1. Introduction
Activities are restricted in protected areas. The question arises as to whether the most important value in the protection of nature and cultural heritage is a human being. Environmentalists agree that in some cases there is an overuse, so measures are needed to guarantee a harmonious friendship between man and nature. The rural population has not only to enjoy the landscape, but also to comply with restrictions in protected areas. Being unable to expand a farm according to their needs, farmers say they cannot use the support opportunities and meet the conditions required to apply for support. In their opinion, restrictions hamper sustainable rural development by preventing the renewal and modernization of farms in order to minimize environmental damage. Farmers do not yet promote (or play a very minimal role in promoting) the natural and cultural values that could attract visitors by providing them with an additional or primary source of livelihood. Although it is safer to farm in a protected area than elsewhere—landowners will not be able to take back or relocate leased land, farmers can manage it under long-term leases, but due to ongoing land reform, they will not be able to participate in agri-environmental programmes.
It should be noted that in many cases the activities of farmers are not limited by the regulations of protected areas, but by nature itself. For example, flooded meadows are suitable for pasturing and haymaking, but people who do not clear them would not benefit because these areas are flooded every spring. Agricultural activities, especially grassland maintenance, have been identified as necessary in protected areas as they help to maintain greater biodiversity [1]. People are often outraged that they cannot plant an uncultivated land with forest on their own free will. It is clear that it is necessary to find out, before taking action, whether this is possible, because planting meadows with forests would destroy natural habitats or species preserved in that area. According to the employees of the State Service for Protected Areas, they have to travel to protected areas at least once a week to resolve a variety of issues, including disagreements between directorates and locals. Despite recent research, the assessment of ES still remains very individual and largely limited to the most in-demand services. The article seeks to examine the coherence between humans and ecosystems, ensuring the social and economic well-being of present and future generations in the context of ecosystem services (ES). As well, the article seeks to offer opportunities with the rapidly declining population to overcome services of ecosystems in protected areas in the coastal–rural area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania).
The work of this article is organized as follows: in further sections, the literature review, divided into two subsections; and the research setting, materials and methods, divided into two subsections, are presented. Additionally, results, and discussion and conclusions sections are presented.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Ecosystems and the Services they Provide in Protected Areas
Ecosystems can provide a wide range of services that are critical to human well-being, health, subsistence, and survival according to Costanza [2,3], Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [4], and TEEB [5,6]. Ecosystem services are defined in the scientific literature as the benefits that people derive from ecosystems, as the direct and indirect contribution of ecosystems to human well-being TEEB [6], and as the contribution of ecosystem structures and functions (among other resources) to human well-being (Burkhard [7,8,9], Burkhard and Maes [10] Briner [11], etc.). Ecosystem services can therefore be described as a contribution of natural capital to human well-being, which is created only through interaction with human, social and created capital (Crowl [12], Kienast [13], Fürst [14]). Several different typologies and approaches have been developed to categorize ecosystem services, as Marcinkevičiūtė et al. [15] argue, using different criteria, such as spatial characteristics and scale, service flows, service recipients (private or public), type of benefit received (used or not used), and whether the service is used. The assessment of ecosystem services can help us to identify the socio-economic benefits of the projects, plans or specific operational strategies by selecting and prioritising the alternatives; to make rational decisions on land use (e.g., the place for construction of buildings, or infrastructure so that the benefit of the ecosystems would not be impaired), as Marcinkevičiūtė et al. [16] notice, to help organisations from different sectors to make strategic decisions (e.g., regarding potential environmental risks); to identify the value of endangered ecosystem services (“inaction costs”), or the value of restoring certain natural habitats.
The concept of ES was firstly mentioned in early 1980s by Ehrlich and colleagues (Ehrlich and Ehrlich [17], Ehrlich and Mooney [18], Hølleland et al. [19]). Following the United Nations’ initiation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in 2005, as Hølleland et al. [19] notice, the concept of ES has gained new relevance and impact as a political and practical tool because the aim of the ES framework is ultimately to enable decision-makers to make appropriate management decisions and its relevance is made visible through its anthropocentric definition of ES as ‘the benefits people obtain from ecosystems’. Thus, while originating in the ecological sciences, the ES concept puts human needs and requirements at the centre of the ecological universe and measures the health of ecosystems based on their ability to provide humans with benefits—referred to as ‘services’ (Katz-Gerro and Orenstein [20], Hølleland et al. [19]).
Ecosystems are divided into four main types: supply services, regulatory services, support services and cultural services; here, this study is paying more attention to the cultural services. It seems important to mention that ecosystems provide cultural services—non-material benefits as a result of interaction with nature, spiritual experiences, the desire for future generations to enjoy nature, etc.
CES are defined as “nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences” in the MA (MA, 2005, 40, cit. Hølleland et al. [19]). In this classification system, CES include ten subcategories of which cultural heritage is one. Each of the services are given short explanations, including cultural heritage, mentioning that many societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (cultural landscapes) or culturally significant species [19]. Cultural ecosystem services (CES), as Margaryan et al. [21] notice, are important spatial elements providing humans with recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and other benefits. Cultural ecosystem services research is in a somewhat tumultuous state, as Gould et al. [22] notice, the cultural ecosystem services (CES) idea is seen simultaneously as a welcoming, expansive addition to conservation policy-making, and as a strange, square-peg-in-a-round-hole concept that should be replaced by a more appropriate metaphor or conceptual structure. Interdisciplinary research plays an important role in the environmental realm; Gould et al. [22] point out that the complex systems that characterize human–ecosystem relationships arguably cannot be adequately understood using only disciplinary approaches. Each natural or semi-natural ecosystem can provide several CES, as Makovníková et al. [23] argue, from a social and cultural point of view, for example, grasslands (meadows and pastures) help maintain the viability of rural communities as an important source of employment, improving rural tourism and recreation.
Sustainable application of protected areas can promote territorial complexes of natural and cultural heritage, landscape protection ideas, as well as traditional lifestyle and ethnocultural customs [24].
As a result of the significance of landscape and biological diversity, the uneven positioning of the values of natural and cultural heritage, the universal value of natural resources, and the activities of humans, there is an inevitable clash between the interests of preservation and economic use. In most protected areas, protection is linked to the prohibition of economic activities in that territory. Since Lithuania is in the zone of mixed forests, the unused plots of land become covered by shrubs and trees in a few years, and the grassy flora keeps changing. Because of this, changes occurring in the protected areas in which economic activities take place, such as haymaking and pasturing, are prohibited. The aforementioned economic activities support the balance of ecosystems. It is necessary to keep in mind that some ecosystems cannot survive by themselves, without human intervention. Unmaintained natural and semi-natural grasslands are overgrown with shrubs and lose the biological diversity typical to them [25]. In order to avoid such negative consequences, economic activities in protected areas are either partially or completely prohibited, depending on the category of the protected area. In the European Union and Lithuania, the concepts of ecosystems as well as their development and protection were formed only during the current decade as a response to modern technology-based active farming, which has been causing the annually increasing process of the decline in the diversity of living species and other natural resources.
Due to the rapid development of protected ecosystems and the large number of related restrictions, protected ecosystems have been losing the public’s support and causing dissatisfaction. The complexity of the solutions to these problems is deepened by the fact that, because of the legal frameworks and restrictions of varying levels (EU level, national level, and local level (Figure 1)), interaction between the interested parties (human being and nature) becomes complicated.
Because of conflicting interests and incorrectly set-up relations between the system’s elements, the activities of the entire system are disturbed, and it may initiate its degradation [26]. As well, it is important to mention that ecotourism plays a complicated role here; as it seeks economic benefits, it can also have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of wildlife in protected areas. In such cases, various negative processes become dominant in the protected areas: communities oppose joining the network of protected areas; settlements are abandoned; emigration increases; communities decline; residents of protected areas feel as though they are discriminated against; and financial resources dwindle. On the other hand, after an area is declared to be protected, in addition to its positive role in the protection of biological diversity and entire ecosystems, other problems may emerge that increase flows of visitors, and when the latter are not properly regulated, a threat may arise to the existence or even survival of the existing values, and business representatives may become increasingly interested in investing in this territory in the hopes of gaining larger profit in the future.
For this reason, the necessity emerges to regulate both the flows of visitors and business investments. Arguments for such regulation and management of the territory must be scientifically justified and understandable to the society, and data should be received by constantly conducting monitoring of the area. The indicators for this monitoring must be selected after very careful deliberation while aiming for them to reflect the true, objective state of the protected values.
