Proceedings of the Faculty of Economics in East Sarajevo · Year 2026, Issue 32, pp. 63–73

Agrobiodiversity and Rural Resilience in Mountain Regions: The Role of Farm Culture in Northern Albania

Агробиодиверзитет и рурална отпорност у планинским регионима: улога пољопривредне културе у Сјеверној Албанији
Sead Baraku · ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4625-7747 · seadbaraku@unishk.edu.al
Elidiana Bashi · ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3582-3694 · elidiana.bashi@unishk.edu.al
Blerta Dragusha · ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5463-5269 · blerta.dragusha@unishk.edu.al
DOI: 10.7251/ZREFIS2632063B
UDC: 631.95:502.131.1(496.5)
Article type: Preliminary Communication
Received: 18-05-2026 · Revised: · Accepted: 15-06-2026 · Published:

Summary

The study examines the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience in mountain regions of Northern Albania within the broader Western Balkans context. Using longitudinal panel data from 82 households and 107 businesses across 11 villages during 2023–2025, the study applies econometric models to analyze ecological, cultural, and economic dimensions of rural development. The findings show that higher agrobiodiversity is associated with stronger economic performance, higher investment activity, and greater rural resilience. Farm culture and biodiversity communication partially mediate this relationship, while mountain rural heritage strengthens the resilience effects of agrobiodiversity. Tourism participation and higher resilience levels are also associated with lower migration intentions. The study contributes to the literature by integrating agrobiodiversity, cultural practices, and heritage within a single empirical framework. Overall, the findings support integrated rural development strategies linking biodiversity conservation, tourism diversification, and territorial sustainability in mountain economies.

Keywords: Agricultural diversification; Rural resilience; Agritourism; Cultural heritage; Sustainable development; Western Balkans

JEL classification: Q01; Q18; R11; Z32; O13

Резиме

Ова студија анализира везу између агробиодиверзитета и руралне отпорности у планинским регионима Сјеверне Албаније, у ширем контексту Западног Балкана. Користећи лонгитудиналне панел-податке прикупљене од 82 домаћинства и 107 привредних субјеката у 11 села у периоду 2023–2025. године, студија примјењује економетријске моделе за анализу еколошких, културних и економских димензија руралног развоја. Резултати показују да је виши ниво агробиодиверзитета повезан са бољим економским перформансама, већим инвестицијама и израженијом руралном отпорношћу. Пољопривредна култура и комуникација биодиверзитета дјелимично посредују у овој вези, док планинско рурално насљеђе јача ефекте агробиодиверзитета на отпорност. Учешће у туризму и виши нивои отпорности такође су повезани са нижим намјерама за миграцију. Студија доприноси литератури интегрисањем агробиодиверзитета, културних пракси и насљеђа у јединствен емпиријски модел. У цјелини, резултати подржавају интегрисане стратегије руралног развоја повезане са очувањем биодиверзитета, диверзификацијом туризма и територијалном одрживошћу у планинским економијама.

Introduction

Agrobiodiversity has become increasingly important for sustainable rural development, particularly in mountain regions exposed to climate change, demographic decline, and economic vulnerability. Diversified agricultural systems enhance ecosystem services, strengthen food-system resilience, and improve adaptive capacity under environmental and market pressures (Altieri 2002; Benton et al. 2023; Lin 2011; Pretty et al. 2018). European policy frameworks, including the Common Agricultural Policy and the Green Deal, increasingly emphasize biodiversity conservation and integrated rural sustainability strategies (European Commission 2023; OECD 2023).

These challenges are particularly evident in the Western Balkans, where fragmented agriculture, rural depopulation, weak infrastructure, and limited market integration continue to constrain development (Bogdanov and Zorica 2011; World Bank 2020). At the same time, the region retains substantial agrobiodiversity, traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage assets that provide opportunities for sustainable territorial development (FAO 2020). Recent research suggests that diversified farming systems contribute not only to ecological sustainability but also to economic resilience and rural adaptation (Altieri et al. 2015; Darnhofer et al. 2016; Wezel et al. 2014).

