In conclusion, we should look at cultural routes from two perspectives. Firstly, they are constructed, shaped, and managed by, and in response to, the demands of the present, in which
JUSTICE
Figure 2.Relations between trust and other values. (Source: own work.)
The second, system-based approach assumes that there are relationships between particular types of values. For example, a strong relationship exists between a sense of belonging and commitment.
Interactive justice has strong links with the sense of belonging to the network, since it shapes the information exchange process and, because it plays an important role in the information sharing process, it affects trust-based knowledge. Similar relationships exist between all values described.
The third approach, when is based on relational agreements, consists in studying objectives pursued by individual entities. These goals may be both intangible and tangible, but they do not necessarily have to be integrated and known to network participants. Their method of implementation undoubtedly influences commitment and trust and, consequently, the sense of interactional and distributive justice.
7. Final Conclusions
In conclusion, we should look at cultural routes from two perspectives. Firstly, they are constructed, shaped, and managed by, and in response to, the demands of the present, in which contemporary communities living in areas with rich cultural heritage have come to function. Thus, “a heritage route is composed of tangible elements of which the cultural significance comes from exchanges and a multidimensional dialogue across countries or regions, and that illustrate the interaction of movement, along the route, in space and time”. [12].
Secondly, as evidenced by our case studies, they are also one of the basic tools of cultural policy at the regional level, while, at the local level, they constitute an element of local policy, which is based on sustainable social and economic development, with the latter, in particular, being based on cultural tourism. Each of the studied cultural routes acts as a kind of network of monuments around which the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2844 22 of 28
life of local communities is concentrated—its cultural life, since the monuments on the route constitute anchor places that allow for the inhabitants to discover and better understand their roots, and then draw from them in a sustainable way: acting as an inspiration for the development of social, cultural, and artistic activities, as well as business activity—as an incentive for the development of economic activity. It is worth pointing out that this interaction with heritage always creates a feedback loop—on the one hand, heritage inspires, and on the other hand—people who are the ‘heritage owners’, as a result of this inspiration, strive for their heritage to last and develop in a sustainable way, responding to the needs of the environment.
It should be noted that all three studied routes are built in areas where tourist activity has not been very encouraged before, although there are node points within each route that draw significant numbers of tourists (particularly route points in Krakow, and to a smaller extent in Pozna ´n). From the perspective of regional public policies in the area of culture and tourism, creating cultural routes in the broader sense prevents the tragedy of a common pasture [141], thanks to the attempt of dispersing tourist streams towards different points on the route (which is clear in the example of the Lesser Poland route), and it prevents the excessive exploitation of cultural goods. Therefore, the value and significance of routes in this context is relatively unnoticed, and it also explains the push towards top-down building of certain route networks to cooperate for the common good—reducing the exploitation of the most popular areas of cultural heritage and enhancing areas where heritage is relatively unexplored.
Cultural routes in our understanding have the character of organisational networks of various natures, which range from fragmentary and network relationships, to very loose, bottom-up networks to formal and hierarchical permanent network structures. Network structures that create routes have different, often contradictory features, depending on the assumptions that are adopted by the creators or the coordinator of the assumptions of its functioning: a different level of formalization of activities, bottom-up or top-down, with a public or non-governmental coordinating entity, with hierarchical or opposite-non-hierarchical relationships between the coordinator and other network entities, with diverse activities and the involvement of entities within the route, as well as cooperative or collaborative relations between them.
The most important values that bind entities within the route networks were associated with people living in the route areas, as well as around the utilitarian values that are related to sustainable economic development of the route region and economic and social activation of its inhabitants, as well as values that are related to local identity. The route networks built around the value of cultural heritage were open to constant revision and change, as a source and result of social interactions, both within a specific group and between groups, artefacts that are chosen by them, and values that are assigned to them. These processes are illustrated by the example of the studied routes where the observation of their development allows for noticing different directions of network formation, as well as parallel ideas for routes that are shaped by people creating and managing them.
