CREATING VALUE CHAIN MODEL AND SHAPING AUTHENTIC TOURISM PRODUCT: THE CASE OF SOUTH SERBIA

Abstract

The aim of this study are two fold -- that the research focuses on the creation of value chain models identify relatively homogeneous market segments and the choice of those who are most profitable, and which will form an authentic tourism product. It is in this context, the generic and specific problems related to the value chain model are investigated specifying causal relationships between latent variables of resources and hypothetical structures. The theoretical proposed model value chain is tested on a sample of responses obtained through interviews using questionnaires Likert scale. Keeping in mind that South Serbia interesting tourist destination that makes the combination of pristine and undiscovered nature, describes the properties and advantages of capabilities are presented in direct connection with the engagement of elected and identified tourism resources for modern tourism. The proposed model can enable the value chain forming an authentic tourism product in practice, while at the same time must take into account the implications as holistic as possible.

Headnote

Abstract

The purpose - The aim of this study are two fold - that the research focuses on the creation of value chain models identify relatively homogeneous market segments and the choice of those who are most profitable, and which will form an authentic tourism product. It is in this context, the generic and specific problems related to the value chain model are investigated specifying causal relationships between latent variables of resources and hypothetical structures.

Design - Formulated hypotheses can be discussed from the perspective of the aspirations holders of tourist and business policy to align their capabilities with market needs, in order to satisfy customers and achieve an appropriate profit. The main challenges of today's modern times are represented in the form of requirements that govern the tourist market, the planned participation in the tourist market, improving market performance and competitiveness in the market of tourist services.

Methodology - A hypothetical model of the value chain has been proposed based on the hypothesis formulated, and a sequence of key operations that create new value in the form of an authentic tourism product. The theoretical proposed model value chain is tested on a sample of responses obtained through interviews using questionnaires Likert scale.

Approach - Keeping in mind that South Serbia interesting tourist destination that makes the combination of pristine and undiscovered nature, describes the properties and advantages of capabilities are presented in direct connection with the engagement of elected and identified tourism resources for modern tourism.

Findings - The proposed model can enable the value chain forming an authentic tourism product in practice, while at the same time must take into account the implications as holistic as possible. Each model has a value chain impact and scope that simply can't be predicted on the field, regardless of the actors of the event.

Originality of the research - Projected value chain model can be used as a concept in the development of new models according to their goals of strategic planning, resource values according to tourist destinations and forming the desired authentic tourism products.

Keywords Value chain model, Authentic tourism product, Tourist destination, Tourist market

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the global tourism which continues to grow quantitatively, it dynamically changes in its quality. Today almost 180 countries around the world compete globally in a variety of tourism products, counting just on the fact that the global tourism market, diversify and get new content and forms of expression. Based on these conditions in the global tourism sector, the aim of this paper is to present the creation of a universal form of value chain models and determine which are the causal factors that influence the formation of an authentic tourism product in a tourist destination. The study defined and created tasks and job descriptions that should provide a basic version and which should guide the strategic direction for development of authentic tourism product in case of South Serbia. The paper presents results of studies on the current status of selected resources for tourism development and motivation for the arrival of tourists in the tourist destination South Serbia.

Many studies exist regarding the motivations of tourists and much earlier in the literature was presented by Pearce (1982), the book "Social Psychology" on tourist behavior, while his colleague Ross (1994), was working on updating some material relating to the establishment of psychological schools of thoughts in his article 'Psychology of Tourism". From the stand point of consumers, marketing theory is relatively easy to adapt to the theory of Howard and Sheth (1969), Nicosia (1966) and Engel and other market theorists (1968) on tourism products. Some writers like Ryan and Glendon (1998) and Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) were looking for motivation in the tourist setting, as Beard and Ragheb (1983) in "Leisure Motivation Scale".

It can be said that different people have the same motivations and may exhibit different behavior in the same place, and that the relationship between motivation, behavior and the role of adaptation are not simple things. So Jamal and Hollinshead (2000) noted that the truths in the tourist preferences were negotiated truth.

In many cases, tourism planning is a comprehensive term used to encompass a wide range of activities, often including the development of tourism (see Pearce, 1989). It certainly makes a definitive analysis of field research a difficult and almost impossible task to review in a coherent and meaningful way. This is even more complex when considering the new paradigm approach to tourism planning from the perspective of planning literature (Hall, 1999).