Rural resilience increasingly depends on interactions between ecological, cultural, and economic systems. Farm culture, including traditional agricultural knowledge and local production practices, contributes to biodiversity preservation and adaptive capacity (Berkes et al. 2000; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). Similarly, biodiversity communication through storytelling, local products, and tourism experiences can transform ecological resources into economic value (Kastenholz et al. 2012; Tew and Barbieri 2012). Agritourism and rural heritage are therefore becoming important mechanisms for diversification and resilience in mountain economies (Flanigan et al. 2014; Lane and Kastenholz 2015; Živković et al. 2025).

Despite growing literature, important gaps remain. Existing studies often examine agrobiodiversity, tourism, cultural heritage, and resilience separately, while empirical longitudinal evidence from mountain regions in the Western Balkans remains limited. In particular, few studies integrate ecological, socio-cultural, and economic dimensions within a unified analytical framework.

This study addresses these gaps by analyzing how agrobiodiversity influences rural resilience in Northern Albania within the broader context of the Western Balkans. Using longitudinal panel data from 82 households and 107 businesses across 11 mountain villages during 2023–2025, the study develops an integrated framework linking agrobiodiversity, farm culture, biodiversity communication, and mountain rural heritage. The research contributes theoretically by conceptualizing resilience as a multidimensional territorial system shaped by ecological and socio-cultural interactions, while empirically providing one of the first longitudinal econometric assessments of agrobiodiversity–resilience relationships in the region. More specifically, the study addresses the following research questions:

The findings provide evidence relevant to integrated rural development policies that link biodiversity conservation, tourism diversification, and cultural heritage within sustainable mountain development strategies.

1. Literature Review

Recent studies on sustainable rural development increasingly emphasize the role of multifunctional agricultural systems that combine ecological sustainability, economic diversification, and social adaptation. In this context, agrobiodiversity is viewed not only as an environmental resource but also as a strategic component of rural resilience (Altieri 2002; Lin 2011).

Diversified farming systems improve ecosystem stability, reduce vulnerability to shocks, and strengthen adaptive capacity through broader production structures and income diversification (Tscharntke et al. 2012; Pretty et al. 2018; Benton et al. 2023).

These dynamics are particularly relevant in mountain regions characterized by fragmented agriculture, limited infrastructure, and economic vulnerability (Bogdanov and Zorica 2011). Rural resilience increasingly depends on interactions between ecological assets and socio-economic adaptation mechanisms rather than agricultural production alone (Folke 2006; Darnhofer et al. 2016). Within this process, farm culture and traditional ecological knowledge play an important role in preserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods through inherited cultivation practices and intergenerational knowledge transfer (Berkes et al. 2000; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013; Stone 2007).

Recent literature also highlights biodiversity communication as an important mechanism linking ecological resources with tourism-based value creation. Storytelling, local products, gastronomy, and visitor experiences enable rural households to transform biodiversity into economic opportunities (Kastenholz et al. 2012; Kastenholz et al. 2018). Agritourism, therefore, functions as both a diversification strategy and a mechanism that connects agriculture, tourism, and cultural identity (Barbieri and Mahoney 2009; Tew and Barbieri 2012). These relationships are especially important in mountain economies where tourism can partially offset agricultural limitations and demographic decline (Flanigan et al. 2014; Safarov et al. 2024; Kedla et al. 2025).

Rural heritage further strengthens these processes by increasing destination attractiveness and reinforcing territorial identity through traditional landscapes, architecture, and local customs (Lane 1994; MacDonald and Jolliffe 2003). Previous studies suggest that heritage assets can amplify the economic effects of biodiversity and tourism within integrated rural development systems (Lane and Kastenholz 2015; Funduk et al. 2024; Živković et al. 2025).