2.2. Links between Agricultural Activities and Agritourism
When examining the competitiveness of rural areas and possible factors of its increase, a special role is played by the multifunctionality of agriculture, which contributes to the location’s landscape protection, environmental advancement, and cultural heritage preservation. As early as 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) presented the concept of a multifunctional agricultural model, claiming that, apart from the primary function of producing food and other production material, agriculture has to shape the landscape, generate renewable production resources, create biological genetic diversity, clean the environment from waste, nurture ethno-culture, contribute to historical continuity and support vitality of social economy [27]. Multifunctionality in agriculture makes it possible to support the region’s competitiveness by creating territorial uniqueness. The location’s uniqueness usually exists in wilderness areas [28]. The interactions between humans and nature are ecosystem services related to the conducted agricultural activities.
Farmers produce not just food and material that has market value but also “positive” ecosystem services that do not possess market value that are increasingly appreciated by the public. Agricultural heritage is related to the abilities and knowledge of how to manage the natural environment, preserve buildings, traditions, and folklore, and nurture handicrafts and folk music. These factors have historical, archaeological, practical, and symbolic value and are significant to the uniqueness of a territory. In many European countries, including Lithuania, agriculture is an important basis of a nation’s identity and culture. Landscape and its cultural composition contribute to the education and life perception of the younger generation. Rural culture is closely related to all of these aspects and has a great significance to the preservation of landscape [29].
In the 2007–2013 Plan of Measures for the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme, according to the third orientation of the CAP, there was an opportunity to implement measures of promotion of the development of multifunctionality of agriculture: development of rural tourism, development of crafts, and renewal of rural areas [30]. Currently, tourism, crafts and provision of rural products and services are the factor of most regions’ growth, which opens up the opportunities to diversify on-farm activities. These opportunities are important to the growth of rural areas, employment, their sustainable development, and preservation of cultural heritage. Restoration of ethnographic-type farmsteads, development of crafts, growing and rearing of unconventional plants (..) and animals (…) are especially worth encouraging in areas that are protected or less favourable for farming.
Flanigan et al. [31] note that the literature on agritourism is diverse and approaches the subject from different perspectives. Artuğer and Kendir [32] notice that for a long time agritourism has been indicated as a significant element in the socio-economic development and renaissance of rural regions. Agritourism is not a recent phenomenon; furthermore, as Arroyo et al. [33] point out, it has considerably increased in the past ten years and is projected to continue growing in the future. Lucha et al. [34] note that agritourism is a value-added product that can generate additional income and introduce a farm brand to customers. Agritourism is a consumer-driven innovation, as Van Sandt et al. [35] point out, that producers are exploring as a means to diversify and grow farm-based revenues. Farmers and ranchers may pursue agritourism to diversify their business portfolio and make their enterprises more resilient. Thus, the demand and offer of recreational activities on farms has increased over the last decades, as Barbieri et al. [36] point out, and promises increased growth in the future because of the benefits it brings to farmers and visitors.
Winkle and Bueddefeld [37] notice that agritourism is an effective way to promote sustainable agricultural practices and agricultural literacy. As such, agritourism is an increasingly important way for the general public to learn about agricultural practices, issues, and concepts and, as Winkle and Bueddefeld [37] point out, it is commonly assumed that agritourism experiences result in learning, yet there is very little research that demonstrates this or explores what kind of learning is possible.
As agritourism has been gaining in popularity as a form of special interest tourism, researchers have investigated different aspects of this phenomenon, as Back et al. [31] notice. Montefrio and Sin [38] point out that the literature on agritourism and farm tourism has largely portrayed this tourism enterprise as bottom-up, organic, and primarily driven by small-scale, independent farm families. Nevertheless, as Addinsall et al. [39], and as Liang [40] notes, agritourism has had many different definitions and criteria. For example, agritourism activities include accommodation, fresh local food and beverages (i.e., home-made local products), a traditional rural life experience, and cultural, recreational, and educational activities (e.g., fruit picking, folk customs, educational courses, cycling, horseback riding, hayrides, farm visits, and farm education). Thus, Back et al. [41] point out, while agritourism typically takes place in an agricultural setting and usually includes recreational and educational components, wine tourism is often more broadly defined to include wine-related events that occur in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. For example, blueberry and blackberry (also known as caneberry) are commonly found in roadside stands, as Grey et al. [42] notice, promote agritourism via pick-your-own markets, are important for fresh market commercial production in the region, and when processed, provide desirable value-added products. Socializing with friends and visiting those settings during childhood had a positive influence on all types of services derived from both settings, thus policy, management, and marketing implications [43] could be discussed as to incorporate the benefits agricultural lands provide to society in the planning and development of agritourism.
After theoretically discussing ecosystems and the services they provide in protected areas and links between agricultural activities and agritourism, an empirical study is presented.
3. Research Setting, Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Setting
The elderships chosen for the research are the ones that are located in the zone within about 10 km of the coast in the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon and that are within or bordering with the area of the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. Most of the territories of Šilutė District are in the lowlands of the Lithuanian seaside. The lowest location is Rusnė island (which is, in places, even below the sea level). Every spring and often in autumn, Nemunas floods large areas of Šilutė District (about 400 km2), cutting off transportation (Figure 2).
Characteristics of selected elderships and tourism centres, together with the activities of tourism centres and branches, are presented in Table 1.
3.2. Materials and Methods
In order to solve the existing problems of the protection and services of ecosystems, 4 versions of questionnaires have been prepared (for farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees (in Lithuanian) and tourists (in Lithuanian, Russian and English). The stages of research are presented in Table 2.
Not all potential respondents agreed to participate in the survey, therefore the target general populations were: 180 farmers, 20 entrepreneurs, 15 employees of the eldership. Sample size finite population Cochran’s assumption were: 47 farmers, 10 entrepreneurs, 8 employees of the eldership, and real sample sizes were: 64 farmers, 15 entrepreneurs, 11 employees of the eldership and 89 tourists. Thus, a total of 64 farmers, 15 businesspeople, 11 eldership employees and 89 tourists were questioned. Respondents were targeted to reflect the entire existing totality of the existing area. The survey was conducted in June–August 2019. Some respondents were contacted directly, explaining the purpose of the study and the planned results, to other respondents (in most cases, the questionnaires were handed over to the farmers by the employees of the agricultural department of the eldership).
4. Results
4.1. Opinions about Ecosystem Services
During the research (according to the respondents’ opinions: farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees) the favourability of the conditions in the researched locations has been determined for the development of ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Twenty-four percent of respondents evaluated the conditions as favourable, 9.3 percent claimed that the conditions are not favourable, and 44 percent did not have an opinion about the specifics of ecosystem development, basing their response choice on the lack of information about the development of ecosystem services. In Figure 3, information is provided on the respondents’ selection and prioritizing of different ecosystem service groups during different periods. When evaluating the potential of ecosystem services, a rating scale was chosen where respondents’ responses were given scores ranging from 1 to 3 (score of 1 was given the strongest significance, while 3 was assigned low significance).
During the analysis of the potential of ecosystem services in 2020–2030, farmers gave priority to provision services with a score of 1.6, regulation/support services received the evaluation score of 2.1, while cultural services received 2.4. In the entrepreneur’s choices, there were no significant differences in the evaluation of ecosystem services: provision services were given a score of 2.3, regulation/support received 2.2 and cultural services received 2.6. Eldership employees saw the greatest potential in cultural services (score of 1.9).
During the research, not only was the evaluation of the priorities of the aforementioned ecosystem service groups conducted but also the significance of specific ecosystem service types was determined (insights of all three respondent groups) for the future in 2020–2030. After structuring research data, three examples were chosen from each type of ecosystem services that were most frequently chosen and given the highest scores by all three groups (farmers, entrepreneurs, and eldership employees). In the category of provision services, the following were selected: food of plant origin (1.7); food of animal origin (2.1); game (2.3). In the category of regulatory and support services, the following were selected: containment, utilisation and detoxication of waste and wastewater (1.3); regulation of water quality cycle (1.5); and air quality regulation (2.5). In the category of cultural services, the following were selected: provision of recreation and rest in nature (1.4); the aim to preserve the existing natural values (1.6); and cultural heritage (1.8) (Figure 4).
When analysing the prioritised provision services selected by the respondents (products of plant and animal origin), it must be emphasised that Lithuania is most well-stocked with cereals and cereal products (401 percent), beef and veal (295 percent), and dairy products (145 percent). It is the least well-stocked with fruit and berries (25 percent) and vegetables (62 percent) [46].
In the opinion of the respondents, traditional agricultural activities (producing cereals and rearing cattle) are, to date, the principal economic activities of rural areas. Small farms are managed and maintained by older people; therefore, it has been difficult for innovations to make their way in the sector, as they have experienced pushback. It is more difficult for smaller farms to attract investments in advanced technologies that are required for sustainable activities. Consolidation of Lithuania’s agriculture should take place in the near future. It will be partially incited by generational renewal: the inheritors often decide to not follow in their parents’ footsteps and abandon agricultural activities, sell the farms, and provide the conditions for larger agricultural companies to accumulate agricultural areas. It is likely that this accumulation and enlargement of companies operating in the sector will also create the conditions for the structure of agricultural production to change as well. Lithuania and the Baltic countries in Europe are characterised by strong focus on plant production: grain takes up about 49 percent of Lithuania’s agricultural production, and this indicator is much higher than the EU average—16 percent. Nevertheless, cereal growing usually generates lower added value than other sectors of agriculture.
