Стратегии на образователната и научната политика

https://doi.org/10.53656/str2024-3s-11-com

2024/3s, стр. 129 - 141

COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES OF SOUTHERN AND SOUTH EAST EUROPE

Desislava Ivanova
OrcID: 0000-0003-0538-7446
E-mail: desislava.ivanova@trakia-uni.bg
Faculty of Economics
Trakia University
Stara Zagora Bulgaria
Evgeni Genchev
OrcID: 0000-0001-8057-3295
E-mail: evgeni.genchev@trakia-uni.bg
Faculty of Economics
Trakia University
Stara Zagora Bulgaria

Резюме: Our aim was to measure the efficiency of tourist destinations of selected countries from Southern and Southeast Europe. In order to assess the impact of the Covid pandemic on the efficiency of separate destinations we evaluated two year-long timeframes - 2019 and 2021. However, we remained quite cautious in our final assessment, due to the specifics of the tourism sector’s recovery. The study object included 19 countries in Southern and Southeast Europe. In order to complete the set tasks, we went through two stages: first, we formed two separate groups of countries with relatively homogenous indicators (K-cluster), and then we evaluated their relative efficiency, by using the tourism revenue (DEA) as an outcome variable.

Ключови думи: tourism destination; efficiency; clustering; DEA (data envelopment analysis); Southern; Southeastern Europe

JEL: D61; O47

1. Introduction

Tourism is among the fastest and constantly developing economic sectors in a large number of European countries. Due to the Covid pandemic, it faced many challenges, however, it is now slowly recovering. In a highly competitive environment, the attractiveness of this industry depends to a great extent on the efficiency of touristic destinations. Certain authors have focused on tourist destination efficiency as a prerequisite for economic growth, a chance for growing investment activity and a factor for increasing employment. There are numerous reasons for destinations to develop their primary touristic products, whose diversification could be a sustainable source of revenue, however, this might create many disadvantages during their incorrect repositioning (Farmaki 2012, Weaver & Lawton 2006).

The aim of this study is to complement existent research with examination of tourist destination efficiency in selected European countries. All countries which strive to attract new tourists, and increase their profit from tourism need a very serious analysis of their competitiveness as tourist destinations. The respective managers require appropriate competitive tourism strategies capable of dealing efficiently and effectively with the changing and dynamic environment that surrounds the tourism industry (Rodr‘guez et al. 2023). We have attempted to show how clustering and the efficiency of the destination may be used in the design of touristic strategies in order to obtain competitive advantage, even for countries which are approaching their limit of growth potential.

2. Literature review

Because the aim of the present study is to evaluate efficiency at a macrolevel in the paragraph below we have reviewed previous research that applies the DEA method and focuses on European countries in the last 10 years (Table 1). Sometimes DEA methodology is used to assess various regional differences in separate countries, or at a micro level to evaluate separate touristic subsectors, which rest outside the scope of the present article.