These issues are particularly relevant in the Western Balkans, where rural regions continue to face depopulation, fragmented agriculture, and migration pressures (de Haas 2010; King and Vullnetari 2003). Although the region retains significant agrobiodiversity and cultural heritage potential, empirical studies integrating ecological, cultural, and resilience dimensions remain limited. Existing research frequently examines these factors separately, while longitudinal evidence from the mountain regions of the Western Balkans remains scarce (Lazarevski et al. 2018; Sergeyeva et al. 2024; European Commission 2023; OECD 2024).

2. Methodology

This study employs a longitudinal panel design using primary data collected from the same rural households and businesses during 2023–2025 in the mountainous regions of Northern Albania. The panel structure enables the examination of temporal variations in rural resilience, agrobiodiversity, and tourism-related activities while controlling for unobserved heterogeneity across households.

2.1 Data Collection and Sample

Primary data were collected through structured surveys conducted across 11 mountain villages: Bogë, Çerem, Dedaj, Dragobi, Lekbibaj, Lepushë, Reç, Selcë, Theth, Valbonë, and Vermosh. The sample includes 82 households, 107 businesses, and 310 working-age individuals engaged in agricultural and tourism activities. Several households operated multiple economic activities, including agricultural and tourism-related businesses. To avoid duplication of observations and ensure consistency across survey waves, business-level information was aggregated to the household level. Consequently, all econometric models were estimated at the household level, with households serving as the panel units observed during the 2023–2025 study period. Data collection covered agricultural production, biodiversity-related activities, tourism participation, economic performance, migration intentions, and socio-demographic characteristics. A stratified sampling approach was applied. Villages were selected for their importance to agrobiodiversity and rural tourism, while households were randomly selected using fixed quotas for agricultural and tourism businesses. The sample represents approximately 8% of households in the CABRA project area and captures major mountain communities characterized by strong integration of agriculture and tourism. Although geographically concentrated, the dataset provides detailed longitudinal evidence from some of the most important agrobiodiversity regions in Northern Albania.

2.2 Construction of Composite Indices

To operationalize multidimensional rural development concepts, five composite indices were developed using standardized z-scores to ensure comparability across variables measured on different scales. Standardization was performed according to the formula:

Z_{ij}=\frac{X_{ij}-\bar{X}_{j}}{SD(X_{j})}

where Xij represents the value of indicator j for observation i, Xj is the sample mean, and SD(Xj) is the standard deviation of indicator j. Composite indices were calculated as the arithmetic mean of the standardized indicators comprising each construct. Equal weighting was applied because no strong theoretical or empirical justification existed for assigning differential weights. Higher index values indicate stronger performance in the corresponding dimension. Reliability tests confirmed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.70).

  • Agrobiodiversity Index (ABI): measures diversification across crops, livestock, food processing, and biodiversity-related activities.

  • Farm Culture Index (FCI): captures preservation and transmission of traditional agricultural knowledge and practices.

  • Biodiversity Communication Index (BCI): measures how biodiversity values are communicated through tourism experiences, local products, and storytelling.

  • Mountain Rural Heritage (MRH): reflects heritage-related assets, including accommodation, catering capacity, guiding services, and crafts.

  • Rural Resilience Index (RR): measures economic and adaptive capacity through income, sales, investments, and future investment intentions.

2.3 Econometric Modeling

All models are estimated at the household level with year fixed effects and household-clustered standard errors. Model diagnostics indicated no evidence of problematic multicollinearity (VIF = 1.00–1.69). Breusch–Pagan tests revealed significant heteroskedasticity (BP = 17.57–52.04, p < 0.01), justifying the use of household-clustered robust standard errors.

Direct Effects Model: The baseline model estimates the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience:

RR_{it}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}ABI_{it}+\beta_{2}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}

where Xit includes gender, education, business type, access to training, and additional income sources.

Mediation Analysis: The mediation framework evaluates whether farm culture and biodiversity communication mediate the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience. The mediation analysis followed the causal mediation framework proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Indirect effects were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals based on 5,000 replications.