Understanding the impact of farming activities on ecosystems is beneficial for farmers themselves. By balancing the use of ecosystem services, there would be practically no waste left in the agro-ecosystem, and this would bring economic benefits. The activities of the aforementioned farms would influence the residents’ employment, landscape, environment, biological diversity, and preservation of traditions and heritage, while ensuring quality of food products and creating services in the village that would become attractive to residents of different countries. The uniqueness of the services could help support the rural areas’ vitality while providing the farm owners with the possibilities to manage changes in the villages. During the COVID-19 crisis, resilience to future pandemics and threats, such as climate change impacts, food shortages and disease outbreaks, would be strengthened through agricultural practices and wildlife protection.
The impact of the agro-ecosystem and its dynamics on the ecosystems in the elderships is evaluated with the participation of the data of the general agricultural censuses of Lithuania, which were conducted three times in the country after accession to the EU. The list of collected indicators is determined by EU legislation. It is not extensive at the ward level and includes the areas of agricultural land and crops (ha), the number of farm animals, the number of farm workers, and the economic size of the farm. In the context of this study, the first four indicators and their dynamics are important. They not only reflect the possible impact on ecosystems, but also describe the studied neighbourhood and reveal their characteristics. Although agro-ecosystems focus on agricultural supply services, the direct and indirect damage to ecosystems caused by farming is deteriorating, as is the quality of the services provided by ecosystems. According to the results of the 2003, 2010, and 2020 general agricultural censuses (Results of the Census, 2005, 2012, 2022) (the data of the 2020 censuses are preliminary), the number of farms engaged in agricultural activities in the survey area decreased significantly in 2003–2020 (44.6 percent) (Table 3). The area of the utilized agricultural area increased by a third (33.3 percent), of which the area of arable land increased by three-fifths (61.9 percent). This is common to all elderships in the area. These trends show that rising EU and national direct payments have boosted agricultural production. Although the area of meadows and pastures among the agricultural censuses in individual elderships showed an increasing trend and grew quite rapidly, it remained almost unchanged in the area under study (increased by 4.8 percent). Prior to EU accession, cereals predominated in the crop structure, accounting for 50–75 percent of all crops (except in Rusnė eldership, where potatoes accounted for half of all crops). However, later, in 2010, the structure of crops changed—a significant part (34.0–55.9 percent) consisted of perennial grasses (except in Rusnė eldership). According to the data of the 2020 census, the structure of crops was again dominated by cereals, which accounted for 44–67 percent of all crops. Structural changes in crops in the area have also affected the quality of ecosystem services. Cereals are demanding of soils, and their intensive fertilization with mineral fertilizers, the use of various plant protection products, and the pollution of groundwater, have a negative impact on the quality of ecosystem services. In addition, the unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers and other chemical elements increases the likelihood of the intensity of migration and leaching of chemical elements from the soil. This causes significant damage to the natural environment and to the agricultural sector itself. On the other hand, the increase in the proportion of perennial grasses in crops significantly contributes to the improvement of their quality. This was probably influenced by the measures of the Rural Development Programme “Agri-environment and climate”, “Natura 2000 payments and payments related to the General Water Framework Directive”, “Organic farming” and others implemented in Lithuania. Most of these measures directly promote the protection of genetic and species biodiversity, the restoration and resilience of damaged and endangered ecosystems, and support traditional extensive farming with fewer fertilizers and pesticides. However, other measures in the Rural Development Programme that promote increased farming intensity may have a negative impact on ecosystems through increased pollution, soil damage, habitat destruction, or loss. For example, measures to manage a drainage network can adversely affect the water regime necessary to sustain certain ecosystems.
It is important to note that the area occupied by forests in the study area decreased significantly (by almost a third) during the period under study (Table 3). This has also had a negative impact on the ecosystem services, because mushrooms, berries, and wood are decreasing; forests retain rainwater, they also affect forest biodiversity, maintaining animal and plant habitats, maintaining air quality, climate regulation—absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, reducing pollution, pests and for pest disease control, neutralizing of pollutants entering water and air, helping for aesthetic enjoyment, human recreation, etc. The applied Lithuanian rural development policy measure “Investments in the development of forest areas and improvement of forest vitality” did not ensure sufficient protection of biological diversity and ecosystems.
Farmers also raise livestock and birds in the study area. The number of cattle increased by almost 15 percent during the period of study, while the number of pigs was only 2 percent of their previous number in 2003 (due to restrictions on African swine fever). The number of birds increased by a quarter (27.3 percent) (Table 3). The GHG emissions from poultry farming and manure management have a negative impact on air, soil, surface water and groundwater, leading to a deterioration in the quality of ecosystem services.
The data of the general agricultural censuses show that the number of employees in intensive agriculture is rapidly decreasing in the study area. Among agricultural censuses, their number decreased by more than a third (35.8 percent). The ratio of the number of conditional to employed persons shows that in 2003 they were employed only half a day in agricultural activities. This trend intensified in the subsequent period and averaged 0.37 in 2010. This shows that the population has to choose alternative activities to agriculture, securing employment and income [47].
Table 3Data of the surveyed elderships (Results of the Census, 2005, 2012, 2022) [48,49].
| Indicators | Year | Priekulė | Saugos | Kintai | Rusnė | Šilutė | Juknaičiai | Usėnai |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of farms | 2003 | 899 | 843 | 513 | 325 | 889 | 668 | 383 |
| 2010 | 506 | 699 | 477 | 256 | 934 | 557 | 260 | |
| 2020 | 332 | 466 | 317 | 186 | 619 | 392 | 194 | |
| Utilised agricultural land, ha | 2003 | 5578 | 6869 | 4016 | 1876 | 6324 | 7159 | 3995 |
| 2010 | 5488 | 7293 | 4574 | 2356 | 7964 | 8414 | 5445 | |
| 2020 | 5809 | 8814 | 6308 | 2361 | 7715 | 9226 | 7415 | |
| Arable land, ha | 2003 | 2790 | 1983 | 866 | 436 | 2011 | 2957 | 2051 |
| 2010 | 4724 | 4050 | 1162 | 605 | 2918 | 6546 | 3394 | |
| 2020 | 3797 | 4761 | 2092 | 422 | 3307 | 4421 | 2399 | |
| Meadows and pastures, ha | 2003 | 2739 | 4847 | 3084 | 1434 | 4270 | 4170 | 1921 |
| 2010 | 705 | 3230 | 3363 | 1658 | 5004 | 1837 | 2050 | |
| 2020 | 1970 | 4040 | 4155 | 1935 | 4383 | 4713 | 2341 | |
| Share of cereals in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 59.4 | 46.1 | 55.9 | 32.8 | 50.7 | 58.5 | 77.2 |
| 2010 | 32.8 | 33.7 | 49.3 | 39.4 | 50.0 | 43.5 | 34.9 | |
| 2020 | 67.4 | 64.3 | 65.0 | 54.7 | 50.3 | 56.3 | 43.8 | |
| Share of potatoes in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 15.4 | 21.4 | 20.2 | 50.5 | 21.5 | 25.3 | 12.9 |
| 2010 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 31.3 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 1.8 | |
| 2020 | 9.2 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 19.0 | 2.2 | 3.9 | 0.9 | |
| Share of perennial grasses in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 13.2 | 18.2 | 6.7 | 2.1 | 15.2 | 3.9 | 2.5 |
| 2010 | 42.3 | 54.2 | 34.8 | 16.3 | 34.0 | 46.6 | 55.9 | |
| 2020 | 12.5 | 14.3 | 23.0 | 15.6 | 27.1 | 24.3 | 35.7 | |
| Wooded area, ha | 2003 | 67 | 266 | 7 | 12 | 305 | 117 | 32 |
| 2010 | 28 | 104 | 7 | 60 | 159 | 69 | 24 | |
| 2020 | 46 | 161 | 12 | 42 | 237 | 98 | 9 | |
| Cattle | 2003 | 2092 | 3063 | 2891 | 1036 | 3371 | 3323 | 1421 |
| 2010 | 1099 | 3457 | 3005 | 1063 | 3419 | 3654 | 1548 | |
| 2020 | 1000 | 3590 | 3036 | 1295 | 4286 | 4571 | 3091 |
Development of rural areas is encouraged by inter-connecting positive quantitative, qualitative, and infrastructural changes. The dominant traditional farm may be transformed quantitatively, i.e., by diversifying economic activity and (or) initiating development of another, new activity which is unrelated to the production of marketable goods: nature tourism, production of alternative energy, etc., while protecting natural resources or maintaining the landscape, thus receiving income from a different activity.
