H.; Li, Z. Using the multidimensional synthesis methods with non-parameter test,
multiple time scales analysis to assess water quality trend and its characteristics over the past 25 years in the Fuxian Lake, China.
Sci. Total. Environ. 2019,655, 242–254. [CrossRef]
27.
Effendi, H. River water quality preliminary rapid assessment using pollution index. Procedia Environ. Sci.
2016
,33, 562–567.
[CrossRef]
28.
Filatov, N.; Pozdnyakov, D.; Johannessen, O.M.; Pettersson, L.; Bobylev, L. White Sea: Its Marine Environment and Ecosystem
Dynamics Influenced by Global Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 1–520. [CrossRef]
29. Ujjania, N.C.; Dubey, M. Water quality index of estuarine environment. Curr. Sci. 2015,108, 1430–1432.
30.
Bennett, N.J.; Roth, R.; Klain, S.; Chan, K.; Christie, P.; Clark, D.A.; Cullman, G.; Curran, D.; Durbin, T.J.; Epstein, G.; et al.
Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv.
2017
,205,
93–108. [CrossRef]
31.
Christie, P.; Bennett, N.J.; Gray, N.J.; ‘Aulani Wilhelm, T.; Lewis, N.; Parks, J.; Ban, N.C.; Gruby, R.L.; Gordon, L.; Day, J.; et al.
Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Mar. Policy
2017,84, 273–284. [CrossRef]
32.
Pelegrina-López, A.; Ocaña-Peinado, F.M.; Henares-Civantos, I.; Rosúa-Campos, J.L.; Serrano-Bernardo, F.A. Analyzing social
perception as a key factor in the management of protected areas: The case of the Sierra Nevada protected area (S Spain). J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 2018,61, 124–142. [CrossRef]
33.
Kemp, S.P.; Palinkas, L.A.; Wong, M.; Wagner, K.; Reyes Mason, L.; Chi, I.; Nurius, P.; Floersch, J.; Rechkemmer, A. Strengthening
the Social Response to the Human Impacts of Environmental Change; Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative Working Paper No.
5; American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2015; pp. 1–31.
34. Gössling, S. Human–environmental relations with tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002,29, 539–556. [CrossRef]
35.
Sandbrook, C.; Adams, W.M.; Büscher, B.; Vira, B. Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol.
2013
,27, 1487–1490.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
De Snoo, G.R.; Herzon, I.; Staats, H.; Burton, R.J.; Schindler, S.; van Dijk, J.; Lokhorst, A.M.; Bullock, J.M.; Lobley, M.; Wrbka, T.;
et al. Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: Making farmers matter. Conserv. Lett. 2013,6, 66–72. [CrossRef]
37.
Bennett, N.; Roth, R.; Klain, S.; Chan, K.M.A.; Clark, D.A.; Cullman, G.; Epstein, G.; Nelson, M.P.; Stedman, R.; Teel, T.L.; et al.
Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2017,31, 56–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Kuvan, Y.; Akan, P. Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tour.
Manag. 2005,26, 691–706. [CrossRef]
39.
Mutanga, C.N.; Vengesayi, S.; Gandiwa, E.; Muboko, N. Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case
study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2015,8, 564–582. [CrossRef]
40.
Mathew, P.V.; Sreejesh, S. Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism
destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017,31, 83–89. [CrossRef]
41.
Utami, N.D.N.; Susiloningtyas, D.; Handayani, T. Community perception and participation of mangrove ecosystem in Ngurah
Rai Forest Park Bali, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018,145, 012147. [CrossRef]
42.
Yu, B.; Che, S.; Xie, C.; Tian, S. Understanding Shanghai residents’ perception of leisure impact and experience satisfaction of
urban community parks: An integrated and IPA method. Sustainability 2018,10, 1067. [CrossRef]
43.
Demirovi´c, D.; Radovanovic, M.; Petrovi´c, M.D.; Cimbaljevi´c, M.; Vuksanovic, N.; Vukovic, D. Environmental and community
stability of a mountain destination: An analysis of residents’ perception. Sustainability 2017,10, 70. [CrossRef]
44.