In light of the conducted research, trust was not a value that appeared directly in the statements of the interviewed route representatives, although, in light of current research, it is one of the key values that form the basis of the relationships within the networks. We have only identified certain manifestations of trust existing between entities or other related values linking the entities within the route.
Our research proposal, which takes into account the results of the research, has proven that trust in the network is strongly associated with various other values. While the relationship between trust and commitment or justice is well known, it is worth carrying out further research regarding the sense of belonging and identity. These are values that can be of great importance in the process of building and sustaining various cultural undertakings.
The study of trust in networks should take into account different types of networks and various types of trust, as well as the stage of life of these networks (whether they are at the stage of shaping, working out standards, effective cooperation, or at the final stage of their existence). A broad range of factors can influence the level of trust in the network, for example—informal information exchange
processes [142] and goals pursued by network participants [143,144]. Not all types of values support the development of trust. For instance, advance commitment can destroy the initial trust. To conclude, it would be advisable to also refer to critical reflections concerning trust as the “main actor” within cultural routes networks. This can be reduced to three main assumptions. Firstly, trust in the studied routes does not cover the entire network to an equal degree—it is stronger or weaker in particular areas, which stems from various reasons (e.g., frequency of interactions, interests, etc.) Therefore, with time, the inability to level these differences can contribute to the fragmentation of the network. Secondly, trust can connect various groups exhibiting unethical—or more broadly, counterproductive—behaviours. Such a situation can occur where various support groups, or interest groups (e.g., management-level employee and site owners), are forming. Thirdly, certain entities can attempt to build as many trust-based relations as possible, which may weaken the social network (one of the so-called ‘trust traps’).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: E.B.-W., A.G., M.B.; methodology: E.B.-W.; investigation: E.B.-W., A.G.; resources: E.B.-W., A.G.; data curation: E.B.-W., A.G.; writing—original draft preparation: E.B.-W., A.G., M.B.; writing—review and editing: E.B.-W., A.G.
Funding:This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest:The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning, Cultural Development Network (Vic.); Common Ground: Melbourne, Australia, 2001.
2. James, P. Assessing Cultural Sustainability: Agenda 21 for Culture; UCLG: Barcelona, Spain, 2014.
3. James, P.; Magee, L.; Scerri, A.; Steger, M. Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability;
Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
4. Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223.
[CrossRef]
5. Barthel-Bouchier, D. Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
6. Hall, S. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices; Sage/Open University: London, UK, 1997.
7. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. Mus. Int. 2004, 1–2, 52–65.
[CrossRef]
8. Ashworth, G.; Graham, B.; Tunbridge, J. Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies;
Pluto Press: London, UK, 2007.
9. Pekham, R. Rethinking Heritage: Cultures and Politics in Europe; I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
10. The ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes. International Scientific Comittee On Cultural Routes (CIIC) of ICOMOS. 2008. Available online:http://www.icomos-ciic.org/CIIC/Charter_Cultural_Routes.pdf(accessed on 20 December 2018).
11. Dessein, J.; Battaglini, E.; Horlings, L. (Eds.) Cultural Sustainability and Regional Development: Theories and Practices of Territorialisation; Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
12. World Heritage Committee. Routes as Part of Our Cultural Heritage. Report on the Meeting of Experts, Madrid, 24–25 November 1994. Available online:https://whc.unesco.org/archive/routes94.htm(accessed on 20 December 2018).
13. Global Report on Cultural Routes and Itineraries, Affiliate Members Report: Volume Twelve; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
14. Murray, M.; Graham, B. Exploring the dialectics of route-based tourism: The Camino de Santiago. Tour.
Manag. 1997, 18, 513–524. [CrossRef]
15. Naser, N. Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development. J. Plan. Lit. 2003, 17, 468–479. [CrossRef]
16. Ashworth, G. Planowanie Dziedzictwa; Mi˛edzynarodowe Centrum Kultury: Kraków, Poland, 2015.
17. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2844 24 of 28
18. Tourism and Heritage 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/culture/files/5-tourism-and-heritage-10-european-initiatives-factsheet.pdf(accessed on 20 December 2018).