In order to receive income from additional activities, the potential demand for the proposed activities must be evaluated. For the research of the location’s activity demand, tourists were interviewed who had visited the information centres of Kintai, Rusnė, Šilutė and Dreverna, and their visit motivations, wishes and possibilities were evaluated. It was presumed that the opinions expressed by the tourists could help the villages’ residents plan to diversify their farming activities and generate additional sources of income in addition to agricultural activities.
During the research, at the tourism centres, the respondents (total number of respondents (tourists)—89) were requested to identify themselves by certain groups, based on their country of residence, age, sex, education, and tourist type. The country distribution of the respondents (tourists) who participated in the research was the following: 56 percent were tourists from Lithuania, 31 percent were tourists from EU countries, tourists from the UK, Norway, Russia, and Ukraine constituted 5 percent each, and 3 percent were tourists from the USA. The dominant age group was 50–60, which was specified by 23 percent of residents, while the respondents from the remaining age groups (20–30, 30–40, 40–50 and over 60) constituted 14–16 percent of the respondents. In total, 55 percent of the respondents were female, 36 percent were male, while the remaining part of the respondents did not identify themselves in this category. By education: 60 percent of the respondents had completed higher education, upper and secondary education was completed by 11 percent each, and vocational and master’s degree education was completed by 9 percent of the respondents each. By tourist classification groups, 49 percent of the research participants were holidaymakers, 21 percent were active recreation enthusiasts, 8 percent were people engaged in recreational activities, 8 percent were adventure-seekers, less than 5 percent were explorers, another under 5 percent were artists, and another less than 5 percent were researchers. The largest part of the respondents consisted of tourists aged 50–60. Tourists of this age value authenticity and authenticity, not artificially created tourist attractions. Therefore, it would be appropriate for them to offer more personalized services in the natural landscape, reducing the number of visited areas where the infrastructures would overshadow the natural beauty. In the mentioned group of tourists, priority should be given to those tourist areas that take care of cleanliness and order, and whose tourism products and services protect the environment. It can be observed that nature tourism is in-demand and popular among middle-aged tourists because they are increasingly taking a responsible view of their activities and the protected environment (e.g., reducing the amount of waste and pollutants emitted into the environment, using alternative energy sources, producing natural products).
Using the stated preference method, the research was based on hypothetical choices of the respondents. The tourists were asked whether they would agree to pay an additional fee (excluding ticket prices for national parks and other sightseeing objects) for preservation of ecosystems (the nature protection fee) in the visited locations. The funds would be used for preservation of natural monuments, the support and supervision of the locations’ flora and fauna, etc.
An additional fee for nature protection (EUR 3–5) was agreed to be paid by respondents who had higher education (21 percent), were aged 50–60 (9 percent) and over 60 (8 percent). Ecosystem-preserving fee of EUR 1–3 (21 percent) was agreed to be paid by respondents aged 40–50 (8 percent) and 30–40 (7 percent). A total of 19 percent of the respondents would not agree to pay an additional fee. It should be underlined that an additional nature protection fee (preserving territorial ecosystems) could provide the conditions for continuous activities of learning about nature and environmental education in the protected areas. Additional funds would contribute to raising awareness of the public, creating conditions for development of natural tourism, and aiming to achieve continuity of results and sustainability of innovations.
4.2. Opinions on Agritourism
As has already been mentioned, agritourism is described as a type of alternative tourism that is becoming increasingly popular in foreign countries. Agritourism makes it possible to not only become acquainted with the location’s culture, traditions, or exceptional dishes, but also to participate in everyday activities. The locations have to possess certain characteristics; particularly, a geographical position of the country which has unique historical value, dialectal or linguistic distinctiveness, and where certain farming activity is dominant, and while the village does not have fully developed tourism, the population is small. Countries that successfully develop thanks to their food and culinary tourism receive about 30 percent of income. Lithuania’s food tourism is more frequently associated with culinary heritage or degustation trips.
The research determined that agritourism is not developed in Saugai, Usėnai, and Juknaičiai, while priority is given to farming (despite low score of soil efficiency (35–40). It was inquired whether the tourists would agree to live on a farmer’s farm (abandoning comfort services) rather than a rural tourism farmstead. A total of 20 percent want to live as observers (observing what kinds of farming work and how they are conducted by the farmer), 41 percent want to test their current abilities by farming temporarily. To conclude, 61 percent of respondents want to try out the aforementioned service, but currently such a service is not provided. Notably, farmers’ farms could provide specialized services by offering agritourism products, e.g., milking a cow, collecting domestic berries, weeding and rural work. For this reason, the farmers who reside in the researched territories should consider that they could receive financial income both from sales of farm products (food, such as milk, butter, cheese) and from organizing various educational services at the farm.
During the research, tourist motivation was also analysed, because the relevance of the subject of the tourists’ principal motivations and needs is important in the modern-day context, as, after discovering what motivates tourists to travel, what they care about, it would be possible to attract even larger number of tourists. Needs, reasons, and motivations are the engines of human behaviour and perform an essential role in the mechanics of tourism. Motivation exists when an individual is capable of creating an impulse which pushes one forward, which will in turn provide a sense of dissatisfaction and will persist until the moment when this need will be satisfied. In order to satisfy a need, the solution to implement it will always be available.
The respondents were provided the possibility to choose from nature/climate-based (desire to get to know nature, preserved areas, resource diversity), educational–professional (attending conferences and fairs, self-education), cultural heritage (desire to get to know the visited country’s culture, traditions), health (desire to use natural health promotion measures in the region), sentimentality-based (the emigrants’ and their descendants’ desire to return to their native lands), physical (desire to experience adventure and certain risks) reasons for travel. After structuring the research data, the essential characteristics of the tourists are described in Figure 5.
From the list of provided reasons, the dominant ones were cultural (getting to know heritage) and nature-based. Cultural reasons were chosen by 23 percent of tourists from foreign countries, 45 of tourists from Lithuania, 48 percent of females and 29 percent of males with higher education (55 percent) who self-identify as belonging to the category of holidaymakers (38 percent). The selection of reasons of cultural heritage should be associated with ancient castles, objects of defensive heritage, churches and monasteries, manors and manor farmsteads, historical parks, and ethnographic villages. These are just some of many cultural objects of special significance that are easily adaptable for cultural tourism and that possess an already established landscape and history.
Nature or climate-based reasons were also chosen by 23 percent of foreign country tourists and 36 percent of Lithuania’s tourists, 40 percent of females and 27 percent of males with higher education (48 percent) who self-identify as holidaymakers (34 percent). It can be predicted that such a choice by the respondents was determined by the changing reasons for travel. The respondents emphasized the authenticity of the locations and educational aspects as well as the search for new spaces that have not yet been used for tourism. It is also important to emphasize that the low population density in Lithuania allowed for the successful development of nature tourism and the global pandemic, with minimal contacts for visitors.
Due to climate change, the questions of environmental and social responsibility of humans’ farming activities are becoming increasingly relevant in the tourism field as well. Growing understanding of the depletability of nature’s resources and the increasing need to preserve them significantly raises the value of the surviving territories that have not been touched by economic activities, while tourists’ awareness increases due to rising amounts of information on sustainable tourism. Lately there has been a particular increase in the demand for products of natural tourism. This field can be described as the field of niche tourism products or seen more widely as an adaptation of conventional sightseeing objects for the needs of tourism. The increasingly popular natural tourism is very important and useful as the local values of natural tourism, such as a regional park, protected objects of natural heritage, NATURA 2000 territories, unique landscapes, rare plants, birdwatching, and other trips to nature may fascinate.
5. Discussion
Based on the results of the study, it is noticed that the strongest impact on tourism is made by the natural environment, in which the entirety of natural elements are dominant: flora, fauna, climate, atmosphere, water. The greatest influences on tourism are the following components of natural environment: recreational territories, picturesqueness of the surroundings, favourability of the climate, and freshness of the air. Lithuania’s nature and specific complexes of the landscape of certain regions and zones create favourable conditions for the development of tourism. Forests, parks, and aesthetically valuable landscape complexes comprise about a third of the entire area in Lithuania. The most important natural recreational factors of wooded lands are ecologically clean forests and air. Forest ecosystems take up 33.2 percent of Lithuania’s territory. The forests’ biological diversity is protected in natural parks, in which forests account for 57 percent of their territory, regional parks (44 percent), natural and biosphere sanctuaries (43.4 percent), and reserves [50]. Due to its uniqueness, the flora of bog ecosystems is highly valuable, even though, due to 30 post-war years when melioration was conducted, the country has lost about 70 percent of its bogs. As funds are insufficient for maintenance and supervision of melioration equipment, re-naturalisation processes are beginning in many places in Lithuania. The condition of bogs depends on their size. Small bogs increase the mosaic of landscape; therefore, they are among the most important. Bogs are exceptionally important not only because of their flora but also due to the water, the complex of bog’s utilised area for birds. Natural grassland ecosystems are characterised by the largest diversity of plants, invertebrates, and mushrooms. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, the areas of natural grasslands have decreased in size. There are particularly few remaining natural terrestrial grasslands that were actively cultivated or planted with forest. The condition of the remaining natural flooded and terrestrial grasslands is poor and continues to worsen. Their preservation is related to extensive use. Meadows and pastures that are not used under the conditions of general agricultural decline are overgrown by shrubs or replanted with forest. Taking into account the aforementioned statistical reviews, a compromise is sought between natural ecosystems, the services they provide, and human activities.