Destination competitiveness should be linked to the ability of destinations to deliver goods and services that perform better than other places and to those aspects of the tourist experience that would be important for the tourists. Dwyer, Forsyth and Rao (2000a) states that "tourism competitiveness is a general concept that includes the difference in price with a combination of variable rate, the productivity of various components of the tourism industry and qualitative factors affecting the attractiveness or in any other way destination" (Dwyer et al. 2000a, 9).

The point of access in the shaping authentic tourist product in some tourist destinations is in the shift of thinking focus from the tourist product to the users of tourist services. This provides affirmation of tourism which is already developed or for which are available tourist resources and orientation to the appreciation of objective needs, wishes and preferences of potential and current users of tourist services. We should be sure that the product or destination, is not alone on the market, but struggling with competitive offers for a limited time and money of consumers. Also, it is not enough to meet the travel and related needs and demands of consumers, but do it better (in terms of better, more original and/or cheaper) than the competitors. This is accomplished by achieving competitive advantage (superiority over the competition) as a key element of the market success of a destination.

Bearing in mind that the South Serbia is interesting tourist destination that makes the combination of unspoilt and undiscovered nature, value chain model was investigated that specifies the causal relationships between latent variables of resources and hypothetical structures. This way ensures the description of the measured properties of capabilities and advantages of the observed natural and anthropogenic resources.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The only "place" where modern people think that you can still find the '"authenticity" and "right" experience is nature in the natural environment maybe reflected in the past relationship between people and land, connections that are likely disappeared from the urban and suburban life (Tuan 1974, Relph 1976, Oelschlaeger 1991).

This lost connection with the past not only has a time dimension, but also a geographical dimension in the minds of many people creating history and authenticity, with real experience which can still be found on the outskirts of the modern world, where nature, wild life, and indigenous and other cultural group are untouched by modern times (see Saarinen 2001, Shaw 2001).

Authenticity is a problematic concept and ardent in tourism research (see Cohen 1988, SeI wyn 1996). Here is approached as a constructed idea. According to Wang Ning (1999, 351), certain "objects, such as nature, in the strict sense are irrelevant for the authenticity of MacCannell's feeling." However, nature is not seen here as an object in the context of social, economic and political activities of some, like the modern tourism (see MeIs 1999, Markwell 2001, Meethan 2001). On the contrary, the nature and attractiveness, images and representations of the natural environment that motivates people to visit and consume nature as a social construction approach, the authenticity which could also be pointed out "through cultural representations of reality" (MacCannell 1976, 92).

So here the authenticity refers to socially constructed idea of tradition - a real, natural, unique - which has historically and ideologically conditioned determinants, and spatial context. This is not necessary to follow, however, total relativism in which there is any idea or representation of nature is necessary to follow, because the space as a social construction is a moral category, and production of spatial representation is the ability to "organize authenticity", which can be estimated (see Sack 1992, Proctor 1998, Little 1999, Pritchard and Morgan 2000, Ateljevic and Doorne 2002). On the other hand, in contrast to MacCannell's approach (1976), authenticity is not understood as a basis for explaining contemporary tourism (see Meethan 2001), but partial, though important argument for understanding and explaining the roles and ideas of nature and its representatives in tourism and production of tourist space.

Today, nature has become a major tourist attraction and nature-based tourism is one of the central components of tourism activities. In fact, many authors state that this is one of the fastest growing segments of the entire tourism industry (Ceballos-Lascura in 1996, Mowforth and Munt 1998, Fennell 1999). The nature and nature tourism attractions rely on "undeveloped" natural areas and related activities that may be made in that environment. It is sometimes associated with the idea of alternative and sustainable tourism (see Whelan 1991, Burton 1998), which is based on opposites. Nature creates the resources as a basis for nature tourism, such as in urban tourism, and from this perspective, sustainability is not a requirement. In order to maintain the resources as "nature", there must be some limits for development that is taking place, although these restrictions are not necessarily integrated into the idea of sustainability. Instead, limits of the development of tourism can be modified and thus retain certain types of images. For this purpose of the development of tourism, active play is produced in which the destination is represented by images such as those with natural landscapes.

The natural environment and other attractions are not static categories of tourism, but constantly changing combination of certain products that are specific in time and space. From this perspective, the natural attractions are not "there" waiting to be discovered, to be seen and that people admire them: they are our own and constructions of others (see Allen, Massey and Cochrane 1998). What we see, especially in natural landscapes, cultural values are projections generated by tourism and modernization in general (MacCannell 1992). In our time, of modernity, nature has become a product, the general trademark for certain qualities of certain places, which may be a wild, unspoiled and undiscovered, beautiful picturesque and the like.