FCI_{it}=\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}ABI_{it}+\alpha_{2}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}
BCI_{it}=\delta_{0}+\delta_{1}ABI_{it}+\delta_{2}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}
RR_{it}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}ABI_{it}+\beta_{2}FCI_{it}+\beta_{3}BCI_{it}+\beta_{4}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}

Indirect effects were estimated using bootstrapped confidence intervals with 5,000 replications.

Moderation Analysis: The moderating role of mountain rural heritage was estimated through an interaction model:

RR_{it}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}ABI_{it}+\beta_{2}MRH_{it}+\beta_{3}(ABI\times MRH)_{it}+\beta_{4}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}

A positive interaction coefficient indicates that heritage assets strengthen the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience.

Migration Model: Migration intentions were estimated using Firth’s penalized logistic regression due to the low incidence of emigration intentions:

\log\left(\frac{P(MI_{it}=1)}{1-P(MI_{it}=1)}\right)=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}RR_{it}+\beta_{2}ABI_{it}+\beta_{3}X_{it}+\gamma_{t}+\varepsilon_{it}

where MIit indicates whether household members considered permanent migration abroad.

2.4 Western Balkans Comparative Framework

To contextualize the findings regionally, the analysis incorporates comparative benchmarks from Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.

Table 1: Western Balkans Comparative Literature Framework
Country Main Focus Key Contribution
Albania Agrotourism and agrobiodiversity Agriculture–tourism integration and biodiversity preservation
Serbia Rural tourism and heritage Heritage contributes to tourism income and diversification
Bosnia and Herzegovina Rural sustainability Depopulation and weak institutional support
Montenegro Agrotourism development Tourism diversification strengthens rural economies
North Macedonia Rural tourism Tourism supports economic diversification

These countries share similar characteristics, including fragmented agriculture, rural depopulation, and increasing reliance on rural tourism.

3. Results and Discussion

The empirical analysis is based on longitudinal panel data from 82 households, 107 businesses, and 310 working-age individuals surveyed between 2023 and 2025 across 11 mountain villages in Northern Albania. The rural economy remains dualistic, dominated by agriculture (62%) and tourism (37%), while tourism businesses increased by 29% during the study period.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables
Variable Mean SD Min Max
Agrobiodiversity Index (ABI) 0.000 1.000 -1.571 0.634
Income (Lek) 498,974 217,732 113,019 1,171,112
Investment (Lek) 150,566 81,296 10,419 408,960
Tourism 0.437 0.497 0.000 1.000
Agriculture 0.712 0.453 0.000 1.000
Education 10.54 2.70 6.000 15.000
Household size 4.86 1.44 3.000 7.000
Migration intention 0.079 0.270 0.000 1.000

Agrobiodiversity-related activities, including medicinal plants, honey production, and chestnut collection, remain widespread among households. Tourism-oriented households demonstrate substantially stronger economic performance than agriculture-only households. Average tourism income reached 632,000 Lek compared with 235,000 Lek in agriculture, while overall investments increased considerably during the observed period. Migration intentions remain relatively low (7%), although economic vulnerability continues to be the primary driver of migration.

3.1 Agrobiodiversity and Rural Resilience

Households with higher Agrobiodiversity Index (ABI) values report significantly stronger economic performance. High-ABI households achieve higher sales, income, and investment levels, suggesting that diversified agricultural systems improve economic resilience through broader production structures and value-added activities.

Table 3: Economic Performance by Agrobiodiversity Level
Indicator Low ABI High ABI Difference Significance
Average sales (000 Lek) 412 698 +286 p < 0.01
Average net income (000 Lek) 278 468 +190 p < 0.01
Total investments (000 Lek) 98 244 +146 p < 0.05
Future investment plans (%) 68% 88% +20% p < 0.05

The direct-effects model confirms a significant positive relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience:

RR=0.42+0.38ABI+0.15Education+0.09Training+\varepsilon

The ABI coefficient (β=0.38, p<0.001) indicates that greater agricultural diversification is associated with stronger resilience outcomes.

