Prioritizing Sustainability in Ethno-Tourism: An AHP Assessment of Rural Villages in the Balkans

Academic Editor: Mark A. Bonn Received: 11 September 2025 Revised: 9 October 2025 Accepted: 31 October 2025 Published: 8 November 2025 Citation: Gačnik, M.B.; Pelaez‑ Verdet, A.; Cerezo‑Medina, A.; Prevolšek, B.; Rozman, Č.; Škraba, A. Prioritizing Sustainability in Ethno‑ Tourism: An AHP Assessment of Rural Villages in the Balkans. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su17229980 Copyright: © 2025 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/). Article Prioritizing Sustainability in Ethno‑Tourism: An AHP Assessment of Rural Villages in the Balkans Maja Borlinič Gačnik 1, Antonio Pelaez‑Verdet 2, Alfonso Cerezo‑Medina 2, Boris Prevolšek 1, Črtomir Rozman 3and Andrej Škraba 4,* 1Faculty of Tourism, University of Maribor, 8250 Brežice, Slovenia 2Faculty of Tourism, University of Malaga, 29010 Malaga, Spain; [email protected] (A.C.‑M.) 3Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia 4Cybernetics & Decision Support Systems Laboratory, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Ethno‑tourism is increasingly recognized as a driver of rural development and cultural preservation, particularly in the Balkans, where ethno‑villages represent important cen‑ ters of heritage, identity, and community revitalization. Despite its significance, the sys‑ tematic assessment of sustainability in ethno‑tourism remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the sus‑ tainability performance of thirteen ethno‑villages across Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. Data were collected through interviews with owners and man‑ agers, complemented by benchmarking and SWOT analyses, to develop a multi‑criteria model incorporating five dimensions: economic performance, environmental sustainabil‑ ity, infrastructure and management, tourism attractiveness, and socio‑cultural aspects. The results highlight economic performance as the most influential factor, followed by environmental sustainability and infrastructure, while tourism attractiveness and socio‑ cultural aspects had relatively lower importance. The ranking of villages revealed Drven‑ grad Mećavnik (Serbia) as the most sustainable destination, with robustness confirmed through sensitivity analyses. This study represents one of the first comprehensive, multi‑ criteria evaluations of ethno‑village sustainability in the Balkans. The results demonstrate that long‑term success depends on balancing financial viability with ecological practices, infrastructural investment, and cultural preservation. This research provides evidence‑ based recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders, and highlights the value of multi‑criteria approaches for sustainable tourism planning. Keywords: ethno tourism; sustainability assessment; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); multi‑criteria decision‑making; rural development; cultural heritage; Balkans; tourism management 1. Introduction Tourism is a key driver of economic development, particularly in rural areas where al‑ ternativelivelihoodopportunitiesareoften limited [1–3]. Ethno‑tourism, a formof cultural tourism, emphasizes authenticity and enables visitors to learn about and directly experi‑ ence traditional ways of life, local customs, cuisine, and craftsmanship. It contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage, strengthens local identity, and supports the sustain‑ able development of rural areas while simultaneously promoting economic growth [4–9]. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17229980 Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 2 of 21 Closely related is indigenous tourism, which allows visitors to experience indigenous set‑ tlements and observe daily life. Beyond its economic benefits, indigenous tourism also helps to retain younger generations within their communities, thereby reducing rural out‑ migration [10–12]. Both ethno‑tourism and indigenous tourism share core principles, in‑ cluding the promotion of cultural authenticity, heritage preservation, and long‑term com‑ munity sustainability. Ethno‑villages, as a central component of this tourism offer, provide visitors with op‑ portunities to engage in traditional practices such as preparing local food, attending craft workshops, and participating in cultural events, including festivals and rituals. By encour‑ aging localcommunity involvementin tourism development, ethno‑tourism contributes to economic diversification and the revitalization of rural areas [13]. Although ethno‑tourism is practiced globally—from Maasai settlements in East Africa to Andean communities in South America and indigenous programs in North America [14–17]—its systematic sus‑ tainability assessment remains underexplored. This study, therefore, focuses on evaluat‑ ing the sustainable development of ethno‑villages in the Balkans. Despite the growing significance of ethno‑tourism, comprehensive and systematic assessments of its sustainability remain scarce. Previous studies have often examined onlyindividual dimensions—suchaseconomic, environmental, or socio‑culturalimpacts— without integrating them into a holistic analytical framework [3,6,8]. Butler and Hinch [18] highlighted clear gaps within the field of indigenous tourism and stressed the need for stronger theoretical and methodological foundations. Few mechanisms have been devel‑ oped to quantify sustainability in this context; for example, Kunasekaran [10] proposed 61 indicators for the Mah Meri ethnic group in Malaysia, yet such approaches remain excep‑ tional. Overall, there has been no consistent attempt to develop a comprehensive model for sustainable indigenous or ethno‑tourism, particularly within the Balkans. The study aims to address the following key points: evaluating the sustainability of ethno‑villages through a structured multi‑criteria decision‑making approach that incorpo‑ rates economic, environmental, infrastructural, social, and touristic factors; assessing the relative importance of these sustainability criteria in determining the long‑term viability of ethno‑villages and identifying which factors exert the greatest influence on their success; and providing insights into sustainable rural tourism development by offering evidence‑ based recommendations for improving the balance between economic performance and sustainability in ethno‑tourism. By applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision‑making tool, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of sustainability challenges in ethno‑villages. The findings aim to support policymakers and stakeholders in developing targeted strategies that enhance the resilience and sustainability of rural tourism destinations, ensuring long‑term socio‑economic and environmental benefits. 