Almeida-García, F.; Peláez-Fernández, M.A.; Balbuena-Vázquez, A.; Cortés-Macias, R. Residents’ perceptions of tourism
development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2016,54, 259–274. [CrossRef]
45. Loon, R.M.; Polakow, D. Ecotourism ventures: Rags or riches. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001,28, 892–907. [CrossRef]
46.
Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. An investigation of the relationship between tourism impacts and host communities’ characteristics.
Anatolia 1999,10, 29–44. [CrossRef]
47.
Oviedo-Garcia, M.Á.; Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Martin-Ruiz, D. Gaining residents’ support for tourism and planning. Int. J. Tour.
Res. 2008,10, 95–109. [CrossRef]
48.
Andereck, K.; Nyaupane, G.P. Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. J. Travel Res.
2010
,
50, 248–260. [CrossRef]
49.
Brankov, J.; Penjiševi´c, I.; ´
Curˇci´c, N.B.; Živanovi´c, B. Tourism as a factor of regional development: Community perceptions and
potential bank support in the Kopaonik National Park (Serbia). Sustainability 2019,11, 6507. [CrossRef]
50. Brunt, P.; Courtney, P. Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999,26, 493–515. [CrossRef]
51. McGehee, N.G.; Andereck, K. Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. J. Travel Res. 2004,43, 131–140. [CrossRef]
52.
Byrne, J. When green is white: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park.
Geoforum 2012,43, 595–611. [CrossRef]
53.
White, D.D.; Hall, T.E.; Farrell, T.A. Influence of ecological impacts and other campsite characteristics on wilderness visitors’
campsite choices. J. Park Recreat. Admi. 2001,19, 83–97.
54.
Zajchowski, C.A.B.; Tysor, D.A.; Brownlee, M.T.J.; Rose, J. Air quality and visitor behavior in U.S. protected areas. Hum. Ecol.
2019,47, 1–12. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 17 of 18
55.
Fennell, D.A. Areas and needs in ecotourism research. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism; Weaver, D.B., Ed.; CABI Publishing:
Wallingford, Oxon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 639–653.
56.
Deng, J.; Qiang, S.; Walker, G.J.; Zhang, Y. Assessment on and perception of visitors’ environmental impacts of nature tourism: A
case study of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park, China. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003,11, 529–548. [CrossRef]
57.
Petrosillo, I.; Zurlini, G.; Corlianò, M.; Zaccarelli, N.; Dadamo, M. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management
in a marine protected area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007,79, 29–37. [CrossRef]
58.
Moore, S.A.; Polley, A. Defining indicators and standards for tourism impacts in protected areas: Cape Range National Park,
Australia. Environ. Manag. 2007,39, 291–300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Arabatzis, G.; Grigoroudis, E. Visitors’ satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia–Lefkimi–Souflion National
Park. For. Policy Econ. 2010,12, 163–172. [CrossRef]
60.
Sayan, S.; Krymkowski, D.H.; Manning, R.E.; Valliere, W.A.; Rovelstad, E.L. Cultural influence on crowding norms in outdoor
recreation: A Comparative analysis of visitors to national parks in Turkey and the United States. Environ. Manag.
2013
,52,
493–502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Tretiakova, T.N.; Brankov, J.; Petrovi´c, M.D.; Syromiatnikova, Y.A.; Radovanovi´c, M.M.; Yakovlev, A.M. Tourism and natural
environment in the Np Taganay (Russia)—Habits and perceptions of the visitors. Geoj. Tour. Geosites
2019
,25, 595–608. [CrossRef]
62.
Moscovici, D.; Tredick, C.; Russell, J. Proactive planning for recreation on protected lands-wildlife management areas in New
Jersey. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2020,33, 738–757. [CrossRef]
63.