19. Campolo, D.; Bombino, G.; Meduri, T. Cultural Landscape and Cultural Routes: Infrastructure Role and Indigenous Knowledge for a Sustainable Development of Inland Areas. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 576–582. [CrossRef]
20. Pirson, M.; Dierksmeier, C.; Goodpaster, K. Human dignity and Business. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 307–309.
[CrossRef]
21. Klari´c, V.; Androi´c, M.; Nevidal, R.; Horjan, G. (Eds.) Managing Visitors on Thematic Cultural Routes Handbook;
Ministry of Tourism of the Republic of Croatia-Lujzijana Association: Zagreb, Croatia, 2013.
22. World Tourism Organization. Affiliate Members Global Reports, Volume Twelve—Cultural Routes and Itineraries;
World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
23. Siguencia, L.O.; Gomez-Ullate, M.; Kamara, A. (Eds.) Cultural Management and Tourism in European Cultural Routes: From Theory to Practice; Publishing House of the Research and Innovation in Education Institute:
Czestochowa, Poland, 2016.
24. Häfele, E. European Cultural Routes; Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, Department for Tourism and Historic Objects: Vienna, Austria, 2013.
25. Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E.; Góral, A. Networks or structures? Organizing cultural routes around heritage values. Humanist. Manag. J. 2018, 3, 253–277. [CrossRef]
26. Holden, J. The Ecology of Culture. Available online: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/News/
Documents/AHRC%20Ecology%20of%20Culture%20%28A%29.pdf(accessed on 15 December 2018).
27. Góral, A. Ekologia dziedzictwa. Zarz ˛adzanie Publiczne 2017, 2, 119–130.
28. Buttimer, A. (Ed.) Sustainable Landscapes and Lifeways: Issues of Scale and Appropriateness; Cork University Press: Cork, Ireland, 2001.
29. Relph, E. Senses of place and emerging social and environmental challenges. In Sense of Place, Health and Quality of Life; Eyles, J., Williams, A., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2008; pp. 31–44.
30. Tuan, Y.F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; Edward Arnold Ltd.: London, UK, 1977.
31. Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. [CrossRef]
32. Lenzerini, F. Cultural Identity, Human Rights, and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples.
Brown J. World Aff. 2016, 23, 127–141.
33. Shao, Y.; Eckart Lange, E.; Thwaites, K.; Liu, B. Defining local identity. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2017, 5, 24–41.
34. Conway, M.A. The inventory of experience: Memory and identity. In Collective Memory of Political Events;
Pennebaker, J.W., Paez, D., Rime, B., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1997;
pp. 21–46.
35. Devine-Wright, P.; Lyons, E. Remembering pasts and representing places: The construction of national identities in Ireland. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 33–45. [CrossRef]
36. Peacock, A.; Rizzo, I. The Heritage Game. Economics, Policy and Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008.
37. Wu, S.R.; Fan, P.; Chen, J. Incorporating Culture Into Sustainable Development: A Cultural Sustainability Index Framework for Green Buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 64–76. [CrossRef]
38. Throsby, D. Economics and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
39. Graham, B.; Howard, P. Heritage and Identity; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT, USA, 2008.
40. Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Barbarzy ´nca w ogrodzie? Dziedzictwo kulturowe widziane z perspektywy ekonomii.
Zarz ˛adzanie Publiczne 2010, 3, 19–32.
41. Purchla, J. Dziedzictwo kulturowe a kapitał społeczny. In Dlaczego i jak w Nowoczesny Sposób Chroni´c Dziedzictwo Kulturowe? Rottermund, A., Ed.; Polski Komitet do spraw UNESCO: Warszawa, Poland, 2014;
pp. 21–30.
42. Gaweł, Ł. Zarz ˛adzanie strategiczne szlakiem dziedzictwa kulturowego w ´swietle koncepcji stakeholders.
Turystyka Kulturowa 2012, 10, 31–40.
43. Gaweł, Ł. Szlaki Dziedzictwa Kulturowego: Teoria i Praktyka Zarz ˛adzania; Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Jagiello ´nskiego: Kraków, Poland, 2011.