2. Literature Review The sustainability of ethno‑tourism refers to the long‑term ability of ethno‑villages to preserve natural resources, cultural heritage, and social structures while promoting eco‑ nomic development that benefits the local community [3]. While commodification can stimulate local economic development, strengthen traditions, and alleviate poverty [19], scholars such as Cohen [20] and Williams and Gonzalez [21] caution that reducing culture to a standardized tourism product may undermine authenticity. This tension between commercialization and authenticity has become a recurring concern in the literature, with communities facing the risk of “selling out” their cultural identity [22]. The key objective of sustainable ethno‑tourism is to balance economic benefits with the responsible management of natural and cultural resources by involving local popu‑ lations in tourism activities. It is essential to ensure that these activities do not threaten Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 3 of 21 cultural authenticity or natural heritage but rather contribute to their preservation and fur‑ ther development [23,24]. The sustainability of ethno‑tourism requires a long‑term balance among the economic, environmental, and socio‑cultural dimensions of tourism, with particular emphasis on pre‑ servinglocalidentityand natural resources. Achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process that requires regular monitoring and the implementation of preventive and correc‑ tive measures where necessary [10]. This form of tourism emphasizes the promotion and protection of unique cultural heritage, traditional customs, and the sustainable use of nat‑ ural resources within local communities [25,26]. Measuring sustainability in ethno‑tourism involves several criteria. The economic dimension includes increasing local community income, creating new jobs, and strength‑ ening local entrepreneurship. The environmental dimension focuses on the responsible use of natural resources, reducing environmental footprints, and ensuring efficient waste management and the use of renewable energy sources [27]. The socio‑cultural dimension involves the preservation of cultural heritage, promotion of local customs, and enhance‑ ment of the quality of life for local residents [28,29]. The importance of sustainability in ethno‑tourism stems from its potential to promote local development and preserve cul‑ tural identity while reducing negative environmental impacts and strengthening social co‑ hesion. Moreover, sustainable approaches in ethno‑tourism enhance the visitor experience by offering authentic, culturally rich, and environmentally friendly encounters [30]. Among multi‑criteria decision‑making methods, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most widely used tools for evaluating sustainability in tourism. It is particularly effective in contexts where decision‑making involves multiple and often con‑ flicting criteria, as it allows for structured comparisons and prioritization of relevant indi‑ cators [31–33]. Previous studies have shown that AHP can integrate both qualitative and quantitative data, making it highly suitable for assessing the multidimensional nature of sustainability in tourism development. Sustainable tourism rests on the balanced development of three key pillars: economic, environmental, and socio‑cultural sustainability. Economic sustainability encompasses fi‑ nancial stability, profitability, and employment in tourism, while environmental sustain‑ ability refers to the preservation of natural resources, waste management, and mitigation of ecological impacts. Socio‑cultural sustainability involves the preservation of cultural heritage, community well‑being, and overall quality of life. Several studies have high‑ lighted that an imbalance between these pillars can jeopardize the long‑term stability of destinations, reinforcing the need for comprehensive approaches to sustainability assess‑ ment [34–37]. Among multi‑criteria approaches, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) remains one of the most widely applied tools, as it enables structured comparisons across multiple criteria that shape tourism development [38]. Analytical Framework Building on the existing literature, this study develops an analytical framework that integrates five dimensions crucial to the sustainability of ethno‑villages: (1) economic per‑ formance (income generation, profitability, employment opportunities); (2) environmen‑ tal sustainability (resource preservation, waste management, ecological practices); (3) in‑ frastructure and management (accessibility, accommodation capacity, service quality); (4) tourist attractiveness (uniqueness, attractions, visitor programs); and (5) socio‑cultural aspects (heritage preservation, community involvement). These categories are combined within a conceptual model (Figure 1), which links the multidimensional nature of sustain‑ ability to the AHP methodology. The framework provides the foundation for assessing the Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 4 of 21 relativeimportance of eachdimension and forgenerating recommendationstoenhance the long‑term sustainability of ethno‑villages. Figure 1. Scheme for sustainability assessment of ethno‑villages using the AHP method. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Study Area Thisstudyanalyzesethno‑villageslocatedinfourcountriesoftheformer Yugoslavia— Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia—each representing distinct ge‑ ographical, cultural, and socio‑economic contexts (Figure 2). These countries possess spe‑ cific natural, cultural, and social characteristics that influence the development and sus‑ tainability performance of ethno‑villages. In Croatia, the focus of ethno‑villages lies on preserving local traditions, crafts, and gastronomy. These destinations are closely associated with traditional craftsmanship, re‑ gional cuisine, and wine culture, with strong engagement from local communities playing a vital role in maintaining authenticity and ensuring sustainable tourism development. In Serbia, ethno‑villages are typically situated in regions rich in cultural heritage and diverse landscapes, such as Mokra Gora, Šumadija, and areas along the Drina River. These sites are known for their traditional architecture and representations of historical rural life, offering activities such as culinary workshops, visits to heritage landmarks, and participa‑ tion in cultural events. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, ethno‑villages have evolved into complex tourist destina‑ tions that highlight cultural and architectural heritage through religious sites, museums, and restaurants serving traditional cuisine. These villages are often located within eco‑ logically sensitive areas containing valuable natural landmarks that require sustainable management practices. In Montenegro, ethno‑villages are located near national parks and natural landmarks, adding significant value in terms of eco‑tourism potential. These areas place particular emphasis on the preservation of natural resources while also serving as venues for cultural events and traditional gatherings that promote local identity. Although climatic conditions vary across these regions, they share common features— most notably, sensitive ecosystems that demand the sustainable management of tourism activities. All analyzed destinations face similar challenges, including the preservation of cultural heritage, the pursuit of economic development, and the protection of the environment—factors that jointly define their sustainability performance. Therefore, a multi‑criteria Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach was applied to evaluate the sus‑ tainability of ethno‑villages, allowing for a systematic assessment of the influence of indi‑ vidual factors. This methodology is particularly relevant in the context of the diverse re‑ gional settings examined, where local characteristics, natural resources, and cultural prac‑ tices intersect, as illustrated in Figure 1. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 5 of 21 Figure 2. Study area and spatial distribution of the analyzed ethno‑villages across Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Note: The boundaries and names shown on this map are for illustrative purposes only and do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the authors. This clarification specifically refers to the issue of the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo. For internationally recognized borders, please refer to the United Nations Cartographic Section [39]. This representation is intended solely for academic and analytical purposes and should not be inter‑ preted as a political statement. 3.2. Data Acquisition The data collection process for developing the AHP model for assessing the sustain‑ ability of ethno‑villages in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia was based on a multi‑stage methodological approach. This approach included a preparatory study, qualitative interviews, benchmarking, SWOT analysis, and finally, the formulation of AHP criteria and their corresponding values. The preparatory phase involved a comprehensive review of the official websites of ethno‑villages and the analysis of available information regarding their tourism offerings, Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 6 of 21 infrastructural characteristics, promotional practices, and service accessibility. The pur‑ pose of this phase was to formulate relevant interview questions and define key research directions to effectively address the sustainability challenges of individual ethno‑villages. The sampling of ethno‑villages was designed using a combination of purposive and random sampling. In the first phase, purposive sampling was applied to ensure the inclu‑ sion of ethno‑villages that met specific criteria: geographical distribution across the four Balkan countries, active engagement in tourism activities, preservation of cultural char‑ acteristics and traditions, and the availability of sufficient information for research pur‑ poses. In the second phase, simple random sampling was used to select 13 ethno‑villages (Table 1), ensuring sample representativeness and enabling a comprehensive insight into various sustainability practices in the region. Although the sample size may appear mod‑ est relative to the total number of ethno‑villages in the Balkans, the selected cases repre‑ sent some of the most recognized and active sites in terms of tourism development and cultural preservation. The sample was purposefully chosen to ensure regional coverage and to include destinations with adequate data availability and stakeholder participation. This approach allowed for meaningful comparative analysis across diverse contexts while ensuring the methodological robustness of the AHP application. Table 1. Case studies of selected ethno‑villages from the former Yugoslav countries. Country Ethno Villages Croatia Karanac, Škopljanci Serbia Drvengrad Mećavnik, Moravski konaci, Rajski konaci, Sunčana reka, Bosnia and Hercegovina Herceg, Kotromanićevo, Ljubačke doline, Stanišići Montenegro Izlazak, Etno selo Montenegro, Sveti Georgije The interviews were conducted between March and September 2024 with owners or managers of the selected ethno‑villages. The organization of the interviews was adapted to theavailabilityofthe participants. Approximatelyhalfof the interviewswereconducted in person on‑site, while the remainder took place via online platforms (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams). This flexible approach facilitated the collection of a broader range of insights and experiences while accommodating logistical constraints. The interviews lasted between 30 and 60 min, depending on the complexity of responses, participant availability, and familiarity with the topic. Before each interview, participants were informed about the purpose of the research, assured of the confidentiality of their responses, and provided their informed consent to participate. The interview questions were developed based on the preparatory analyses and cov‑ ered five key thematic areas: (1) organizational aspects and business models [40–43], focus‑ ing on the management of ethno‑villages, community involvement, accessibility, and or‑ ganization of the tourism offer; (2) economic aspects [44–46], gathering information about income, sources of financing, profitability, and business challenges; (3) environmental as‑ pects [47–49], addressing sustainable management of natural resources, environmental protection practices, waste management, and the impact of tourism on the local environ‑ ment; (4) socio‑cultural aspects [50–52], examining how ethno‑villages contribute to cul‑ tural heritage preservation, local community involvement, and promotion of traditional practices; and (5) development challenges and opportunities [37,53–55], focusing on how owners and managers identify future opportunities, key barriers, and their perceptions of competitive advantage. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 7 of 21 The questions were open‑ended, enabling in‑depth and diverse responses and allow‑ ing for a better understanding of the specific challenges faced by each ethno‑village. In total, 19 experts participated in the evaluation process. They included ethno‑village man‑ agers, local tourism officials, and academic researchers specializing in sustainable tourism and rural development. The selection of experts followed two criteria: (1) direct involve‑ ment in the management or development of ethno‑villages, ensuring practical knowledge, and (2) academic or professional experience in sustainability assessment and tourism plan‑ ning. This combination ensured that both practical and theoretical perspectives were rep‑ resented in the decision‑making process. The diversity of evaluators also reduced the risk of individual bias and enhanced the validity of the aggregated judgments used in the AHP model. The second phase of the research involved a benchmarking analysis, in which key characteristics of individual ethno‑villages were compared. The third phase included con‑ ducting a SWOT analysis for each ethno‑village, identifying internal strengths and weak‑ nesses as well as external opportunities and threats affecting their long‑term sustainability. Both the SWOT and benchmarking analyses played a crucial role in shaping the final set of criteria for the AHP model. The model incorporated economic, environmental, infras‑ tructural, tourism, and socio‑cultural criteria, allowing for a comprehensive and system‑ atic assessment of each village’s sustainability. Through this multi‑stage data collection approach, a high level of result validity was achieved, enabling the formulation of well‑ founded recommendations for improving the sustainable development of ethno‑villages in the analyzed countries. 3.3. Variable Selection and Application of AHP Methodology The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured decision‑making approach that enables the systematic and objective evaluation of multi‑criteria problems. This method allows for the integration of both quantitative and qualitative data and facilitates the de‑ termination of the relative importance of criteria for sustainability assessment. The AHP method has been successfully applied to identify and prioritize various criteria and sub‑ criteria contributing to sustainable tourism development in diverse contexts, such as in Wakatobi [56] and Taiwan [57]. Szabo [58] also employed the AHP method to calculate the weights of importance in a proposed methodology with the potential to produce a new composite index for measur‑ ing, comparing, and ranking countries and regions in terms of sustainable development or its sub‑criteria, as well as for tracking annual improvements and evaluating the impact of implemented policies. Structure of the AHP Model The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) decomposes a decision problem into a hierar‑ chy consisting of a goal, criteria, and alternatives, which are systematically compared in pairs using a standardized 1–9 scale to express their relative importance. By aggregating these pairwise comparisons, AHP calculates the weights of each criterion and produces a final ranking of alternatives. One of the main strengths of AHP lies in its ability to com‑ bine both qualitative judgments (expert opinions) and quantitative data, making it par‑ ticularly suitable for assessing sustainability in tourism, where economic, environmental, infrastructural, and socio‑cultural factors interact. The method also includes a consistency check, which ensures that expert judgments are logically coherent and reliable. According to Stofková et al. (2022) [59], the most accurate approach for calculating and establishing the appropriate order of criteria in the decision‑making process is the Saaty method. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 8 of 21 The AHP method is frequently applied in combination with SWOT analysis. Follow‑ ing the methodological approach proposed by Saaty and Vargas (1994) [60], a three‑level hierarchy was developed, comprising the following levels: (1) goal: the assessment of the sustainability of ethno‑villages; (2) criteria: five key sustainability criteria identified through interviews, benchmarking, and SWOT analyses; and (3) alternatives: thirteen se‑ lected ethno‑villages from four Balkan countries. In developing the AHP model, the Super Decisions V3.2 software was used, which— alongwithExpert Choice—is among the most widely recognizedtoolsforperforming anal‑ yses within the AHP framework. This approach allows a complex decision to be decomposed into simpler elements. •Pairwise comparisons of criteria and alternatives Saaty’s scale (from 1 to 9) was used to perform pairwise comparisons between cri‑ teria and alternatives. The evaluations were based on expert opinions obtained through interviews, complemented by the results of benchmarking and SWOT analyses. •Calculation of weights and evaluation of alternatives The value function for each alternative (V(x)) was calculated using the following formula: V(x) = W1X1+W2X2+ … + WnXn(1) where Wi represents the weight of each criterion, and Xi represents the evaluation of each alternative according to the i‑th criterion (Table 2). Alternative xwas evaluated as more desirable than alternative ywhen the following condition was met: V(x) > V(y) (2) Table 2. Calculation of weights. Criterion Weight (Priority) Value