From one perspective (Morgan 1994), spatial homogeneity is "natural" process in the development of tourism and the current trend towards globalization. In practice, power is manifested in tourism as well as production of the play for the promotion, which in fact "means a place designed to meet the needs of its target markets" (Kotier, Haider, and Rein 1993). The process of homogenization indicates in some way the idea of time - space compression, propagates Harvey (1989), in which space and spatial experience should be reduced as a result of movement of capital and information. Time and space are not only elements that are compressed by the circulation and the capital accumulation for tourist destinations, which "come in and out of fashion and move elsewhere" (Mowforth and Munt 1998, 30). During this "circulation" which might have also been described by Butlers life cycle metaphor (see Butler 1980), tourist destinations have been modified and developed according to the homogenization of mass industry, in order to effectively serve the accumulation of capital and provide greater spatial structure of tourism. This process can lead to physical loss of the original characters, including the attractiveness of the natural environment, even the environment that can play an important role in this representation. At the same time, the representation of nature can become a place of abstract and less, and lose all contact with the physical place in marketing. Relph (1976) calls the "erosion site" changes in the original natural and cultural landscapes and the loss of its unique and authentic sense of place, which refers to the idea of organizing (objective) authenticity, stated MacCannell (1976).

2. COMPONENTS OF TOURIST ATTRACTIONS

One of the major aspects of creating a personality or identity of the (tourism) region is a process of representation. In this context, it is stated that the tourism industry and its destinations change and create products that are in harmony, to create new structures better motivation, tourist segments and trends of consumption in general (see Poon 1993, Ryan, Hughes and Chirgwin 2000), to the consumers are increasingly differentiated markets, which expand and change more freely than ever before (see Shaw, Agarwal and Bull 2000).

Many researchers have attempted to assess and classify destination attractions/ resources as tourism products (Ferrario 1979, Gunn 1988, Hu & Ritchie 1993, MacCannell 1976, Murphy 1985, Murphy, Pritchard & Smith 2000, Yoon, Formica & Uysal 2001). In particular, Ritchie and Crouch (2000) and Mihalic (2000) suggested that the destination attractions/resources is recognized as an important source of comparative advantage and competitive factors in destination competitiveness. These are important components of competitiveness of tourist destinations and attributes are critical to the maintenance of tourist destinations (Crouch & Ritchie 1999, Hassan 2000).

Different types of tourist destinations provide amalgam to tourism products and services. Components of tourism products and services are essential for tourism development and marketing, and commonly are referred to as tourist attractions and resources. Leiper (1990) said that the destinations are places where people travel and where they remain for some time to gain some experience in traveling, depending on the attraction of the destination. Huand Ritchie (1993, 25) also state that "a tourist destination reflects the feelings, beliefs and opinions that an individual has on destinations and see the ability to ensure satisfaction with his holiday special needs".

Thus, in general, these destination attractions/assets can be considered as factors of tourism offer which represent a driving force to create a tourism demand (Uysal, 1998), as primary sources or determinants of measuring destination attractiveness (Hu & Ritchie 1993, Formaica 2000). A recent study by Buhalis (2000, 98) lists six main components of tourism attractions and resources that most of the tourist literature is usually included in the assessment and evaluation of elements of tourist destinations. These components are:

1. Attractions - natural, artificial, created, purpose, heritage, special events;

2. Accessibility - the whole transport system consists of roads, terminals and vehicles;

3. Benefits - housing, restaurants, shops, other tourist services;

4. Available packages - package of agreed intermediaries and organizers;

5. Activities - all activities available at the destination and what the tourists do during their visit;

6. Support services - services used by tourists, such as banks, telecommunications, shops, hospitals.

Destination attractions/resources such as natural/cultural components, heritage /historical sources, attached facilities/services, infrastructure, hospitality, sports /recreational activities, transportation/accessibility and costs hould be considered not only as a basis for planning of tourism, but also essential to the successful development of tourism (Gunn 1994, Pearce 1997). In addition, maintaining and developing the quality of the tourism resources is important for the competitiveness of most types of tourist destinations (Inkeep 1991, Go & Go vers 2000).

Particularly, in a model developed by Ritchie and Crouch (1993), destination attractions/resources are considered as destinations of appeal or determinants of competitiveness. This includes natural phenomenon, climate, culture and social characteristics, general infrastructure, basic services infrastructure, upgrades, access and transport facilities, the attitude towards tourists, the cost/price level, economic and social ties, and uniqueness. It is proposed that they can be considered as important sources of competitive advantage in the destination of destination competitiveness.