44. Makuc, N. THETRIS transnational church route: Valorisation of sacral cultural heritage for fostering development of rural areas. Annales 2015, 25, 585–594.
45. Terzi´c, A.; Bjeljac, Ž.; Joviˇci´c, A.; Penjiševi´c, I. Cultural Route and Ecomuseum Concepts as a Synergy of Nature, Heritage and Community Oriented Sustainable Development. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
46. Birkeland, I. The potential space for cultural sustainability: Place narratives and place-heritage in Rjukan. In Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability: Between Past and Future; Auclair, E., Fairclough, G., Eds.;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 161–175.
47. Gražuleviˇci ¯ut ˙e, I. Cultural Heritage in the Context of Sustainable Development. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag.
2006, 3, 74–79.
48. Mikos von Rohrscheidt, A. Kulturowe szlaki turystyczne—Próba klasyfikacji oraz postulaty w zakresie ich tworzenia i funkcjonowania. Turystyka Kulturowa 2008, 2, 17–31.
49. Stasiak, A. Produkt turystyczny—Szlak. Turystyka i Hotelarstwo 2006, 10, 11–13.
50. Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E.; Gaweł, Ł.; Góral, A. (Eds.) Szlaki Kulturowe jako Medium Zmian w Kulturze;
Stowarzyszenie Gmin i Powiatów Małopolski: Kraków, Poland, 2016.
51. Góral, A. Zarz ˛adzanie dziedzictwem—O paradoksie planowania przeszło´sci. In Etnografie Instytucji Dziedzictwa Kulturowego; Gaweł, Ł., Kostera, M., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiello ´nskiego: Kraków, Poland, 2018; pp. 177–188.
52. Provan, K.G.; Lemaire, R.H. Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Admin. Rev. 2012, 72, 638–648. [CrossRef]
53. Bugdol, M. Gry i Zachowania Nieetyczne w Organizacji; Difin: Warszawa, Poland, 2007.
54. Rotter, J.B. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. Am. Psychol. 1980, 35, 1–7. [CrossRef]
55. Gambetta, D. (Ed.) Can we trust trust? In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations; Basil Blackwell:
New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 213–237.
56. Lewicki, R.; Bunker, B.B. Developing and maintaining trust in work relations. In Trust in Organizations;
Kramer, R., Tyler, T., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 114–139.
57. Pillutla, M.M. Trust. In Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior; Nicholson, N., Ed.;
Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; p. 1.
58. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H. The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 123–136. [CrossRef]
59. Prusak, L.; Cohen, D. How to Invest in Social Capital. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2001, 79, 86–93.
60. Weber, M.J.; Deepak, M.; Murnighan, K.J. Normal Acts of Irrational Trust: Motivated Attributions and the Trust Development Process. Res. Organ. Behav. 2005, 2, 75–101. [CrossRef]
61. Sztompka, P. Zaufanie Fundamentem Społecze ´nstwa; Znak: Kraków, Poland, 2007.
62. Kis, N. The Role and Impact of Trust on the Operation and Sustainability of the State. Public Financ. Q. 2018, 63, 289–302.
63. Xiong, L.; Tang, B.; Xu, K.; Wu, G. Risk Awareness of Interpersonal Trust and Entrepreneurship in China:
Evidence from Survey Data. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2018, 54, 2278–2295. [CrossRef]
64. Guiso, L.; Sapienza, P.; Zingales, L. Trusting the stock market. J. Financ. 2008, 63, 2557–2600. [CrossRef]
65. Smith, G.A.; Stevenson, R.B. Sustaining Education for Sustainability in Turbulent Times. J. Environ. Educ.
2017, 48, 79–95. [CrossRef]
66. Underwood, D.A.; Friesner, D. Asset Mapping, the Social Fabric Matrix, Economic Impact Analysis, and Criteria for Sustainability and Justice: Operational Elements for Holistic Policy Planning. J. Econ. Issues 2017, 51, 813–827.