Rittichainuwat, B.N.; Qu, H.; Mongknonvanit, C. A study of the impact of travel satisfaction on the likelihood of travelers to
revisit Thailand. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2002,12, 19–43. [CrossRef]
64. Lothian, A. Australian attitudes towards the environment: 1991 to 2001. Aust. J. Environ. Manag. 2002,9, 45–62. [CrossRef]
65.
Peši´c, A.M.; Brankov, J.; Joksimovi´c, D.M. Water quality assessment and populations’ perceptions in the National Park Djerdap
(Serbia): Key factors affecting the environment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018,22, 2365–2383. [CrossRef]
66.
Nikoli´c, S. Turizam u Zašti´cenim Prirodnim Dobrima Srbije [Tourism in Protected Natural Areas of Serbia]; Zavod za Zaštitu Prirode:
Belgrade, Serbia, 2006; pp. 1–227. ISBN 86-80877-18-2. (In Serbian)
67.
Brankov, J.; Petrovic, M.; Radovanovic, M.; Tretiakova, T.; Syromiatnikova, Y.; Brankov, J.; Petrovi´c, M.D.; Milan, R.; Tretiakova,
T.N.; Syromiatnikova, Y.A. Geography and environment: Analysis of indicators of sustainable development of tourism. Int. J.
Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2017,5, 131–140. [CrossRef]
68.
Radovanovi´c, M. (Ed.) Tara–Lexicons of National Parks of Serbia; Službeni Glasnik, Geographical Institute “Jovan Cviji´c” SASA:
Belgrade, Serbia; Public Enterprise “Tara National Park”: Bajina Bašta, Serbia, 2015; pp. 1–364, ISBN 978-86-519-1899-8.
(In Serbian)
69.
Brankov, J. Održivi Turizam u Nacionalnim Parkovima Srbije [Sustainable Tourism in National Parks in Serbia]. Ph.D. Thesis,
Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2015. (In Serbian).
70.
Pivi´c, R.; Josi´c, D.; Dini´c, Z.; Dzeletovi´c, Z.; Maksimovi´c, J.; Stanojkovic Sebi´c, A. Water quality of the Drina River as a source of
irrigation in agriculture. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Scientific Agricultural Symposium “Agrosym 2014”, Jahorina,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23–26 October 2014; pp. 795–801.
71.
Lešˇcešen, I.; Panteli´c, M.; Dolinaj, D.; Stojanovic, V.; Miloševi´c, D. Statistical analysis of water quality parameters of the Drina
River (West Serbia), 2004–2011. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015,24, 555–561. [CrossRef]
72.
United Nation Economic Commission for Europe. Assessment of the Water-Food-Energy-Ecosystems Nexus and Benefits of Transbound-
ary Cooperation in the Drina River Basin; Technical Report; UNECE: New York, NY, USA; Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
73.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Regulation on Parameters of the Ecological and Chemical Status of Surface Waters, and the
Parameters of the Chemical and Quantitative Status of Ground Waters; Official Gazette of the RS No. 74/2011; Government of Republic
of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011.
74.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Regulation on Emission Limit Values for Pollutants in Surface and Ground Waters and
Sediments and the Deadlines for Their Reaching; Official Gazette of the RS No. 50/2012; Government of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade,
Serbia, 2012.
75.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Regulation on Limit Values of Priority Substances and Priority Hazardous Substances Polluting
Surface Waters, and the Deadlines for Their Reaching; Official Gazette of the RS No. 24/2014; Government of Republic of Serbia:
Belgrade, Serbia, 2014.
76.
Brankov, J.; Joji´c, G.T.; Peši´c, A.M.; Petrovi´c, M.D.; Tretiakova, T.N. Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact on community in
national parks in Serbia. Eur. Countrys. 2019,11, 124–142. [CrossRef]
77.
UN World Tourism Organization. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destination: A Guidebook; WTO: Madrid, Spain,
2004.
78.
Joji´c, G.T.; Doljak, D.; Brankov, J.; Filipovi´c, M.; Cviji´c", J. Residents’ perception toward protected areas—Landscape of exceptional
features “Vlasina” (Serbia). Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018,14, 5–17. [CrossRef]
79.