3.2 Mediation Effects: Farm Culture and Biodiversity Communication

The mediation analysis demonstrates that Farm Culture (FCI) and Biodiversity Communication (BCI) partially mediate the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience. Agrobiodiversity positively influences both the transmission of cultural knowledge and biodiversity communication practices, thereby strengthening resilience outcomes.

Table 4: Mediation Analysis Results
Path Coefficient p-value
ABI → FCI 0.42 <0.001
ABI → BCI 0.51 <0.001
FCI → RR 0.29 <0.01
BCI → RR 0.34 <0.01
ABI → RR 0.38 <0.001
ABI → FCI → RR 0.12 <0.01
ABI → BCI → RR 0.17 <0.01

The inclusion of FCI and BCI reduces the direct ABI effect, indicating partial mediation. The findings suggest that agrobiodiversity generates value not only through diversification itself but also through cultural practices and visitor-oriented communication about biodiversity.

3.3 Moderation Effects: Mountain Rural Heritage

Mountain Rural Heritage (MRH) significantly moderates the relationship between agrobiodiversity and resilience. The interaction term between ABI and MRH remains positive and statistically significant.

Table 5: Moderation Analysis Results
Variable Coefficient p-value
ABI 0.28 <0.01
MRH 0.31 <0.001
ABI × MRH 0.24 <0.001
Education 0.12 <0.05

Households with stronger heritage assets, including traditional accommodations and tourism infrastructure, obtain substantially greater resilience benefits from agrobiodiversity activities.

3.4 Migration Intentions and Rural Resilience

The logistic regression results indicate that rural resilience and tourism engagement are associated with lower migration intentions.

Table 6: Logistic Regression Results for Migration Intentions
Variable Odds Ratio p-value
Rural Resilience (RR) 0.42 <0.01
Agrobiodiversity (ABI) 0.73 n.s.
Income (log) 0.58 <0.05
Tourism engagement 0.48 <0.05

Higher resilience significantly reduces intentions to migrate, while tourism participation is associated with lower out-migration pressures. Although agrobiodiversity does not have a direct, significant effect on migration intentions, its indirect effect through rural resilience remains important. Overall, the findings support the argument that integrated agrobiodiversity–tourism systems contribute to stronger territorial resilience in mountain regions.

3.5 Comparative Analysis with the Western Balkans

Comparative analysis indicates that Northern Albania shares several structural characteristics with other rural economies in the Western Balkans, including fragmented agriculture, rural depopulation, and increasing dependence on tourism as a driver of diversification. However, the findings also reveal stronger agriculture–tourism integration and higher biodiversity communication compared with regional benchmarks.

Table 7: Comparative Indicators: Northern Albania vs Western Balkans Benchmarks
Indicator Northern Albania (2023–2025) Western Balkans Benchmark Source
Average household size 5.4 persons 3.8–4.5 persons World Bank (2020)
Businesses per household 1.31 0.8–1.2 Bogdanov and Rodić (2011)
Tourism business share 37% 15–25% Živković et al. (2025)
Average agricultural income €2,150 €1,800–€2,500 FAO (2020)
Average tourism income €5,750 €4,500–€7,000 Živković et al. (2025)
Investment rate 46% 30–40% —
Permanent emigration 1% 2–5% King and Vullnetari (2003)
Considering emigration 7% 10–20% —
Biodiversity communication 35% 15–25% Baraku and Hasaj (2023)

The results suggest that Northern Albania exhibits relatively stronger biodiversity communication and tourism integration than many other comparable regions in the Western Balkans. Approximately 37% of tourism businesses source agricultural products locally, indicating stronger territorial linkages between agriculture and tourism activities. Migration intentions also remain below regional averages.

At the same time, persistent financing constraints, weak infrastructure, and limited access to credit continue to restrict broader rural investment and diversification. The comparative evidence suggests that Northern Albania shares several structural characteristics with other Western Balkan rural regions, including fragmented agriculture, demographic pressures, and increasing dependence on tourism diversification.