Many tourist destinations have natural or artificial advantages to attract the visitors. Long-term sustainability and success of tourist destinations, such as tourist attractions, should be identified and evaluated. In particular, each in a tourist destination region has different strengths and attractions in the destination. Assessment of destination attractions need to create a more competitive and better environment for planning and tourism development (Yoon 2002).

On the one hand the benefits of tourism in South Serbia are wide spaces of unspoiled nature, majestic views of the vast possibilities for the construction of tourist infrastructure, the wealth of water and plant life and diversified structure of attractions and good configuration of the wider area of mineral and medicinal springs. On the other hand, South Serbia is not recognized as a tourist destination and has no quality standards in the tourism industry, poor economic situation and predominantly aging population, insufficient and limited expertise of local employees in the tourism and the hotel management industry, lack of maintenance and protection of natural and cultural attractions and resources, and the lack of possible drivers of the new tourism development.

So, from the foregoing, it can be concluded that the evaluation of tourism potential should include analysis of existing conditions, to identify the strengths and limitations of modern tourism on the one hand and to suggest directions for further tourism development on the other side (Mojic 201 1, 105).

3. HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION

The significance of this chapter is closely connected with the idea of making and creating a hypothetical model for value chain configured by the hypotheses and identified the components selected resources in the region of South Serbia. In this sense, geographical location can be considered as "the art of recognizing, describing and interpreting the personality of the region" and other areas (Gilbert 1960, 158).

Hypotheses are developed in accordance with the above bibliography and tourism benefits of South Serbia. The assumption is that these hypotheses are the components that make up the proposed value chain model.

On this basis, the following hypotheses were formulated:

NH (The null hypothesis): In creating avalue chain model is a very important link between the requirements governing the tourism market, the planned participation in the tourism market, improve market performance and capacity to achieve greater competitiveness in the tourism market, in the shaping authentic tourism product.

H1: It is very important link that the requirements that rule the tourism market be a segment proposed value chain model.

H2: It is important link that the planned participation in the tourism market be a segment proposed value chain model.

H3: It is important link that the market performance improvement be a segment proposed value chain model.

H4: The most important link that the capacity competitiveness achievement on the tourism market be a segment proposed value chain model.

4. HYPOTHETICALLY VALUE CHAIN MODEL

The author of this paper defines as a hypothetical value chain model as a related set of value creating activities (evaluation) of natural and anthropogenic resources, tourist destinations, which may then continue to a set of activities that add value, and end when the goods and services are found at the end user/tourists.

The hypothetical value chain model is proposed based on the above formulated hypotheses and represent a sequence of key operations that create new value in the form of an authentic tourism product. Also, hypothetical value chain model can be used for analytical purposes in determining the value of resources of tourist destinations in related activities shaping authentic tourism product.

4.1. Theoretical proposed value chain model

Proposed theoretical model is presented below and includes the previously formulated hypotheses with components:

H1. The requirements on the tourism market:

1. Attractions are designed for a large number of tourists (eg, theme park, resort complex, recreation center, etc.);

2. Cultural or historical sites on the basis (eg, archaeological site, monasteries, museums, historical sites, etc.);

3. Outdoor activities (eg, skiing, camping, hiking, etc.);

4. Events (eg, exhibitions, performances, sporting events, business/public event, etc.);

5. Development of services (eg, hotel, travel agency, restaurant, entertainment, etc.);

6. Purchase-shopping trips.

H2. Planned participation on the tourism market:

1. Various promotional activities;

2. Valuation of natural and anthropogenic resources;

3. Animation of tourism operators.

H3. Improvement of the market approach to tourism development:

1. Planning principles of marketing activities;

2. Creating marketing mix instruments.

H4. Competitiveness in the market of tourist services

1. Business environment and infrastructure;

2. Human resources.

NH. Model of the value chain in interConnectivity with selected tourist destinations by the respondents in the questionable intervju (Prohor Pcinjski Monastery, Djavolja Varos, Archaeological Site Mediana, Vlasina Lake, South Serbia Spas, Suva Planina), which area set of authentic tourism product.

Previously formulated hypotheses presented in the form of defined components necessary to represent the initial framework for further elaboration of the value chain model. Defined components with accelerated activation of selected resources, are the main success factors, the assumption that is the most seriously taken into account in creating a value chain model.