It is important to notice that the genesis of agritourism, as Barbieri et al. [51] note, is rooted in diversifying income for farmers, and accordingly, epistemological framing of agritourism research has focused on understanding the direct economic value of farm visits. Dubois et al. [52] note that the adoption of agritourism is sometimes problematic because of a perceived threat to the farmer’s identity as a food producer. As well, landscape attributes appear to play, as Melstrom and Murphy [53] pay attention to, a more significant role in agritourism consumer preferences for overnight destinations than single-day sites. Now, as Rauniyar et al. [54] note, that the tourists want to spend less time in their journey, agritourism has become a major form of tourism, where a majority of tourists are from nearby cities and spend one or two days on vacation. During the last decades agritourism has expanded tremendously worldwide, given visitors’ increased interest to appreciate the life in the countryside and farmers’ need to enhance their revenues from different economic activities; as Santeramo and Barbieri [43] notice, despite such enlarged agritourism development, scant information is available on the state of its demand at both national and international levels. Paniccia and Baiocco [55] offer an interpretative framework that conceptualizes sustainable agritourism through effective multilevel co-evolutionary adaptations and identify four determinants: strategic intentionality, rural lifestyle experience, systemic approach, and social responsibility. This approach, as Paniccia and Baiocco [55] point out, may help farmers and policymakers develop destinations through sustainable agritourism. Agritourism, as Montefrio and Sin [56] note, just as any other tourism enterprise, is therefore susceptible to the kinds of politics associated with complicated networks of state- and non-state actors.
When discussing agritourism it is important to pay attention to nature tourism as a specific field of tourism which requires specific knowledge and competences. Vlasova et al. [57] notice that the development strategy of agrotourism and nature-based tourism should be developed as a comprehensive inter-agency strategy. Lithuania’s nature is subtle; therefore, in order to become familiar with it, one requires professional services of interpretation/guiding. Practicians working in the field of nature tourism specify the lack of professional nature guides as one of the fundamental problems. Currently, there are only a few nature guides who work in Lithuania because this niche has been occupied by protected areas and their specialists who have special knowledge due to specific education and provide nature guide services for non-competitive prices. Another problem is that nature guides are not certified in Lithuania. According to current procedures, they must have a standardized guide license, acquiring which does not require nature-related knowledge. This problem has been identified and is intended to be solved in a new project “The Network of South Baltic Nature Guides” [58] by the Curonian Spit National Park Authority’s directorate [59] and its partners. Another aspect which is no less problematic is that currently the system of the use of protected areas for tourism is highly complicated and its procedures are poorly managed. According to the current procedures, in order to observe protected species, no special permit is required. However, such a permit is required if the species is disturbed, and this permit is issued over a period of one month by a special Red Book Commission. The problem is that the concept of disturbance is not clearly defined, and, when tourists observe protected species, they may be disturbed as well. This vaguely defined procedure potentially restricts development of nature tourism—it introduces some uncertainties. The control of this procedure is conducted in a very limited manner. This creates the possibilities of abuse, threatens the protected species, and limits tourism. Certain individual business and organisations that develop nature (ecological) tourism from Lithuania belong to international eco-tourism networks, e.g., Žemaitija National Park and the operators functioning in it have the certificate of the Charter for Sustainable Tourism, while Mingės Poilsis, which provides its services in Šilutė District Municipality, belongs to the European Ecotourism Network. Unfortunately, these are just isolated cases; therefore, such cooperation should be encouraged. This would help to promote products of nature tourism in foreign markets and Lithuanian tourism operators would learn and improve quicker in the field of nature tourism and increase the quality of their services.
As tourist flows increase, a problem arises around how to provide quality services in an appropriate manner and how to make them more attractive for the modern consumer without harming the region and the environment. In recent years, a large number of critics of mass tourism have emerged, emphasising its negative impact on nature, local cultures and frequently visited monuments; moreover, the concept itself of such tourism is criticized, as a visitor arriving to any mass tourism site can find the usual western services, which results in lack of familiarisation with the region’s true culture. For this reason, nature tourism (hereinafter referred to as NT) could become the solution to help solve economic, ecological, and social difficulties that accompany mass tourism. It is worth highlighting that NT activities are conducted in less developed regions, more remote, less populated, and rural areas; however, the positive aspects are a more friendly community, lower tourist flows and smaller negative impact on the environment. The users of this type of tourism are attracted by the location’s environment, which encompasses passive cultural observation and active sports activities, while responsibly combining environmental, social, and natural resources. Nature tourism could be developed by reflecting the latest trends of the changing tourist needs: individualization, active participation in the process, contact with nature, realization of creative abilities, healthy lifestyle trends, senior citizens’ needs, etc.
In Table 4, the most popular ecosystem services and their possible benefit to ecosystems, residents and tourists in the researched territory are described.
To summarize, it should be noted that investments in ecosystems in the protected areas create the conditions for continued activities of getting to know nature and environmental education. Investments may contribute to the increase in public awareness by creating the conditions for the development of natural tourism. However, the continuity of achieved results and the sustainability of investments will be ensured only if the created objects will be properly applied.
It is important to emphasize the strengths and limitations of the studied area, which can be applied to other areas of nature tourism development. Thus, Šilutė District Municipality has a lot of potential to develop natural tourism. In its territory, there are a total of 61 protected areas. The Nemunas Delta Regional Park (hereinafter referred to as the NDRP) is the largest and most famous, the largest part of which is taken up by the old polder system with flooded grasslands. Ornithologically, the NDRP is a highly important territory of international and national significance. The park’s bog ecosystem, the Curonian Lagoon and Nemunas with all of its distributaries and grasshoppers, ponds, and the Krokų Lanka lake, determined a large concentration of breeding and migrating water birds as well as birds of bogs and wet places. The park’s ornithofauna is significantly impacted by the portion of the Nemunas Delta located in the Kaliningrad District. The bird migration path of the Arctic–Europe–East Africa passes through the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. Various species of bats and butterflies also migrate through this area. In total, 294 species of birds (90 percent of Lithuania’s ornithofauna) have been encountered in the park’s territory. As a result of the diversity of delta biotopes as well as food abundance and migration path, 22 of 392 bird species encountered in Lithuania have been observed only in the delta of Nemunas [60]. The delta is characterised not only as the migrating birds’ rest and feeding grounds but also as an important egg-laying site for many rare birds. In total, 169 bird species have been encountered breeding here [61]. The following are internationally significant gathering sites of migrating whooper swans: the grasslands between Stankiškiai and Mingė villages, Kintai Fish Farm, the grasslands between the Minija river and the Krokų Lanka lake. Nationally important bird sites: Kniaupas Bay, Rusnė fishponds, Krokų Lanka lake, etc. NDRP and other protected areas located around the park create great conditions to develop nature tourism. Unfortunately, these natural riches are poorly used by the local residents and, to date, nature tourism is developed in the area only by a few enthusiasts. Thus, Šilutė District Municipality and the people residing here lose a lot of potential for tourism and potential income. One of the largest and most impressive natural phenomena in Šilutė District Municipality is the flood, which is still perceived more as a problem than an opportunity to develop natural-educational tourism and generate income from it [62]. When developing nature tourism and the associated services (flood observation, ice fishing, organizing of celebrations, etc.), the season could be extended by at least three months (March, April, October), while promotion of services related to specific species of birds (e.g., white-tailed eagle) could attract tourists during the cold season as well.
Even though the Nemunas Delta region is an exceptional area of Lithuania, it is not as frequently visited or as well-known as other national parks. In the national marketing of tourism (tourism booklets and other media forms that present Lithuania), the Nemunas Delta region is not singled out alongside the aforementioned tourist hotspots. By developing nature tourism, an opportunity would arise to conduct direct marketing of this area and introduce it as a national hotspot of nature tourism [63]. Tourism could potentially attract new tourist markets in which nature tourism is highly popular, as well as cooperation of tourism operators. Development of nature tourism could create the opportunities of cooperation between providers of various services, e.g., birdwatching from boats, car rent, catering, etc. [64].