The stronger integration of agriculture, tourism, and biodiversity-related activities observed in the study area indicates a comparatively advanced stage of rural diversification. The findings position Northern Albania as a transitional mountain economy in which agrobiodiversity, tourism, and heritage increasingly serve as interconnected mechanisms for rural development.

3.6 Discussion

The findings provide strong empirical evidence that agrobiodiversity is positively associated with rural resilience in mountain regions. Households with higher levels of agricultural diversification report stronger economic performance, higher investment activity, and greater adaptive capacity. These results are consistent with previous studies emphasizing diversification as a key mechanism that supports resilience under environmental and economic pressures (Lin 2011; Darnhofer et al. 2016; Wezel et al. 2014).

The mediation analysis further demonstrates that farm culture and biodiversity communication function as important socio-cultural mechanisms linking agrobiodiversity with resilience outcomes.

Traditional knowledge systems, local production practices, and biodiversity storytelling appear particularly relevant for value creation and territorial differentiation, supporting earlier findings on the importance of cultural capital and experiential rural tourism (Berkes et al. 2000; Tew and Barbieri 2012).

The moderating role of mountain rural heritage highlights the importance of broader territorial systems in shaping rural development outcomes. The resilience effects of agrobiodiversity become significantly stronger in areas with developed heritage assets and tourism infrastructure. This supports previous research arguing that interactions between natural and cultural capital are central to sustainable rural development (Lane and Kastenholz 2015; Živković et al. 2025).

Migration-related findings also reinforce the economic significance of rural diversification. Higher resilience levels and tourism participation are associated with lower migration intentions, consistent with studies identifying economic vulnerability as a key driver of rural out-migration (de Haas 2010). These findings suggest that integrated agriculture–tourism systems may contribute to demographic stability in mountain economies.

Overall, the results indicate that agrobiodiversity contributes to rural resilience through interconnected ecological, cultural, and tourism-related mechanisms rather than through agricultural production alone. This perspective is particularly relevant for the Western Balkans, where fragmented agriculture, demographic decline, and uneven market integration continue to constrain rural development.

The findings therefore support integrated rural development approaches combining biodiversity conservation, tourism diversification, and cultural heritage preservation within broader territorial resilience strategies.

Although the panel design and robustness checks strengthen the analysis, the findings should be interpreted as longitudinal associations rather than definitive causal relationships. Nevertheless, the study provides important empirical evidence from Northern Albania and contributes to a broader understanding of resilience dynamics in transition economies in mountainous regions.

Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between agrobiodiversity and rural resilience in the mountain regions of Northern Albania within the broader Western Balkans context. The findings demonstrate that agrobiodiversity is positively associated with economic performance, adaptive capacity, and tourism-related diversification. Households with more diversified agricultural systems report higher sales, income, and investment levels, indicating that agrobiodiversity serves as an important resource for territorial development.

The analysis further shows that the effects of agrobiodiversity extend beyond agricultural production alone. Farm culture and biodiversity communication partially mediate the relationship between agrobiodiversity and resilience, while mountain rural heritage strengthens these effects through tourism and heritage-related infrastructure. In addition, higher rural resilience and tourism participation are associated with lower migration intentions, suggesting that integrated agriculture–tourism systems may contribute to demographic stability in mountain areas.

From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the literature by integrating ecological, cultural, and heritage-related dimensions within a single analytical framework. The findings support a multidimensional understanding of rural resilience in which agrobiodiversity, tourism, and territorial heritage operate as interconnected development mechanisms.

From a policy perspective, the results support integrated rural development strategies aligned with the European Union Green Agenda and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. Policies promoting biodiversity conservation, rural tourism, local value chains, and heritage preservation may strengthen resilience outcomes in mountain economies. Investments in rural infrastructure, biodiversity communication, food processing, and accessible financing mechanisms appear particularly important for increasing the economic value of agrobiodiversity-based activities.