Figure 1 below shows the hypothetical value chain model. Each component model is chosen based on literature review.

Theoretical proposed value chain model is represented as a network type of model. Analysis of the model can be separated in to four segments, including the operation down and up. The first segment models the hypothesis that consist of: application in the tourism market, the planned participation in the tourism market, improve market performance and competitiveness in the market of tourist services. The second segment of the value chain model that has significant impact on the third segment, which represents authentic tourism product. The fourth segment of the selected destinations that make authentic tourism product.

For the first segment of the formulated hypotheses are necessary knowledge, skills and expertise. The second segment is the center of gravity, or the creation of value chain model, which is in mutual dependence with the third segment, which is shaped authentic tourism product composed of the fourth segment of the selected destinations.

The author of this paper based on the analysis presented above theoretical model of the proposed value chain, leads to the conclusion that shaped authentic tourism product can lead to changes in the value chain in six key domains:

1. It changes the way a tourist destination actualize the primary activities in the value chain;

2. Provide opportunities for improving secondary operations;

3. Provides a review of the structure of the value chain model;

4. It allows the engagement of natural and anthropogenic resources for certain activities;

5. It affects the scope and extent of planned operations and certain tourist destinations;

6. Affects the acquisition of benefits by connecting to a new and different ways of providing services in the tourism market.

In addition to the above analysis, the author of this paper looks at the other segments and marks them as primary and secondary segments that affect the creation of value chain models. Formulated the hypothesis referred to as primary segments, since they are directly involved in creating and delivering new value to the user. The secondary segment or segments of the support means in the form of selected tourist destinations, as they indirectly contribute to adding value to support one or more primary segments and is mainly associated with the proposed components of the model.

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In total 121 participants were interviewed in 8 spa in the region of South Serbia (Bujanovacka spa, Vranjska spa, Novopazarska spa, Sijarinska spa, Kursumlijska spa, Prolom spa, Lukovska spa and Niska spa) through questionable interview in JulyAugust 2011. Participants of questionable interviews were representatives of local governments in the tourism sector, employees in travel agencies, employees in the hotel industry, local residents and tourists. Questionable interview was aimed to get an answer to the question, and discover: What is the degree of importance of the formulated hypotheses and selected resources in creating a value chain model and shaping authentic tourism product?

5.1. Likert scale

The study used Likert scale (Rensis Likert) as a popular method of research because it allows the researcher to quantify the opinions on the items .The essence of this scale is to measure the degree of agreement on 5 -degree scale, rather than the respondent chooses only a few claims at Louis Thurstone or just one as at Eliyahu Louis Guttman. A modified Likert scale ranges from one extreme to another, such as: (1) Most Important, (2) Very Important, (3) Important, (4) Not Much Important, (5) Not Important.

Creating items for the use of Likert scale consists of calculating the correlation between individual claims and the average values for the whole gamut. Claims for which this correlation is not statistically significant are excluded from the final scale. Between 5 and 10 claims are selected which are included in the scale. It is desirable that claims are half positive, half negative. The rejected claims are not relevant to the topic. The correlation is positive if an increase in measures of a variable is followed by an increase of other measures, while negative correlation exists if the measure of growth is accompanied by a decrease of the other measures. The resulting correlation coefficient is a measure of joint variation of several variables and the degree of their connection. It also shows whether there is a relationship between variables, as well as the quality of connections (Edmondson 2005, 127-133).

In an intervju was sought an answer to the questions that are grouped together on the scale (Appendix, Table A). Issues of importance are constructed for each formulated hypothesis. Example: Hl- How do you rate the importance of the demands existing in the tourism market? H2 - How do you rate the importance of access to the planned participation in the tourism market? H3 - How do you rate the importance of improving market performance? H4 - How do you rate the importance of the capacity to achieve competitiveness in the tourism market? Then the participants were declared elected on the importance of resources. The results confirm the degree of importance for each previously formulated hypothesis.

Items that have been rated on this scale are important in determining the level of tourism product creation (Table 1) in the opinion of the respondents interviewed. The relative importance of the five answer options offered on the importance of the formulated hypotheses and selected resources for shaping the tourism product, influences the pre-determined data obtained from questionable interviews (Stokes, Yago 2007).

The data that the respondents gave in an intervju on the degree of importance of certain hypotheses and select resources, are important factors for this study. In this case the factors are evaluated theoretical and logical and empirical. Operationalization of research subjects means that the factors are determined for each hypothesis, ie. type of data which can be obtained by research, and which are of such a quality so to confirm or disprove the hypothesis (Brankovic 2007, 41-42). In this way, the factors are identified in their importance.