In terms of the Nemunas Delta region, it is important to maintain a good condition of flooded grasslands and farm using nature-friendly methods, e.g., mow the grasslands only after fledglings are hatched. Currently, this method is followed only by a small number of farmers in the Nemunas Delta. There are three principal reasons for this: it is not financially beneficial, the farmers have commitments, due to which they cannot change their farming practices, and there is no place where the biomass that has been cut late and is not fit for animal feeding could be utilised. During intense farming of such grasslands, biological diversity typical of these sites starts disappearing and the landscape changes. Not only the natural values but also potential resources of nature tourism are lost [65].
Importantly, there is currently no operating organisation in Lithuania which would take care of development of nature tourism; for this reason, there is no conclusive analysis of this field and its problems. Since the Ministry of Economy is responsible for the development of tourism as a branch of the economy, and the development of nature tourism requires specific knowledge that could potentially be provided by the Ministry of Environment as well as institutions under its jurisdiction and non-governmental organisations working in the environmental field, low level cooperation between these participants determines that problematic issues are solved slowly and this field is given insufficient attention. Perhaps because of this, the economic benefit of nature tourism has still not been measured in our country, even though in Finland and Estonia, such assessments are already being conducted.
When discussing research directions, it seems important to mention slow tourism as a new type of tourism has been forming alongside nature tourism. Slow tourism would encourage delving deep, becoming acquainted with the local traditions, history, customs, holidays. It would be best to stay in one place for at least a week in order to gain a sense of the local rhythm. The aim of a slow trip is not the mileage but the depth of unique impressions. It is meant for a person who wishes live slightly better in this modern world filled with rushing. This is why the philosophy of slowness could be described in one word: balance. The word “slow” should be equated with the word “laziness” [66]. From the perspective of the tourism services sector, slow tourism could be treated as a rising segment of the market, when the tourist aims to become better acquainted with the land’s people, their everyday errands and cares. In this way, tourists would seek interesting human stories, new experiences, and authenticity. It is important to mention, as well, that rural tourism development is currently an answer to the multiplier effect of the crisis conditions due to COVID-19, as rural areas offer potential by providing extraordinary natural resources as valuable places of rest after a long quarantine period [67]. Seeking to develop further agrarian traditions, they can be treated as potential for the direction of slow tourism. Local residents’ farmsteads could be oriented toward accommodation of individual visitors and keeping them entertained. Potential entertainment: participation in the production of ecological products, possibility to acquire them, taking part in agricultural work, becoming acquainted with the traditional craft tools (carving, stripe weaving, etc.), specialized experiences—honey extraction, gathering of medicinal plants, etc. Traditional crafts and folk heritage could be one of the alternative directions of slow tourism that could give significant positive economic and social benefits. A large number of traditional craftspeople are, to date, not interested in welcoming tourists and sharing their experience. None of the service providers are oriented specifically toward provision of experiences of slow tourism, i.e., communication and participation in all processes of the product’s production or farm maintenance is not provided. The researched location has the potential to become a direction of slow tourism for those who seek authenticity and can be represented as a direction of cross-crafting, weaving, wood-carving, jewellery-making, and culinary heritage. While aiming to develop slow tourism, it is important to focus on integration of the sector of craftspeople and rural tourism. Slow travellers would be interested in accommodation at a rural farmstead in which they could become acquainted with authentic wares or made dishes (production) through experience.
Thus, the proposed slow tourism would seem to be a response to the accelerating pace of the world and the rapid consumption of resources. As the study area is distinguished by its wonderful nature, unique landscape, and cultural heritage objects, interesting people who have something to show and tell, thus, tired of the constant rush, longing for slow life, slow rest, slow food, 50–60-year-old educated tourists are looking for uniqueness and authenticity. The pace of life while relaxing would be slowed down, by abandoning the excessive use of modern technologies (television, computer and internet, mobile phone, etc.). Slow food would be cooked cleanly and correctly, i.e., without harming the environment, animals, or people’s well-being. Consumers of such food would know the entire production process and become partners of the producers. Tourism would include not only the consumption of organic products, the recognition of local traditions, but also slower travel; reducing the distance travelled and increasing the number of overnight stays in one place or region. Tourists could choose to walk or ride a bicycle instead of a car. Stopping in one place for a longer time would allow one to become familiar with the area, the traditions, and the people living there better. The main element of the proposed slow tourism would be not quantity, but quality. The landscape of the studied area, the way of the people living there, would be especially suitable for the development of the mentioned form of tourism, e.g., offering the observation of unspoiled nature, bicycle or walking trips on unpaved country and forest roads, as well as discovery of culinary heritage, etc.
While developing nature tourism, a demand would emerge of new service provision, which would make it possible to create new jobs in the area. Nature tourists appreciate the quality of services more, they also leave more money than usual tourists, establishing a target tourist market. It is important as well to mention that governments and authoritative agencies have the responsibility to consider vulnerabilities of infrastructures, increase resiliency of infrastructures, and protect populations; thus, governments should invest in infrastructures, plan adaptive measures, and enact policies for responsible land use and development [68]. Successful development of nature tourism would allow the region to set a priority direction of tourism and focus on it. This could contribute to the maintenance and further nurturing of the good condition of the overall region’s environment.
6. Conclusions
Development of nature tourism could provide a lot of benefits for the region. It could potentially encourage preservation, further maintenance, and support of valuable natural ecosystems, as well as promotion of farmers and their local production. After discovering the links between farming and nature tourism, possibilities would emerge to promote local farmers’ production by selling not the raw materials, but already processed production, which has greater added value. The uniqueness of the services could help support the rural areas’ vitality while providing the farm owners with the possibilities to manage changes in the villages. The supply of additional services would extend the tourism season and reduce seasonality, as the principal tourist flows are observed only from May until the end of September.
The study area is distinguished by the wonderful nature, unique landscape, cultural heritage objects, interesting people who have something authentic to share. Tired of the constant rush, longing for slow life, slow rest, slow food, 50–60-year-old educated tourists are looking for uniqueness and authenticity. Instead of making use of conventional services offered by tourism companies, tourists would be able to more frequently use and receive exceptional services, retain greater distance away from mass tourism, as well as, influenced by the last years global pandemic situation, achieve something meaningful, experience adventure which would help them forget the surrounding civilization, discover closer contact with the local residents, dispense with luxurious tourist infrastructure, adapt to the local comforts, and take interest in traditions and crafts. Local craftspeople, farmers and businesspeople could be attracted who are able to provide tourists with products that are original and correspond to the region’s traditions.
It is worth emphasising that there are opportunities in the location to develop the concept of slow tourism, as there is a sufficient number of cultural resources and activities of farms, craftspeople, etc., that are typical of the field of slow tourism. However, there is a shortage of deeper examination of this concept, the benefit it provides and the involvement of service providers. After building a network of cooperation and generating specific proposals, they could be offered to both foreign and Lithuanian tourists. For this purpose, information must be combined, presenting the consumer with details on what they could receive in the area by choosing to travel slowly. Other possible areas of local activity development could be tourist packages incorporating services of the nearby farmsteads or other objects/subjects, e.g., one farmstead would provide accommodation services, another would provide catering, while the third one would be responsible for the leisure of the holidaymaker tourist, etc. Unfortunately, tourist packages in the researched area in order to increase visitor amounts have not been created. Thus, emphasizing ecosystem-friendly tourism, natural resources should be preserved and included in the long-term development plans of the area. The proposed tourism services would bring more benefits to the local community, the area itself and tourists. The relationship between tourism services and the environment should support the long-term viability of the surrounding environment and ecosystems without adversely affecting natural resources.
The aforementioned tourist development ideas, especially in the ecologically vulnerable region, would enable the protected areas’ employees, the local farmers, the businesspeople, and the municipal employees to seek new methods to adapt ecologically vulnerable areas for tourist needs without damaging the ecosystems.
Conceptualization, L.M., R.P. and D.M.; methodology, L.M., R.P. and D.M.; data curation, L.M., R.P. and D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M., R.P. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., R.P. and D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
MDPI Research Data Policies.
The authors declare no conflict of interest in the results.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Legal frameworks and restrictions of varying levels, from EU to local level.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Study area and its location on the map of Lithuania, 2021 (distribution map made by D. Gozdowski).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. The respondents’ opinion on the usefulness of ecosystem services, in score averages 2014–2030 (score of 1 was given the strongest significance, while 3 was assigned low significance).
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. The respondents’ opinions on prioritizing ecosystem services (score of 1 was given the strongest significance, while 3 was assigned low significance).