Although the findings are based on longitudinal panel data, the results should be interpreted as robust associations rather than definitive causal effects. Future research could expand the geographical scope to include additional Western Balkan countries and incorporate longer longitudinal periods to better capture resilience dynamics over time.

The study suggests that agrobiodiversity is not only an ecological asset but also a strategic mechanism that supports sustainable rural transformation, economic resilience, and territorial sustainability in mountain regions.

References

  1. Altieri, Miguel A. 2002. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429495465.
  2. Altieri, Miguel A., and Clara I. Nicholls. 2017. “The Adaptation and Mitigation Potential of Traditional Agriculture in a Changing Climate.” Climatic Change 140 (1): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y.
  3. Altieri, Miguel A., Clara I. Nicholls, Alejandro Henao, and Marcos A. Lana. 2015. “Agroecology and the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35 (3): 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.
  4. Barbieri, Carla, and Edward Mahoney. 2009. “Why Is Diversification an Attractive Farm Adjustment Strategy?” Journal of Rural Studies 25 (1): 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.001.
  5. Benton, Tim G., Carling Bieg, Helen Harwatt, Roshan Pudasaini, and Laura Wellesley. 2023. “Food System Resilience and Biodiversity.” Global Food Security 38: 100708.
  6. Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke. 2000. “Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management.” Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280.
  7. Bogdanov, Natalija, and Zorica Vasiljević. 2011. “Agriculture and Rural Development in Serbia.” Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce 5 (1–2): 47–55. https://doi.org/10.19041/Apstract/2011/1-2/6.
  8. Bravo-Peña, Felipe, and Landon Yoder. 2024. “Agrobiodiversity and Smallholder Resilience: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Environmental Management 351: 119882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119882.
  9. Cheer, Joseph M. 2024. “Rural Revitalization, Rural Tourism and Countryside Capital: A Rural Society Redux.” Rural Society 33 (3): 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2025.2480937.
  10. Czaika, Mathias, and Constantin Reinprecht. 2022. “Migration Drivers: Why Do People Migrate?” In Introduction to Migration Studies, edited by Peter Scholten, 49–65. IMISCOE Research Series. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92377-8_3.
  11. Darnhofer, Ika, Claire Lamine, Agnes Strauss, and Mireille Navarrete. 2016. “The Resilience of Family Farms: Towards a Relational Approach.” Journal of Rural Studies 44: 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.013.
  12. de Haas, Hein. 2010. “Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective.” International Migration Review 44 (1): 227–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x.
  13. European Commission. 2021. The Green Agenda for the Western Balkans. Brussels: European Commission.
  14. European Commission. 2023. The Common Agricultural Policy: 2023–2027. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2762/25320.
  15. European Commission. 2024. Report on the Implementation of the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans. Brussels: European Commission.
  16. FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  17. FAO. 2020. Agrobiodiversity in the Western Balkans. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  18. FAO. 2024. Green Agenda for the Western Balkans: Progress Report on Sustainable Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  19. Fekadu, Hailu. 2025. “The Role of Agrobiodiversity and Diverse Causes of Its Losses and Methods of Conservation: A Review.” Food and Humanity 4: 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2025.100500.
  20. Flanigan, Sharon, Kirsty Blackstock, and Colin Hunter. 2014. “Agritourism Perspectives.” Tourism Management 40: 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.004.
  21. Folke, Carl. 2006. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
  22. Funduk, Marina, Ivana Biondić, and Abra Lea Simonić. 2024. “Revitalizing Rural Tourism: A Croatian Case Study in Sustainable Practices.” Sustainability 16 (1): 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010031.
  23. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Esteve Corbera, and Victoria Reyes-García. 2013. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269385.
  24. Jackson, Louise E., Unai Pascual, and Toby Hodgkin. 2007. “Utilizing and Conserving Agrobiodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121 (3): 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017.