6. RESEARCH RESULTS

The resulting mean value of the index is analogous to the hypotheses formulated. At the same time, formulated the null hypothesis (NH) is confirmed by the assumptions set obtained mean values of total research. The results include resources selected tourist destinations of South Serbia and their characteristics are as follows:

1. Suva Planina (Dry Mountain): Relief of South Serbia is diverse, and most striking forms of relief are mountains. It is surrounded from all sides, and the largest and most attractive is Suva planina. It is so beautiful that it is said to be a mountain pearl of South Serbia.

2. South Serbia Spas: At the foot of the mountains are South Serbia Spas (Bujanovac Spa, Vranjska Spa, Novopazarska Spa, Sijarinska Spa, Kursumlijska Spa, Prolom Spa, Lukovska Spa, Niska Spa), known for its natural healing springs and hot water.

3. Vlasina Lake: In the beautiful nature there is a Vlasina Lake with clean, blue water of the famous floating islands of peat, which represent a unique phenomenon in this part of the world.

4. Archaeological Site of Mediana: Mediana is a suburb of the ancient Nais, today's Nis. The residence of Roman emperors was built in the early fourth century, under Constantine the Great.

5. Djavolja Varos (Devil Town): Locality Djavolja Varos is proclaimed the sight of great importance, with the first category of protection - Natural Monument. Djavolja Varos is one of the most unusual places in South Serbia and unique geomorphological phenomenon very rare in the world.

6. Prohor Pcinjski: Of the famous monasteries, Prohor Pcinjski is worth mentioning, which is one of the most beautiful buildings of this type in South Serbia. Built by the Byzantine Emperor Roman IV Diogenes (1067-1071) at the request of the latter saint and patron of the temple, Prohor Pcinjski.

Using the factor of analysis on the basis of these responses, it was identified the degree of importance of the space of South Serbia used in the study, according to the following sequence: Djavolja Varos and South Serbia Spas received the same degree of importance, followed by Prohor Pcinjski and Vlasina Lake and right next to them, Mediana and Suva Planina. The results showed that the degree of importance of individual entities (referred to natural and anthropogenic resources), are important factors for this study.

In the first case of studies in Bujanovac Spa there were 16 respondents. The strongest impression left is that H3 is the respondents' answers by Most Important to be a part of value chain model, which would create conditions for development of tourism on a larger scale and thus create conditions for the arrival of more tourists. The common position was unique. H2 is the worst (impression). Selected authentic tourism product was Prohor Pcinjski.

In the second case of study in Vranjska Spa there were 17 respondents. The strongest impression left is that Hl is the respondents' answers by Most Important to be a part of value chain model, which would create conditions to increase interest tourists to visit the region of South Serbia. The common position was unique. H2 is the worst (impession). Chosen authentic tourism product was Djavolja Varos.

In the third case of study in Novopazarska Spa there were 13 respondents. The strongest impression left is that H3 is the respondents' answers by Most Important to be a part value chain model with a unique attitude. Hl left the weakest (worst) impression. Prohor Pcinjski was a chosen authentic tourism product for the second time.

In the fourth of case study in Sijarinska Spa, there were 12 respondents. The strongest impression left is that Hl is the respondents' answers by Very Important to be a part value chain model. The common position was unique. H3 is the worst (impression). Chosen authentic tourism product was South Serbia Spas.

In the fifth case of study in Kursumlijska Spa, there were 14 respondents. The strongest impression left is that Hl is the respondents' answers by Most Important to be a part of value chain model, there by increasing the economic role and impact of relevant factors in the formation of authentic tourism product. The common position was unique. The weakest (worst) impression is H4. Selected authentic tourism product was Vlasina Lake.

The sixth case study in Prolom Spa, had 13 respondents. The strongest impression left is that Hl is the respondents' answers by Very Important to be a part of value chain model, which would create the conditions for forming authentic tourism product. The common position was divided. The weakest (worst) impression is H4. Chosen authentic tourism product was South Serbia Spas.

The seventh case study in Lukovska Spa had 16 respondents. The strongest impression left H2 with a unique view that it is Very Imortant to be a part of value chain model. The weakest impression (worst) are at the same time three hypotheses Hl, H3 and H4 with a unique position in the first and fourth paragraph and divided in the third hypothesis. In all four cases, respondents said that it is Very Important that these hypotheses are a part of value chain model. This case is the most interesting of all cases in the study because the subjects endorsed most of the hypotheses. Authentic tourism product chosen was Mediana.