Characteristics of the eldership and tourism centres [
| Characteristics of the Eldership | Activities of Tourism Centres and Branches |
|---|---|
| Rusnė: 5 villages, 3 sub-elderships: 1600 residents. Notable landmarks: the old fisher house, ethnographic farmstead-museum of a fisher/farmer, the old post office, the Uostadvaris Lighthouse (1876), the first water lifting station (1907), exposition of the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. | Rusnė Island Ethnocultural and Information Centre—to create the conditions to research, record and promote ethnocultural values; to adapt them for the needs of the modern life; to gather researchers, ethnographers, amateur art collectives, cultural and education employees, artists, and public organisations that aim to protect and promote the culture of this region. |
| Juknaičiai: 26 villages, 3348 residents. Notable landmarks: Alka Mound, Pašyšiai Evangelical Lutheran Church. The western territory of Juknaičiai is owned by the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. In 1999, the area was added to the local register of cultural values. In 2009, the area-park was registered in the Register of Values of Cultural Heritage. In 2010, it was granted the status of a state park. | |
| Usėnai: 19 villages, 1350 residents. Notable landmarks: memorial Verpsčiai ensemble, Galzdonai Botanical Reserve, Pleinė Thermological Reserve, 24 old cemeteries of evangelical Lutherans, natural monuments: Kavoliai and Stremeniai oaks. | |
| Šilutė Rural: 26 villages, 25,000 residents. Notable landmarks: H. Zuderman’s house-museum, Evangelical Lutheran Church built by K. Gutknecht (1926), Šilutė’s “secrets”: unique spaces covered by glass and embedded in the sidewalk that rebuild the life of the past, Hugo Šojus’ Manor-Museum and scientific archive: library, restoration centre. | Šilutė Tourism Information Centre—provides free-of-charge information services on tourism infrastructure, museums, parks, sightseeing routes, ship rent, ferry schedules. Mediates in the ordering of accommodation and catering services for tourist groups and individuals. Represents Šilutė city in international exhibitions, conferences, and other events. |
| Saugos: 33 villages, 3624 residents. Notable landmarks: Evangelical Lutheran Church (1857), Church of St. Casimir, buildings of Saugos Care Home, Saugos Sawmill (1908) and its technical equipment, Kukorai Railway Station’s building, Sakūčiai Bridge over Minija, Veiviržis Landscape Reserve, Veiviržis Ichthyological Reserve, Begėdžiai Botanical Reserve, and Minija Ichthyological Reserve. | |
| Kintai: 25 villages, 1884 residents. Notable landmarks: Evangelical Lutheran Church built in 1705, the parish’s elementary school, second-largest western red cedar in Europe, the Nemunas Delta Regional Park—Aukštumala Bog, Kintai Forest District’s Recreational Path, Minija village—old fisher settlement whose main street is the Minija River, Ventė Cape Ornithological Station, Ventė Cape Lighthouse built in 1863, Kniaupas Bay, and other bird-watching spots. | Kintai Vydūnas Cultural Centre—protection of historical heritage and landscape, practical promotion of ethnical culture and professional art promotion, artistic education of children and youths (educational programs, regional and international art symposiums, and open-air festivals for professional artists). |
| Priekulė: 44 villages, 8930 residents. Notable landmarks: Minija Ichthyological Reserve, Tyrai Botanical Reserve of Bogs, Svencelė Botanical-Zoological Reserve, Museum of History of Struggles for Freedom and Exile, Priekulė Royal Manor, Vingis Park, Kliošai Park, Lūžija Botanical Reserve, pedestrian suspension bridges. | Branch of Klaipėda District Information Centre—collects, structures, and provides data on tourism services and resources, manages tourism events and seminars, themed tours of the district, presents the heritage of Lithuania Minor. |
Stages of research.
| Stages of the Research, Period and Location of the Study | Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Stage 1. |
Secondary document analysis. Given the object of the research (ES), the aims and objectives of the research, this method is considered to be the most important method of data collection (acquisition). Sources of collected data: national, EU and international legislation, scientific books and journals, press publications; official statistics (information provided by the Department of Statistics, municipalities, elderships, departments of protected areas); official government publications; documents of private, state, professional, and other non-governmental organisations. In the introductory construction of the research instruments, the analysis of primary and secondary information sources was performed, and methodological tools were developed. In order to solve the existing problems of ecosystem protection and their services, 4 variant questionnaires were prepared for farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees (in Lithuanian) and tourists (in Lithuanian, Russian and English languages). |
| Stage 2. |
Standardized direct survey. In order to assess the existing problems of ecosystem protection and services provided by them, a survey of respondents (farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees) was conducted and their opinions on ecosystem conservation and possible related problem areas were examined, and the peculiarities of ES regulation and implementation were revealed. The advantages and disadvantages of social conditions (related to ongoing or potential ES) were investigated using questionnaires. The surveys provide insights into the management of ES. |
| Stage 3. |
Stated preference. It was based on the hypothetical choices of the respondents (tourists) as to how much they would agree to pay for one or another natural attribute, product, or service (quantity or quality), or a change in their condition. The tourist information centres in the study areas were contacted and staff were asked to distribute questionnaires to tourists who would visit the centres. The aim was to assess the awareness of elderships and their centres of attraction, the desire and opportunities for tourists to visit the above-mentioned areas, and the strategic potential of eldership tourism, as rural residents want to diversify their economic activities by creating additional sources of income. |
The most popular ecosystem services and their possible benefit to ecosystems, residents, and tourists.
| Ecosystem Services | Benefit to the Ecosystem | Benefit to the Location/Residents | Benefit to Tourists |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meadow ecosystem | |||
| Fodder, habitats of plants and animals, honey, cosmetics materials, medicinal plants, plant pollination, water quality, prevention of soil erosion, CO2 absorption, flood regulation, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable meadow habitats. |
Production of biofuel granules, animal litter, |
Possibilities to become acquainted with medicinal plants and the benefit they provide, meadow therapy, observation of plants, birds and insects and recognition of their habitats. |
| Bog ecosystem | |||
| Peat, soil formation, flood regulation, CO2 absorption, water cleaning, berries, plant and aquatic animals’ habitats, soil erosion prevention, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable bog habitats. |
Production of fuel, additional income for collection and sales of bog plants and berries. | Possibilities to become acquainted with the bog, to find out about its typical plants and animals, see the landscape, experience the unique beauty of the bog. Observation of plants, birds and insects and recognition of their habitats |
| Forest ecosystem | |||
| Microclimate regulation, CO2 absorption, drinking water, timber, fuel, medicinal plants, mushrooms, plant and animal habitats, soil erosion prevention, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable forest habitats. |
Production of fuel, additional income for collection and sales of plants, berries, and mushrooms; for pathfinding, listening to the sounds of deer, cranes, and owls; organizing of educational survival in the wilderness (during various seasons). | Possibilities to become acquainted with and collect edible mushrooms and berries, find out about medicinal plants and the benefit they provide, forest therapy. Observation of plants, birds, insects and animals and recognition of their habitats. |
References
1. Xu, W.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, W.U.; Zhang, L.U.; Hull, V.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Liu, J.; Polasky, S. et al. Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2017; 114, pp. 1601-1606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620503114]
2. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.S.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J. et al. The value of world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature; 1997; 387, pp. 253-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0]
3. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2014; 26, pp. 152-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002]
4. Lee, M.; Diop, S. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; 137.Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
5. TEEB. TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers—Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature; Welzel+Hardt: Wesseling, Germany, 2009; 40. ISBN 978-3-9813410-0-3
6. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB; Welzel+Hardt: Wesseling, Germany, 2010; 36.
7. Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping supply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic.; 2012; 21, pp. 17-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019]
8. Burkhard, B.; de Groot, R.; Costanza, R.; Seppelt, R.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Potschin, M. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic.; 2012; 21, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008]
9. Burkhard, B.; Kandziora, M.; Hou, Y.; Müller, F. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demand–concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online; 2014; 34, pp. 1-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434]
10. Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017; 374.
11. Briner, S.; Elkin, C.; Huber, R.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: A spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2012; 149, pp. 50-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.011]
12. Crowl, T.A.; Crist, T.O.; Parmenter, R.R.; Belovsky, G.; Lugo, A.E. The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Ecol. Environ.; 2008; 6, pp. 238-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070151]
13. Kienast, F.; Helfenstein, J. Modelling ecosystem services. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M.; Young, R.H.; Fish, R.; Turner, R.K. Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; pp. 144-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302-4]
14. Fürst, C.; Luque, S.; Geneletti, D. Nexus thinking—How ecosystem services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag.; 2017; 13, pp. 412-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1396257]
15. Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Vilkevičiūtė, J.; Žukovskis, J.; Pranskūnienė, R. Social Dimensions of Projected Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services in the Coastal-Rural Area of Nemunas River Reaches and Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania). Water; 2021; 13, 1114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13081114]
16. Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Pranskūnienė, R. Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania). Sustainability; 2021; 13, 123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010123]
17. Ehrlich, P.; Ehrlich, A. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
18. Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services. BioScience; 1983; 33, pp. 248-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1309037]
19. Hølleland, H.; Joar Skrede, J.; Sanne Bech Holmgaard, S.B. Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites; 2017; 19, pp. 210-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2017.1342069]
20. Katz-Gerro, T.; Orenstein, D.E. Environmental tastes, opinions and behaviors: Social sciences in the service of cultural ecosystem service assessment. Ecol. Soc.; 2015; 20, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07545-200328]
21. Margaryan, L.; Soléne, P.; Ioannides, D.; Röslmaier, M. Dancing with cranes: A humanist perspective on cultural ecosystem services of wetlands. Tour. Geogr.; 2018; 20, pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1522512]
22. Gould, R.K.; Adams, A.; Vivanco, L. Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. People; 2020; 16, pp. 257-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1815841]
23. Makovníková, J.; Kološta, S.; Flaška, F.; Pálka, B. Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic. Land; 2022; 11, 270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11020270]
24. Ordóñez-Barona, C. How different ethno-cultural groups value urban forests and its implications for managing urban nature in a multicultural landscape: A systematic review of the literature. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2017; 26, pp. 65-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.006]
25. Evaluation of the Impact of the CAP on Habitats, Landscapes, Biodiversity Final Report. Alliance Environnement November 2019. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/documents_en (accessed on 14 January 2022).