  25. Kastenholz, Elisabeth, Maria João Carneiro, Carlos Peixeira Marques, and Joana Lima. 2012. “Understanding and Managing the Rural Tourism Experience: The Case of a Historical Village in Portugal.” Tourism Management Perspectives 4: 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.009.
  26. Kastenholz, Elisabeth, Maria João Carneiro, Carlos Peixeira Marques, and Sandra M. C. Loureiro. 2018. “The Dimensions of Rural Tourism Experience: Impacts on Arousal, Memory, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 35 (2): 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350617.
  27. King, Russell, and Julie Vullnetari. 2003. “Migration and Development in Albania.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 20 (4): 367–384.
  28. Lane, Bernard. 1994. “Rural Tourism Definition.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510680.
  29. Lane, Bernard, and Elisabeth Kastenholz. 2015. “Rural Tourism: The Evolution of Practice and Research Approaches – Towards a New Generation Concept?” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23: 1133–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1083997.
  30. Lazarevski, Goce, Cane Koteski, and Zlatko Jakovlev. 2018. “Possibilities for the Development of Rural Tourism in the Republic of Macedonia.” Journal of Process Management New Technologies 5 (2): 18–24. https://doi.org/10.5937/jouproman5-13488.
  31. Lin, Brenda B. 2011. “Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change.” BioScience 61: 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.
  32. MacDonald, Roberta, and Lee Jolliffe. 2003. “Cultural Rural Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (2): 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00061-0.
  33. Nyanghura, Qambemeda M., Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, and Jan Börner. 2024. “Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ecological Economics 219: 108152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108152.
  34. OECD. 2020. Rural Well-Being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  35. OECD. 2023. Rural Resilience in a Changing World. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  36. OECD. 2024. Sustainable Rural Development in Southeast Europe. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  37. Pretty, Jules, Tim G. Benton, Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Lynn V. Dicks, Cornelia B. Flora, H. Charles J. Godfray, David Goulson, Sue Hartley, Nic Lampkin, Carol Morris, Gary M. Pierzynski, P. V. Vara Prasad, John Reganold, Johan Rockström, Pete Smith, Peter Thorne, and Stephen D. Wratten. 2018. “Global Assessment of Agricultural System Redesign for Sustainable Intensification.” Nature Sustainability 1: 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0.
  38. Safarov, Bahodirhon, Akmal Amirov, Nargiza Mansurova, Thowayeb H. Hassan, Habibullo Hasanov, and Ana Cornelia Pereș. 2024. “Prospects of Agrotourism Development in the Region.” Economies 12 (12): 321. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12120321.
  39. Tew, Christine, and Carla Barbieri. 2012. “The Perceived Benefits of Agritourism: The Provider’s Perspective.” Tourism Management 33 (1): 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005.
  40. Tscharntke, Teja, Yann Clough, Thomas C. Wanger, Louise Jackson, Iris Motzke, Ivette Perfecto, John Vandermeer, and Anthony Whitbread. 2012. “Global Food Security, Biodiversity Conservation and the Future of Agricultural Intensification.” Biological Conservation 151 (1): 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068.
  41. UNDP. 2021. Rural Economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo: United Nations Development Programme.
  42. UNEP. 2022. Heritage and Sustainable Development. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
  43. UNESCO. 2019. World Heritage and Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO.
  44. Wezel, Alexander, Marion Casagrande, Florence Celette, Jean-François Vian, Aurélie Ferrer, and Joséphine Peigné. 2014. “Agroecological Practices.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7.
  45. World Bank. 2020. Rural Development in the Western Balkans. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  46. World Bank. 2023. Western Balkans: Rural Development and Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1990-0.
  47. Živković, Milka B., Bojan Đerčan, Predrag Mlinarević, Marija Cimbaljević, Zorica Pogrmić, Tamara Lukić, Bojana Kalenjuk Pivarski, Goran Balotić, Dejan Pljuco, Milan Lalić, and Nikola Lopatić. 2025. “Rural Tourism as a Factor of Rural Revitalization and Sustainability in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Sustainability 17 (11): 5127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115127.
This HTML full-text version was generated from the ZREFIS JATS XML file.