Panteli´c, M.; Dolinaj, D.; Savi´c, S.; Lešˇcešen, I.; Stojanovi´c, V. Water quality and population standpoints as factors influencing the
utilization for agricultural purposes of the Great Baˇcka Canal, Serbia. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2016,19, 8–14.
80.
Pecelj, M.; Vagic, N.; Ristic, D.; Susnjar, S.; Bogdanovic, U. Assessment of natural environment for the purposes of recrea-tional
tourism-example on Drina River flow (Serbia). Eur. J. Geogr. 2019,10, 85–96.

Sustainability 2021,13, 241 18 of 18
81.
Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Serbia. Prostorni Plan Podruˇcja Posebne Namene NP
Tara [Spatial Plan for the Special Purpose Area of the NP Tara]; Department for Spatial Planning, Urban Development and Housing,
Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian)
82.
PC National Park Tara. Plan Upravljanja NP Tara za Period 2018–2027 Godina [National Park Tara Management Plan for the Period
2018–2027]; PC National Park Tara: Bajina Bašta, Serbia, 2018. (In Serbian)
83.
World Bank Group—Water. Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin; Stucky-a Gruner Company:
Basel, Switzerland; Jaroslav ˇ
Cerni Water Institute: Belgrade, Serbia; COWI: Oslo, Norway, 2016; pp. 1–328. Available on-
line: http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/pdf/IWRM%20Country%20Report%20-%20Serbia%20-%20Main%20-%20English%
20-%20Final.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020).
84.
Gaji´c, V.; Vakanjac, B.; Risti´c Vakanjac, V.; Boži´c, N. Metodologija izrade prostorne baze zaga ¯
divaˇca reke Drine [Methodology of
establishing spatial database of polluters of the Drina River]. In Proceedings of the “Innovative Models of Ecosystem Engineering”
Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 8 October 2016; Draži´c, G., Ed.; Faculty of Applied Ecology, Futura University Singidunim: Belgrade,
Serbia; Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad: Novi
Sad, Serbia; Institute of Forestry: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2016; pp. 105–115.
85.
Djordjevic, S.J.; Krpic, T.; Stankovic, M.; Ninkovic, M.; Bartula, M.; Pejic, D.; Kati´c, B.K.; Cvetkovic, D. The application of the
SVAP2 methodology to assess ecological conditions of lotic riparian area—Case study of the Radalj River (the Drina River
watershead). Facta Univ. Series Work. Living Environ. Prot. 2017,14, 31–39. [CrossRef]
86.
Dragi´cevi´c, S.; Toši´c, R.; Stepic, M.; Živkovi´c, N.; Novkovi´c, I. Consequences of the river bank erosion in the southern part of the
Pannonian Basin: Case study—Serbia and the Republic of Srpska. Forum Geogr. 2013,12, 5–15. [CrossRef]
87. Tosun, C. Host perceptions of impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002,29, 231–253. [CrossRef]
88.
Cihar, M.; Stankova, J. Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic. J.
Environ. Manag. 2006,81, 273–285. [CrossRef]
89.
Abdollahzadeh, G.; Sharifzadeh, A. Rural residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: A study from Iran. Int. J. Tour.
Res. 2014,16, 126–136. [CrossRef]
90.
Muresan, I.C.; Oroian, C.F.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Porutiu, A.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Todea, A.; Lile, R. Local residents’ attitude
toward sustainable rural tourism development. Sustainability 2016,8, 100. [CrossRef]
91. Sıvalio˘glu, P.; Berköz, L. Perceptual evaluation of the national park users. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012,50, 928–940. [CrossRef]
92. Geva, A.; Goldman, A. Satisfaction measurement in guided tours. Ann. Tour. Res. 1991,18, 177–185. [CrossRef]
93.
Tian-Cole, S.; Crompton, J.L.; Willson, V.L. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships Between Service Quality, Satisfaction
and Behavioral Intentions among Visitors to a Wildlife Refuge. J. Leis. Res. 2002,34, 1–24. [CrossRef]