67. Frerichs, L.; Kim, M.; Dave, G.; Cheney, A.; Hassmiller Lich, K.; Jones, J.; Young, T.L.; Cene, C.W.; Varma, D.S.;
Schaal, J.; et al. Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships. Health Educ. Behav. 2017, 44, 182–191. [CrossRef]
68. Chi Kwan, N.; D’Souza, C. Categorizing “Others”: The Segmentation of Other Actors for “Faith in Others’
Efficacy (FIO). In Proceedings of the International Conferences ITS, ICEduTech and STE, Melbourne, Australia, 6–8 December 2016; pp. 301–305.
69. Abrego, C.; Pankake, A. The District-Wide Sustainability of a Professional Learning Community during Leadership Changes at the Superintendency Level. Admin. Issues J. Educ. Pract. Res. 2011, 1, 3–13. [CrossRef]
70. Almers, E. Pathways to Action Competence for Sustainability—Six Themes. J. Environ. Educ. 2013, 44, 116–127. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2844 26 of 28
71. Hynie, M.; MacNevin, W.; Prescod, C.; Rieder, B.; Schwartzentruber, L. The Morning After: Stakeholder Reflections on the Sustainability of a Community-Campus Engagement Center in the Changing Environment.
Metrop. Univ. 2016, 27, 27–46.
72. Gilbert, D.R.; Stoner, J.A.F.; Freeman, E.R. Kierowanie; Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: Warszawa, Poland, 2001.
73. Ko´zmi ´nski, A. Koniec ´Swiata Mened˙zerów; Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne: Warszawa, Poland, 2008.
74. Dong, W.; Han, H.; Ke, Y.; Chan, K.C. Social Trust and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China. J. Bus.
Ethics 2018, 151, 539–562. [CrossRef]
75. Downs, C. Networks, trust, and risk mitigation during the American Revolutionary War: A case study. Econ.
Hist. Rev. 2017, 70, 509–528. [CrossRef]
76. Klijn, E.-H.; Edelenbos, J.; Steijn, B. Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Admin. Soc.
2010, 42, 193–221. [CrossRef]
77. Bevelander, D.; Page, M.J. Ms. Trust: Gender, Networks and Trust – Implications for Management and Education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011, 10, 623–642. [CrossRef]
78. Palmer, A.; Huo, Q. A study of trust over time within a social network mediated environment. J. Mark.
Manag. 2013, 29, 1816–1833. [CrossRef]
79. Hakanen, M.; Häkkinen, M. Management possibilities for interpersonal trust in a business network. Nord. J.
Bus. 2015, 64, 249–265.
80. Orman, L. Information markets over trust networks. Electron. Commer. Res. 2016, 16, 529–551. [CrossRef]
81. Jiang, W.; Wang, G.; Bhuiyan, M.Z.A.; Wu, J. Understanding Graph-Based Trust Evaluation in Online Social Networks: Methodologies and Challenges. ACM Comput. Surv. 2016, 49, 1–35. [CrossRef]
82. Kastberg, G. Trust and Control in Network Relations: A Study of a Public Sector Setting. Financ. Account.
Manag. 2016, 32, 33–56. [CrossRef]
83. Hansen, T. The Virtuous Cycle of Social Support and Trust in Network Facilitation. Group Facil. Res. Appl. J.
2016, 13, 5–15.
84. Awaworyi Churchill, S.; Mishra, V. Trust, Social Networks and Subjective Wellbeing in China. Soc. Indic. Res.
2017, 132, 313–339. [CrossRef]
85. Tasselli, S.; Kilduff, M. When Brokerage Between Friendship Cliques Endangers Trust: A Personality-Network Fit Perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 802–825. [CrossRef]
86. Riyanto, Y.E.; Jonathan, Y.X.W. Directed trust and trustworthiness in a social network: An experimental investigation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2018, 151, 234–253. [CrossRef]
87. Zhou, L.; Su, C.; Sun, X.; Zhao, X.; Choo, K.-K.R. Stag hunt and trust emergence in social networks. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 88, 168–172. [CrossRef]
88. Marineau, J.E. Trust and Distrust Network Accuracy and Career Advancement in an Organization. Group Organ. Manag. 2017, 42, 487–520. [CrossRef]
89. Velimirovic, J.D.; Janjic, A.; Velimirovic, L.Z. Modelling electronic trust using bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the International May Conference on Strategic Management, Bor, Serbia, 25–27 May 2018;
pp. 460–465.