Significance Economic and business performance 0.3696 (36.96%) The most important criterion—economic performance—has the greatest impact on the sustainability of an ethno‑village. This includes income generation, profitability, employment opportunities, and overall financial stability. Environmental sustainability 0.2421 (24.21%) The second most important criterion, reflecting the environmental impact of the ethno‑village, the adoption of sustainable practices, and the preservation of natural resources. Infrastructure and management 0.1618 (16.18%) A moderately important criterion encompassing accessibility, accommodation quality, road connectivity, and investments in infrastructure. Touristic attractiveness 0.1175 (11.75%) Less influential than economic or environmental sustainability but still crucial for visitor engagement and experience. This includes cultural attractions, unique experiences, and visitor programs. Social and cultural aspects 0.1088 (10.88%) The least influential criterion in this analysis, yet still relevant—it includes the preservation of traditions, community involvement, and cultural heritage protection. The determination of weights for each criterion followed the standard AHP proce‑ dure of pairwise comparisons using Saaty’s 1–9 scale. Expert judgments were obtained from interviews with ethno‑village managers and cross‑validated with the findings of the benchmarking and SWOT analyses to minimize individual bias. The aggregated weights, Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 9 of 21 therefore, represent a synthesis of multiple expert perspectives rather than a single subjec‑ tive opinion. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the assignment of weights in AHP inher‑ ently carries a degree of subjectivity, as it depends on expert assessments and the availabil‑ ity of reliable information. To address this limitation, consistency checks were performed, and the consistency ratio (CR) remained below the accepted threshold (CR < 0.1), confirm‑ ing the logical coherence of the judgments. Additionally, the integration of multiple data sourcesincreased methodologicalrobustness, ensuringthat theweight distributionreflects both practical expertise and empirical evidence. •Consistency validation In the AHP method, validating the consistency of pairwise comparisons is essential. The consistency index (CI) was monitored throughout the process, with an acceptable value defined as CI < 0.1. In this study, the obtained value (CI = 0.08570) confirmed the consistency and reliability of the results (Figure 3). Figure 3. Consistency of weights. Consistency validation during the AHP analysis revealed that economic performance is by far the most important criterion for assessing the sustainability of ethno‑villages, ac‑ counting for approximately 37% of the total weight. This finding indicates that an ethno‑ village cannot achieve long‑term sustainability without a stable and resilient financial model. Environmental sustainability ranks second (24%), highlighting that the sustainable and responsible management of natural resources is essential for the continued viability of ethno‑villages. Infrastructure, representing 16% of the total weight, plays an important role in ensuring accessibility and the quality of tourism services, but does not reach the same level of influence as the economic or environmental dimensions. Touristic attrac‑ tiveness (12%) and socio‑cultural aspects (11%) carry slightly less weight, suggesting that cultural value or destination attractiveness alone is insufficient to achieve high sustainabil‑ ity performance. Overall, these results demonstrate that ethno‑villages with strong business models that integrate sustainable practices are more likely to achieve long‑term success. Mere touristic appeal or cultural significance is not enough to ensure sustainability. Achieving a balance between economic performance and the sustainable management of natural and cultural resources represents the core principle of sustainable tourism development. 4. Results The results of the AHP analysis indicate that economic performance received the high‑ est weight among all sustainability criteria (consistency: 0.087), underscoring that the long‑ term viability of ethno‑villages is most strongly linked to their ability to generate income and maintain financial stability (Figure 4). Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 16 of 21 Figure10. Resultsafterthechange—anincreaseintheweightoftheenvironmentalsustainabilitycriterion. •Scenario 2: Emphasis on Infrastructure In the second scenario (Figure 11), the weight of the infrastructure and management criterion was increased to analyze whether prioritizing infrastructural development would alter the final ranking of ethno‑villages. The weight of this criterion rose to 0.39749, while economic and business performance (0.18575) and environmental sustainability (0.20755) remained important but assumed slightly lower relative weights. This adjustment aimed to evaluate how improvements in accessibility, accommodation quality, and service infrastruc‑ ture might influence overall sustainability performance across the evaluated destinations. Figure 11. Change in the weight of the infrastructure and management criterion. The results (Figure 12) show that the top three destinations remained unchanged, al‑ thoughminorvariationsoccurredin theirpercentage values. DrvengradMećavnik (Serbia) continued to hold the leading position, confirming its consistently strong overall perfor‑ mance. Herceg (Bosnia and Herzegovina) showed a slight improvement (from 0.642934 to 0.648985), suggesting that infrastructure and management play a meaningful role in enhancing its sustainability. In contrast, Izlazak (Montenegro) experienced a moderate decline (from 0.685604 to 0.554889), indicating that its competitiveness is more strongly Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 17 of 21 influenced by other dimensions, such as environmental sustainability or touristic attrac‑ tiveness, rather than infrastructure alone. Figure 12. Results after the change—an increase in the weight of the infrastructure and manage‑ ment criterion. The largest declines in this scenario were recorded for Kotromanićevo and Ljubačke doline, indicating that their infrastructural capacities are limited and do not constitute a key element of their competitive advantage. 