26. European Commission. Voluntary Coupled Support, Notification of the Revised Decisions Taken by Member States by 1 August 2016 (‘the review’). 2017; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/voluntary-coupled-support-note-revised-aug2016_en.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022).
27. OECD. Lithuania—OECD. 2022; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/countries/lithuania/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
28. Hung-Hao, C.; Richard, N. Boisvert. Are farmers’ decisions to work off the farm related to their decisions to participate in the conservation reserve program?. Agric. Econ.; 2011; 41, pp. 71-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840701720861]
29. Doucha, T.; Foltyn, I. Modelling the Multifunctionality of Czech Agriculture. Working Paper. Thematic Network on Trade Agreements and European Agriculture. Dok. Rob.; 2006; 17, pp. 1-18.
30. Rural Development Programme for Lithuania 2007–2013. Consolidated version as of 18th September, 2009. Available online: https://zum.lrv.lt/uploads/zum/documents/files/EN_versija/Information/Rural_development_programme_2007%20-%202013/Rural%20Development%20Programme%20for%20Lithuania%202007-2013%20(GENERAL%20PART).pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022).
31. Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: A typology-based study. Tour. Manag.; 2014; 40, pp. 394-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.004]
32. Artuğer, S.; Kendir, H. Agritourist motivations: The case of Turkey. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2013; 8, pp. 63-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n21p63]
33. Arroyo, C.G.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag.; 2013; 37, pp. 39-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007]
34. Lucha, C.; Ferreira, G.; Walker, M.; Groover, G. Profitability of Virginia’s Agritourism Industry: A Regression Analysis. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.; 2016; 45, pp. 173-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/age.2016.12]
35. Van Sandt, A.; Low, S.; Thilmany, D. Exploring Regional Patterns of Agritourism in the U.S.: What’s Driving Clusters of Enterprises?. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.; 2018; 47, pp. 592-609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.36]
36. Barbieri, C.; Xu, S.; Gil-Arroyo, C.; Rich, S.R. Agritourism, farm visit, or…? a branding assessment for recreation on farms. J. Travel Res.; 2015; 54, pp. 1094-1108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287515605930]
37. Van Winkle, C.; Bueddefeld, J. Free-choice learning in agritourism. World Leis. J.; 2021; 63, pp. 182-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2020.1832025]
38. Montefrio, J.F.; Sin, H.L. Elite governance of agritourism in the Philippines. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2019; 27, pp. 1338-1354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1621327]
39. Addinsall, C.; Scherrer, P.; Weiler, B.; Glencross, K. An ecologically and socially inclusive model of agritourism to support smallholder livelihoods in the South Pacific. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2017; 22, pp. 301-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1250793]
40. Liang, A.R. Considering the role of agritourism co-creation from a service-dominant logic perspective. Tour. Manag.; 2017; 61, pp. 354-367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.002]
41. Back, R.M.; Tasci, A.D.; Milman, A. Experiential consumption of a South African wine farm destination as an agritourism attraction. J. Vacat. Mark.; 2020; 26, pp. 57-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356766719858642]
42. Grey, T.; Hurdle, N.; Rucker, K.; Basinger, N. Blueberry and blackberry are tolerant to repeated indaziflam applications. Weed Technol.; 2021; 35, pp. 560-564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wet.2021.14]
43. Barbieri, C.; Sotomayor, S.; Aguilar, F.X. Perceived benefits of agricultural lands offering agritourism. Tour. Plan. Dev.; 2017; 16, pp. 43-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2017.1398780]
44. Šilutė District Municipality. Available online: https://www.silute.lt/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
45. Silutes Tourism Information Centre. Šilutė District Municipality (Silute.lt). Available online: https://siluteinfo.lt/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
46. Nemunas Delta Regional Park. Available online: http://siluteinfo.lt/silutes-krastas/parkai/ (accessed on 2 May 2022).
47. LR Official Statistics Portal. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/lietuvos-regionai-2020/aplinka/gamta (accessed on 23 May 2022).
48. Department of Statistics to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Results of the Census of Agriculture 2003 in Lithuania by Ward. 2005; Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/204989/2003_ZUS_rezultatai.pdf/c895b871-20f9-435a-8b04-651d9fac1504 (accessed on 14 April 2022).
49. Department of Statistics to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Results of the Agricultural Census of the Republic of Lithuania 2010 by Ward. 2012; Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/204989/2010_ZUS_rezultatai.pdf/47181188-ad5c-4c7c-9b4f-2cd542714007 (accessed on 14 May 2022).
50. Implementing EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Natura 2000 Network. Available online: http://www.natura2000info.lt/lt/apie-natura-2000/natura2000-tinklas.html (accessed on 4 May 2022).
51. Barbieri, C.; Stevenson, K.T.; Knollenberg, W. Broadening the utilitarian epistemology of agritourism research through children and families. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2019; 22, pp. 2333-2336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1497011]
52. Dubois, C.; Cawley, M.; Schmitz, S. The tourist on the farm: A ‘muddled’ image. Tour. Manag.; 2017; 59, pp. 298-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.016]
53. Melstrom, R.T.; Murphy, C. Do agritourism visitors care about landscapes? An examination with producer-level data. J. Travel Res.; 2018; 57, pp. 360-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287517696981]
54. Rauniyar, S.; Kant Awasthi, M.; Kapoor, S.; Ashok, K. Agritourism: Structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour. Recreat. Res.; 2021; 46, pp. 52-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913]
55. Paniccia, P.M.; Baiocco, S. Interpreting sustainable agritourism through co-evolution of social organizations. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 29, pp. 87-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1817046]
56. Montefrio, M.J.F.; Sin, H.L. Between food and spectacle: The complex reconfigurations of rural production in agritourism. Geoforum; 2021; 126, pp. 383-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.09.008]
57. Vlasova, N.Y.; Kurilova, E.V.; Petrovic, M. Agritourism and Nature-Based Tourism in the Strategy of an Industrial Region Development. Izv. Ufim. Nauchnogo Tsentra; 2018; 1, pp. 87-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31040/2222-8349-2018-0-1-87-93]
58. South Baltic Nature Guide Network. Projekt—Nature Guide Network. Available online: Nature-guide-network.eu (accessed on 15 April 2022).
59. Curonian Spit National Park. Available online: https://www.lithuania.travel/en/place/curonian-spit-national-park-2 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
60. Description of the Procedure for the Use of Protected Species. 2010; Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.378575 (accessed on 25 April 2022).
61. EC Strategy. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2011; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/biodiversity_2020/2020%20Biodiversity%20Factsheet_LT.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
62. Šilutė District Municipality Strategic Development Plan for 2015–2024. 2013; Available online: https://www.silute.lt/-1/strateginis-pletros-planas/4855 (accessed on 6 March 2022).
63. EC Strategy. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 2009; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/baltic/factsheet_eusbr_en.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2022).
64. Communication from the Commission. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. 2014; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015 (accessed on 22 March 2022).
65. The EP and the European Council. Programme, The 7th EU Environment Action Programme to 2020. Available online: http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/ES_ir_tarptautinis_bendradarbiavimas/ES_klausimai/CELEX_32013D1386_LT_.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
66. Honore, C. Praise of Slow: How a Worldwide Movement Is Challenging the Cult of Speed; Orion: London, UK, 2004; 272p.
67. Purwaningsih, M.; Purwandari, B.; Prinastiti Sunarso, F.; Setiadi Harnessing, F. E-Collaboration for Rural Tourism Recovery after COVID-19: Dual Analysis using SWOT and Porter’s Diamond Model. Emerg. Sci. J.; 2021; 5, pp. 559-575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-01297]
68. Nazarnia, H.; Nazarnia, M.; Sarmasti, H.; Wills, W.O. A Systematic Review of Civil and Environmental Infrastructures for Coastal Adaptation to Sea Level Rise. Civ. Eng. J.; 2020; 6, pp. 1375-1399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091555]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Makutėnienė, Daiva