90. Pratono, A.H. From social network to firm performance. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 680–700. [CrossRef]
91. Beilmann, M.; Kööts-Ausmees, L.; Realo, A. The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism-Collectivism in Europe. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 137, 641–664. [CrossRef]
92. Lee, J.H.; Tamraker, C. The Effects of Network Characteristics and Social Capital on Organizational Performance: The Mediated Effect of Information Sharing. J. Mark. Thought 2018, 5, 14–29.
93. von Friedrichs Grangsjo, I.; Gummesson, E. Hotel networks and social capital in destination marketing. Int.
J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2006, 17, 58–75. [CrossRef]
94. Agheorghiesei, N.; Nita, V. Networks and social capital-important advantages for entrepreneurs in tourism.
Revista de Turism 2009, 7, 10–19.
95. Hitchcock, M.; Wesner, S. Vietnamese values, networks and family businesses in London. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev.
2009, 15, 265–282. [CrossRef]
96. Holladay, P.J.; Powell, R.B. Resident perceptions of social-ecological resilience and the sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1188–1211. [CrossRef]
97. Barrutia, J.M.; Echebarria, C. Factors affecting the attitude of tourism-destination local authorities towards sustainable planning tools in a networking context: The Balearic Sustainability Network. J. Sustain. Tour.
2015, 23, 207–233. [CrossRef]
98. Koens, K.; Rhodri, T. Is small beautiful? Understanding the contribution of small businesses in township tourism to economic development. Dev. South. Afr. 2015, 32, 320–332. [CrossRef]
99. Lin, H.F. Determinants of successful virtual communities: Contributions from system characteristics and social factors. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 522–527. [CrossRef]
100. Staniulien ˙e, S. Research of trust in virtual network relationships: The case of tourism sector. Manag. Organ.
Syst. Res. 2016, 76, 119–131.
101. Polat, S.; Aktas Polat, S. Turizmde Önde Gelen Ülkelerde Normlar, Güven ve Sosyal A ˘glar Temelinde Sosyal Sermaye. J. Admin. Sci. 2016, 14, 385–413.
102. Bali ´nska, A. Sieciowe produkty turystyczne jako przykład przedsi˛ebiorczo´sci na obszarach wiejskich.
Turystyka i Rozwój Regionalny 2017, 8, 5–14. [CrossRef]
103. Czernek, K. Zakorzenienie społeczne jako stymulanta zaufania w kooperacji przedsi˛ebiorstw turystycznych.
Organizacja i Kierowanie 2017, 2, 199–213.
104. Kosmaczewska, J. Kapitał społeczny mieszka ´nców wsi jako czynnik turystycznego rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. Acta Sci. Pol. Oeconomia 2009, 8, 87–96.
105. Czakon, W.; Czernek, K. The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 57, 64–74. [CrossRef]
106. Czakon, W.; Klimas, P. Klimat współpracy mi˛edzyorganizacyjnej w diadach i sieciach sektora turystyki.
Handel Wewn˛etrzny 2017, 3, 53–65.
107. Ma´ckowiak, M.; Graja-Zwoli ´nska, S. Znaczenie zaufania w budowaniu współpracy sieciowej w turystyce wiejskiej. In Sieci Współpracy w Turystyce Wiejskiej. Stan Obecny i Nowe Wyzwania; Wojciechowska, J., Ed.;
107. Ma´ckowiak, M.; Graja-Zwoli ´nska, S. Znaczenie zaufania w budowaniu współpracy sieciowej w turystyce wiejskiej. In Sieci Współpracy w Turystyce Wiejskiej. Stan Obecny i Nowe Wyzwania; Wojciechowska, J., Ed.;