And at the end, the eight case study included Niska Spa which was attended by 20 respondents. The strongest impression left H2 with a unique view that it is Very Imortant to be a part of value chain model. Hl is the worst (impression). Chosen authentic tourism product was Suva Planina. It is interesting that all the hypotheses are evaluated as Most Important with a unique attitude.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, the results of studies that have produced new insights into the values of selected natural and anthropogenic values in the case of tourist destinations in South Serbia, or creating of value chain model and shaping authentic tourism product. The results show that the projected value chain model is very important in shaping authentic tourism product. Also, research supports the formulation of hypotheses Hl, H2, H3 and H4 as well as NH.

The empirical results show that there have been underdeveloped concept of value chain models in the tourist destination of South Serbia. Development of project value chain model tourist destination South Serbia creates a great opportunity to join the World and European ways for tourism development, and its rich national heritage, natural, human and organizational resources, made available to various categories of foreign and domestic tourists.

The form of the projected value chain model in further research can be used to connect various resources in tourist destination of South Serbia, necessary for the proper development of tourism in the future. Accordingly, the results of studies can be variable, because it they do not represent the majority view of respondents. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the interview took place on a small number of respondents, but the overall results are promising overall picture of events. Finally, we come to the key conclusion that the importance of the research is that the designed value chain model can be used as a concept in the development of new models in further research of resources values of other tourist destinations and designing their desired authentic tourism product.

Sidebar

UDC 338.48(497.11)

Preliminary communication

Received 18 January 2012

Revised 6 March 2012

20 June 2012

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J., Massey, D. and Cochrane, A. (1998), Rethinking the Region, Routledge, London.

Ateljevié, I. and Doorne, S. (2002), "Representing New Zealand: Tourism image and ideology", Annals of Tourism Research 29(3), 648-67.

Beard, J.G. and Ragheb, M.G. (1983), "Measuring leisure motivation", Journal of Leisure Research 15(3), 219-28.

Brankovic, S. (2007), Uvod u metodologiju kvalitativni metodi istrazivanja drustvenih pojava, Megatrend, Univerzitet, Beograd, 41-42.

Buhalis, D. (2000), "Marketing the competitive destination of the future", Tourism Management 21, 97-116.

Butler, R. (1980), "The concepts of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources", Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5-12.

Burton, R. (1998), "Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: Ecotour operators' responses to tourism growth", Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 1 17-42.

Ceballos-Lascura' in, H. (1996), Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland.

Cohen, E. (1988), "Authenticity and commodisation in tourism", Annals of Tourism Research 15(3), 371-86.

Crouch, G.I. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999), "Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity", Journal of Business Research 44, 137-152.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P. and Rao, P. (2000a), "The price competitiveness of travel and tourism: A comparison of 19 destinations",7bMmm Management 21 (1), 9-22.

Edmondson, R.D. (2005)," Likert Scales: A History", University Florida, USA, 127-133.

Engel, J.F., Kollat, DJ. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968), Consumer Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Fennell, D. (1999), Ecotourism: An Introduction, Routledge, London.

Ferrario, F.F. (1979), "The evaluation of tourism resources: An applied methodology", (Part I), Journal of Travel Research 7(3), 1 8-22.

Formica, S. (2000), Destination attractiveness as a function of supply and demand interaction, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Gilbert, E. W. (1960), "The idea of the region", Geography 45, 157-75.

Go, FM. & Govers, R. (2000), "Integrated quality management for tourist destinations: A European perspective on achieving competitiveness", Tourism Management, 21, 79-88.

Gunn, CA. (1988), Tourism Planning (2nd ed.), Taylor and Francis, New York.

Gunn, CA. (1994), Tourism Pknning (3rd ed.), Taylor and Francis, New York.

Hall, CM. (1999), Tourism and Planning, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford.

Hassan, S.S. (2000), "Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry", Journal of Travel Research 38 (February), 239-245.

Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hu, Y. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993), "Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach", Journal of Travel Research 32(2), 25-34.

Inkeep, E. (1991), Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Jamal, T and Hollinshead, K. (2000), "Tourism and the forbidden zone: the underserved power of qualitative inquiry", Tourism Management, in press.

Kotier, P., Haider, D. and Rein, I. (1993), Marketing Places, Macmillan, New York.

Leiper, N. (1990), "Tourist attraction system", Annals of Tourism Research 17, 367-384.