5.3. Contributions, Practical Implications, and Methodological Limitations Despite the significant findings, this research faces several limitations. The first limi‑ tation concerns the sample size, as 13 ethno‑villages from four Balkan countries were an‑ alyzed. These cases were purposefully selected because they represent some of the most active and recognized ethno‑villages in the region, with sufficient data availability and stakeholder engagement. While the number is relatively small, it provides a meaningful and regionally diverse foundation for comparison and for applying the AHP methodol‑ ogy. Although the sample was geographically diverse, a broader study including a larger number of destinations and an extended geographical scope would enable more compre‑ hensive conclusions. The second limitation relates to the availability and depth of data, as some information was collected primarily through interviews and online sources, which may affect the completeness of the analysis. For future research, it is recommended to ap‑ ply additional multi‑criteria decision‑making methods—such as the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) or the Preference Ranking Organiza‑ tion Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE)—to allow for cross‑validation and comparison of results. Moreover, conducting longitudinal studies would provide valuable insights into the long‑term sustainability trajectories of ethno‑villages. Expanding the re‑ search to other Balkan regions or incorporating comparative analyses with other European destinations would further enhance understanding of sustainable development in the con‑ text of ethno‑tourism. Such approaches would strengthen the scientific foundation of the Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 18 of 21 field and support the formulation of more targeted strategies for improving sustainabil‑ ity outcomes. The findings of this study carry several practical implications for policymakers, des‑ tination managers, and local communities. First, the results underline that strengthening the economic dimension of ethno‑villages is essential for ensuring long‑term sustainabil‑ ity, emphasizing the need for targeted financial support, entrepreneurial training, and in‑ centives for local product development. Second, the weaker performance of several vil‑ lages points to infrastructural and managerial challenges, suggesting that investments in accessibility, digital infrastructure, and service quality are equally important for enhanc‑ ing competitiveness. Third, fostering greater community involvement in tourism activities can improve socio‑cultural outcomes and ensure that development remains inclusive and locally rooted. From an academic perspective, this study contributes to the existing literature on sus‑ tainable and indigenous tourism by addressing a key research gap—the lack of systematic sustainability assessments of ethno‑villages in the Balkans. While previous studies (e.g., Kunasekaran [10]; Butler and Hinch [18]) have examined sustainability indicators in other contexts, this research provides one of the first comprehensive multi‑criteria evaluations of ethno‑tourism in the region. By applying the AHP method and performing detailed sensitivity analyses, the study demonstrates the robustness of its results and introduces a methodological approach that can be replicated in other rural tourism contexts. The novelty of this research lies in its integration of diverse sustainability criteria into a single analytical framework, enabling the identification of key drivers and barriers to sustainable development, and offering both theoretical and practical contributions to the field. 6. Conclusions This study applied the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the sustainabil‑ ity of ethno‑villages in the Balkans, integrating economic, environmental, infrastructural, social, and cultural dimensions. The findings confirm that economic performance is the strongest determinant of long‑term sustainability, while cultural and environmental fac‑ tors remain essential for maintaining authenticity and resilience. The results also reveal notable disparities between leading and lower‑ranked villages, emphasizing the impor‑ tance of targeted investments, capacity building, and stronger community engagement. By combining multi‑criteria analysis with sensitivity testing, this study introduces a systematic, transparent, and replicable framework for assessing sustainability in rural tourism. The insights provide practical guidance for policymakers, destination managers, and local communities seeking to enhance the resilience, competitiveness, and sustainabil‑ ity of ethno‑villages across the Balkan region. In conclusion, the future of sustainable ethno‑tourism in the Balkans depends on achieving a balanced integration of economic viability, cultural preservation, and environ‑ mental protection. When supported by coordinated policy frameworks, strategic infras‑ tructure development, and inclusive community participation, ethno‑villages can serve as engines of rural development and model examples of sustainable cultural tourism. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.B.G., B.P. and A.Š.; methodology, A.Š., M.B.G. and Č.R.; software, A.C.‑M. and A.P.‑V.; validation, A.Š.; formal analysis, M.B.G. and Č.R.; investigation, M.B.G., B.P. and Č.R.; resources, A.Š.; data curation, A.P.‑V. and A.C.‑M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.G.; writing—review and editing, A.C.‑M.; visualization, M.B.G.; supervision, Č.R. and A.Š.; project administration, M.B.G.; funding acquisition, Č.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 19 of 21 Funding: The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innova‑ tion Agency (research core funding No. P5‑0018 and No. P4‑0022) and the Ministry of Higher Ed‑ ucation, Science, and Innovation of the Republic of Slovenia as part of the Recovery and Resilience Plan – Next Generation EU (Grant No. 3330‑22‑3515; NOO No: C3330‑22‑953012). Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was waived for ethical review as, according to Recital 26 of the GDPR and national law, anonymized data are not considered personal data, and therefore no prior ethical approval was legally required by an institution committee. Informed Consent Statement: Verbal informed consent was obtained from the participants. Verbal consent was obtained rather than written because of the institutional and ethical guidelines. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality agreements with participants. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the owners and managers of the ethno‑villages who generously shared their time and knowledge during the interviews. Their insights were crucial in shaping the findings of this study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats CI Consistency Index CR Consistency Ratio UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization TOPSIS Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation References 1. Wu, J.; Hu, M.; Fu, X.; Deng, H.; Wu, G. Income impacts of rural household livelihood strategies: Insights from Chongqing, Southwest China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2025,32, 341–354. [CrossRef] 2. Huang, L.; Yang, L.; Tuyến, N.T.; Colmekcioglu, N.; Liu, J. Factors influencing the livelihood strategy choices of rural households in tourist destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022,30, 875–896. [CrossRef] 3. Prevolšek, B.; Maksimović, A.; Puška, A.; Pažek, K.; Žibert, M.; Rozman, Č. Sustainable development of ethno‑villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina—A multi criteria assessment. Sustainability 2020,12, 1399. [CrossRef] 4. Panić, A.; Vujko, A.; Knežević, M. Economic indicators of rural destination development oriented to tourism management: The case of ethno villages in Western Serbia. Hotel. Tour. Manag. 2025,13, 81–97. [CrossRef] 5. Kljuno, A.H.; Halilovic, M. The phenomenon of ethno villages in Bosnian rural tourism. Herit. Sustain. Dev. 2022,4, 122–133. [CrossRef] 6. Nedeljković, M.; Puška, A.; Krstić, S. Multicriteria approach to rural tourism development in Republic of Srpska. Eкoнoмuкa noљonpuвpeдe 2022,69, 13–26. [CrossRef] 7. Raspor, A.; Peršič, K.T.; Kleindienst, P.; Mastilo, Z.; Borojević, D.; Miletić, V. A case study of ethno village in Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Econ. Innov. Econ. Res. J. 2020,8, 89–102. [CrossRef] 8. Puška, A.; Šadić, S.; Maksimović, A.; Stojanović, I. Decision support model in the determination of rural touristic destination attractiveness in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020,20, 387–405. [CrossRef] 9. Zaburaeva, K.S. Ethnocultural heritage of the North‑Eastern Caucasus as a factor of eco‑tourism development. J. Mt. Sci. 2024, 21, 2810–2824. [CrossRef] 10. Kunasekaran, P.; Gill, S.S.; Ramachandran, S.; Shuib, A.; Baum, T.; Herman Mohammad Afandi, S. Measuring sustainable indigenous tourismindicators: A caseofMah Meri ethnicgroup in CareyIsland, Malaysia. Sustainability 2017,9, 1256. [CrossRef] 11. Dernoi, L.A. Farm tourism in Europe. Tour. Manag. 1983,4, 155–166. [CrossRef] 12. Chan, J.H.; Zhang, Y.; McDonald, T.; Qi, X. Entrepreneurship in an indigenous community: Sustainable tourism and economic developmentin anewlyinscribedUNESCOworldheritagesite. InIndigenous People and Economic Development; Routledge: Abing‑ don, UK, 2016; pp. 189–204. Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 20 of 21 13. Žibert, M.; Prevolšek, B.; Pažek, K.; Rozman, Č.; Škraba, A. Developing a diversification strategy of non‑agricultural activities on farms using system dynamics modelling: A case study of Slovenia. Kybernetes 2022,51, 33–56. [CrossRef] 14. Ungaya, G.C. East Africa Community Regional Tourism Policy: The Nexus between Cultural Heritage and Socio‑economic Development of the Maasai Community in Serengeti‑Mara Ecosystem. J. Kenya Natl. Comm. UNESCO 2024,5. [CrossRef] 15. Nguyen, K.T.; Murphy, L.; Chen, T. Segmentation of ethnic tourists and their interaction outcomes with hosts in the Central Highlands, Vietnam. Adv. Southeast Asian Stud. 2024,17, 105–133. [CrossRef] 16. Mamani‑Flores, A.; Apaza‑Ticona, J.; Calatayud‑Mendoza, A.P.; Calderón‑Torres, A.; Maquera‑Maquera, Y.; Velasquez‑Sagua, H.L.; Flores‑Chambilla, S.G. The Exercise of Experiential Rural Tourism in the Population Nucleus of an Andean Community in Peru. J. Ecohumanism 2024,3, 5203–5217. [CrossRef] 17. Shao, D.; Zoh, K. Analysis of spatial distribution characteristics and driving factors of ethnic‑minority villages in China using geospatial technology and statistical models. J. Mt. Sci. 2024,21, 2770–2789. [CrossRef] 18. Butler, R.; Hinch, T. (Eds.) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2007. 19. Chen, P.; Kong, X. Tourism‑led commodification of place and rural transformation development: A case study of Xixinan village, Huangshan, China. Land 2021,10, 694. [CrossRef] 20. Cohen, E. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1988,15, 371–386. [CrossRef] 21. Williams, L.K.; Gonzalez, V.V. Indigeneity, sovereignty, sustainability and cultural tourism: Hosts and hostages at ‘Iolani Palace, Hawai’i. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017,25, 668–683. [CrossRef] 22. Acuña Medina, D.I.; Gañán Rojo, P.F.; Arango Alzate, S.B. Etnoturismo: Una aproximación a las oportunidades y amenazas que implica para las culturas indígenas. Cuad. De Tur. 2019,43, 17–38. [CrossRef] 23. UNWTO. Statistical Framework for Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism (SF‑MST): Final Draft. 2024. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/UNSDWebsite/statcom/session_55/documents/BG‑4a‑SF‑MST‑E.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2025). 24. Recchini, E. Official Statistics for Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism: The UNWTO Initiative; Proceedings e Report; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy; Genova University Press: Genova, Italy, 2023; pp. 47–52. 25. Demonja, D.; Gredičak, T. Contribution to the research on rural resorts in the function of tourism products and services distri‑ bution: The Example of the Republic of Croatia. East. Eur. Countrys. 2015,21, 137–151. [CrossRef] 26. Medojevic, J.; Milosavljevic, S.; Punisic, M. Paradigms of rural tourism in Serbia in the function of village revitalisation. Hum. Ge‑ ogr. 2011,5, 93. [CrossRef] 27. Kluczek, A. Application of multi‑criteria approach for sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2016,7, 62–78. [CrossRef] 28. Hunter, C. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997,24, 850–867. [CrossRef] 29. Pope, J.; Annandale, D.; Morrison‑Saunders, A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004,24, 595–616. [CrossRef] 30. Schianetz, K.; Kavanagh, L.; Lockington, D. Concepts and tools for comprehensive sustainability assessments for tourism desti‑ nations: A comparative review. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007,15, 369–389. [CrossRef] 31. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,48, 9–26. [CrossRef] 32. Saaty, T.L. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1980,41, 1073–1076. 33. Prevolšek, B.; Gačnik, M.B.; Rozman, Č. Applying integrated data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy process to mea‑ suring the efficiency of tourist farms: The case of Slovenia. Sustainability 2023,15, 4314. [CrossRef] 34. Bhattacharya, P.; Al Aziz, R.; Karmaker, C.L.; Bari, A.M. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach to assess the risks associated with municipal waste management: Implications for sustainability. Green Technol. Sustain. 2024,2, 100087. [CrossRef] 35. Roussel, Y.; Audi, M. Exploring the Nexus of Economic Expansion, Tourist Inflows, and Environmental Sustainability in Europe. J. Energy Environ. Policy Options. 2024,7, 28–36. 36. Ivars‑Baidal, J.A.; Vera‑Rebollo, J.F.; Perles‑Ribes, J.; Femenia‑Serra, F.; Celdrán‑Bernabeu, M.A. Sustainable tourism indicators: What’s new within the smart city/destination approach? J. Sustain. Tour. 2023,31, 1556–1582. [CrossRef] 37. Pasanchay, K.; Schott, C. Community‑basedtourism homestays’ capacityto advancethe SustainableDevelopment Goals: A holis‑ tic sustainable livelihood perspective. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021,37, 100784. [CrossRef] 38. Saaty, T.L.; Zoffer, H.J.; Vargas, L.G.; Guiora, A. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Beyond “Getting to Yes” in Conflict Resolution. In Overcoming the Retributive Nature of the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 17–29. [CrossRef] 39. United Nations Geospatial Information Section. Map of the World. United Nations. Available online: https://www.un.org/ geospatial/content/map‑world‑0 (accessed on 20 October 2025). 40. Lane, B. What is rural tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994,2, 7–21. [CrossRef] 41. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011,19, 411–421. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2025,17, 9980 21 of 21 42. Ivars‑Baidal, J.A.; Celdrán‑Bernabeu, M.A.; Mazón, J.N.; Perles‑Ivars, Á.F. Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: A new scenario for destination management? Curr. Issues Tour. 2019,22, 1581–1600. [CrossRef] 43. Keller, K.; Mátyás, S.; Hegedűs, M.; Kaszás, N.; Rahmat, A.F.; Dávid, L.D. Updating the tourism organizational assessment scale. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev. 2024,8, 3811. [CrossRef] 44. Roberts, L.; Sharpley, R. Rural Tourism–10 Years On. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2004,6, 119–124. 45. Crouch, G.I.; Ritchie, J.B. Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. J. Bus. Res. 1999,44, 137–152. [CrossRef] 46. Geng, Y.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Yan, Y.; Gao, J. Bibliometric analysis of sustainable rural tourism. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025,12, 788. [CrossRef] 47. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Scott, D. Tourism and Water. Available online: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.218 32/9781845415006/html (accessed on 13 May 2025). [CrossRef] 48. Buckley, R. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012,39, 528–546. [CrossRef] 49. Serio, R.G.; Giuliani, D.; Dickson, M.M.; Espa, G. Going green across boundaries: Spatial effects of environmental policies on tourism flows. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.03608. [CrossRef] 50. Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018,36, 12–21. [CrossRef] 51. Timothy, D.J. Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; Volume 4. 52. Turčinović, M.; Vujko, A.; Stanišić, N. Community‑led sustainable tourism in rural areas: Enhancing wine tourism destination competitiveness and local empowerment. Sustainability 2025,17, 2878. [CrossRef] 53. Butler, R. Tourism destination development: The tourism area life cycle model. Tour. Geogr. 2025,27, 599–607. [CrossRef] 54. Sharpley, R. Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2009. 55. Pato, M.L.; Duque, A.S. Mapping Innovation and Sustainability in Rural Tourism: A Bibliometric Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2574. [CrossRef] 56. Saputra, P.E.D.; Srinadi, I.G.A.M.; Susilawati, M.; Kencana, I.P.E.N.; Octavanny, M.A.D.; Gandhiadi, G.K. Wakatobi Develop‑ ment Priorities as A Sustainable Tourism Destination Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2024,1, 51–66. [CrossRef] 57. Tsaur, S.H.; Wang, C.H. The evaluation of sustainable tourism development by analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy set theory: An empirical study on the Green Island in Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2007,12, 127–145. [CrossRef] 58. Szabo, Z.K.; Szádoczki, Z.; Bozóki, S.; Stănciulescu, G.C.; Szabo, D. An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021,13, 2254. [CrossRef] 59. Stofkova, J.; Krejnus, M.; Stofkova, K.R.; Malega, P.; Binasova, V. Use of the analytic hierarchy process and selected methods in the managerial decision‑making process in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability 2022,14, 11546. [CrossRef] 60. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Decision Making in Economic, Political, Social, and Technological Environments with the Analytic Hierarchy Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994; Volume 7. 61. Stanić Jovanović, S.; Ilić, B.; Miletović, N. Is Rural Tourism a Chance for Development and Revitalisation of Aranđelovac Mu‑ nicipality? In Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development V: Book of Abstracts; Institute of Agricultural Economics: Belgrade, Serbia, 2024. 62. Drvengrad. 2025. Available online: https://mecavnik.info/ (accessed on 13 March 2025). 63. Etno Selo Herceg. 2025. Available online: https://etno‑herceg.com/en/home/ (accessed on 13 May 2025). Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au‑ thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.