Little, Jo. (1999), "Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality", Progress in Human Geography 23(3), 437-42.

MacCannell, D. (1976), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, Schocken Books, New York.

MacCannell, D. (1992), Empty Meeting Ground: The Tourist Papers, Routledge, London.

Markwell, K. (2001), "An intimate rendezvous with nature? " Tourist Studies 1(1), 39-57.

MeIs, T. (1999), Wild Landscapes: The Cultural Nature of Swedish National Parks, Lund University Press, Lund.

Meethan, K. (2001), Tourism in Global Society, Palgrave, New York.

Mihaliö, T. (2000), "Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness", Tourism Management 21, 65-78.

Mojic, J. (2011), "Valuation of Tourist Potential Spa of NiS (NiSka Banja) Area (South-east Serbia)", International Scientific Journal TURIZAM, Vol. 15, Issue 3, 2011, Department of geography, tourism and hotel Management, Faculty of science, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, 95-108.

Morgan, M. (1994), "Homogenous products: The future of established resorts", in W.F. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 378-95.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998), Tourism and Sustainability: A New Tourism in the Third World, Routledge, London.

Murphy, P.E. (1985), Tourism: A community approach, Routledge, New York.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P. & Smith, B. (2000), "The destination product and its impact on traveler perceptions", Tourism Management 21, 43-42.

Nicosia, FM. (1966), Consumer Decision Processes, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991), The Idea of Wilderness, Yale University Press, London.

Pearce, D. (1997), "Competitive destination analysis in Southeast Asia", Journal of Travel Research 35 (4), 16-24.

Pearce, P.L. (1982), The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Pearce, D.G. (1989), Tourism Development, 2nd edn. Longman, Harlow.

Poon, A. (1993), Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International, Wallingford.

Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2000), "Constructing tourism landscapes: Gender, sexuality and space", Tourism Geographies 2(2), 115-39.

Proctor, J. (1998), "Ethics on geography: Giving moral form to the geographical imagination", Area 30(1), 8-18.

Relph, E. (1976), Place and Placelessness, Pion, London.

Ritchie, J.B.B. & Crouch, G.I. (1993), "Competitiveness in international tourism: A framework for understanding and analysis", Proceedings of the 43rd Congress of the Association International d'Experts Scientifique due Torisme on Competitiveness of Long-Haul Tourist Destination, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, October 17-23, 23-71.

Ritchie, J.B.B. & Crouch, G.I. (2000), "The competitiveness destination: A sustainability perspective", Tourism Management 21, 1-7. Ross, G.F. (1994), The Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality Press, Elstemwick, Vic.

Ryan, C. and Glendon, I. (1998), "Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism", Annals of Tourism Research 25Q), 169-84.

Ryan, C, Hughes, K. and Chirgwin, S. (2000), "The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism", Annals of Tourism Research 27(1), 148-63.

Saarinen, J. (2001), "The transformation of a tourist destination: Theory and case studies on the production of local geographies in tourism in Finnish Lapland", Nordia Geographical Publications 30(1), 1-105.

Sack, R. (1992), Place, Modernity and Consumer's World, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Selwyn, T (1996), "Introduction", in T Selwyn (ed.), The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, John Wiley , Chichester, 1-32.

Shaw, G., Agarwal, S. and Bull, P. (2000), "Tourism consumption and tourist behaviour A British perspective", Tourism Geographies 2(3), 264-89.

Shaw, J. (2001), "Winning territory: Changing place and change pace", in May, J. and Thrift, N. (ed.), Timespace: Geographies of Temporality, Routledge, London, 120-32.

Stokes, R. and Jago, L.K. (2007), "Australia's public sector environment for shaping event tourism strategy", International Journal of Event Management Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, School of Tourism, The University of Queensalnd, Australia.

Swarbrooke, J. and Homer, S. (1999), Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974), Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Uysal, M. (1998), "The determinants of tourism demand: A theoretical perspective", in Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.G. (ed.), The economic geography of the tourist industry, Routledge, London, 79-98.

Yoon, Y., Formica, S. & Uysal, M. (2001), "Destination Attributes and Travel Market Segmentation", 32nd TTRA Annual Conference Proceedings, Tourism and Travel Research Association, 301-305.

Yoon, Y., (2002), Development of a Structural Model for Tourism Destination Competitiveness from Stakeholders' Perspectives, Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, p. 38.

Wang, N. (1999), "Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience", Annals of Tourism Research 26(2), 49-70.

Whelan, T (ed.) (1991), Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Appendix

APPENDIX