Table 1. Research applying DEA analysis to tourism

Author/sApplicationTimeframeCountryUsed variablesResultsCvetkoska, V.,&Bariѕic, P. 2017Analyzing theefficiency oftravel andtourism inthe EuropeanUnion201728 EUstatesTwo inputs:internal traveland tourismconsumptionand capitalinvestment. Twooutputs: traveland tourism‘stotal contributionto GDP andemployment.13 out of 28 EUcountries wererelatively efficient in2017, and 15werenot. Theaverageefficiency of thewhole sample is0.944, withmaximumefficiency of 1 and aminimum of 0.741.Cvetkoska andBarisic (2014)Measuringthe tourismefficiency2004201315 EUstatesTwo Inputfactors:visitorexports anddomestic traveland tourismspending;Output factorstravel andtourism’s totalcontribution toGDP, and traveland tourism’stotal contributionto employmentBased on theobtained results,itwas found thatthere is no countrythat is efficient inevery year in everywindow; 10 of the15 countries showefficiency results(overall efficiency byyears) over 95%: Italy(99.67%), Cyprus(99.64%), France(98.99%), Spain(98.99%),etc., whileMontenegro showedthe lowest overallefficiency (by years)(71.53%).Abad A,KongmanwatanaP (2015)Measuringtheperformanceof Europeancountries andendeavoursto explain thedispersion ofthe efficiencyrankingscores inthe EuropeanUnion (EU).20092011All EUmemberstateshowever,Malta isexcludedfrom thedatasetTwo outputfactors: Bed-nights in hotelsand similarestablishmentsand nights spentin campsitesInput factors:Humanresources,Hotels andsimilarestablishmentsCampsites,TourismattractionsThe generalconclusion is that 14EU member statesshow room forimprovement if theyare to achieve bestpractice proceduresidentified by efficientpeers specified inour benchmarkinganalysis. Moreprecisely, accordingto the BCC-O DEAmodel, therewere 12efficient DMUs amongthe 26 countries.
Soysal-Kurt, H.(2017)Measuringrelativeefficiency of29 Europeancountrieswith the dataof the year2013 usinginput-orientedand constantreturns toscale DataEnvelopmentAnalysis201329 EUstatesThree inputand threeoutput variablesare used toassess relativeperformances ofthe countries.In this study,tourismexpenses,number ofemployees andnumber of bedsare used asinput variables;tourism receipts,tourist arrivalsand number ofnights spent areused as outputvariablesAccording to thefindings, 16 countriesare found efficient;13 countries arefound inefficient.Efficient countrieswhose efficiencyscores are equal to 1are Cyprus, Croatia,Greece, Hungary,, Malta, Poland,Portugal, Spain andothers. Inefficientcountries whoseefficiency scores arefound less than 1 areBulgaria, Romania,Slovak Republic,Slovenia and others.Radovanov,B., Dudic, B.,Gregus, M.,Marcikic Horvat,A., & Karovic,V.(2020)2011201727 EUcountriesand fiveWesternBalkancountriesT&TInputfactor– GovernmentExpenditure,Output factors-T&TIndustryShare ofEmployment,Average Receiptper ArrivalSustainabilityof T&TIndustryDevelopmentThe results showrelative tourismefficiency per countryand year. Countrieswith the highesttourism efficiencyobtained by thementioned DEAmodel are Finland,Luxemburg, Croatia,Serbia, Austria,Sweden, Malta andGermany. Duringthe observed periodof time the lowestefficiency scores(below the averagescore of 80%)wereachieved in Romania,Italy, Lithuania,Bulgaria, Hungary,Poland and Slovakia.
Ilic, I., &Petrevska, I.(2018)DEAmethodused tomeasuretourismefficiency ofSerbia and thesurroundingcountries.201615 EUstatesTourist costsand the numberofbeds wereused as inputfactorsthe number ofarrivals, numberof nights spentand tourismrevenue wereused as theoutput factorsBased on the resultsin six countries arerelatively efficient,while nine countriesare relativelyinefficient. Efficientcountries that havea coefficient ofefficiency 1 are:Montenegro, Bosniaand Herzegovina,Croatia, Greece,Austriaand Albania.Inefficient countrieshave a coefficientof efficiency lessthan 1 (Serbia, FYRMacedonia, Slovenia,Romania, Bulgaria,Italy, Hungary,Slovakia and theCzech Republic).

In their study, Cvetkoska V, Barisic P (2014) have observed a total of 15 European countries over a period of 10 years (2004-2013). According to the obtained results, neither of the 15 states were active during the entire studied period. Also, 10 out of 15 countries showed over \(95 \%\) of efficiency. Montenegro was determined the least efficient country, whilst other four states, such as Italy, Cyprus, France and Spain were the most efficient. Three years later, the same authors conducted a new study with a total of 11 states from the Balkans: Albania, Bosna and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Turkey. For the timeframe 2010-2015 they used the same four variables from their previous study. They attributed the costs of the local and foreign tourists to the input factors, and as output factors they assessed the impact of the tourist industry on GDP and employment. The same authors discovered that for the studied period the most efficient state was Albania, followed by Croatia, Romania and Turkey, while the least efficient countries were Montenegro, Serbia and Bosna and Herzegovina Cvetkoska V, Barisic P (2017).

Abad A, Kongmanwatana P (2015) conducted a study for the period of 2009 – 2011 on a total of 26 EU states, except for Malta, by applying DEA analysis. Afterwards, they rated the countries according to their efficiency. Among the states with the highest rank were France, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal, etc. – a total of 12. The remaining 14 EU member states were shown to have potential to improve some of their characteristics, determined by the most efficient states indicated in the analysis. In this ranking Bulgaria occupied the \(14^{\text {th }}\) position, Hungary was 20, Poland was 24, and Romania was rated 26th.

Soysal-Kurt, H. (2017) aimed to assess the relative efficiency of 29 European countries in 2013. He used “the physical and human resources of each touristic destination as input factors of each virtual tourist process”. As a result of his analysis, 16 of all 29 states showed an efficient value from the DEA analysis, whereas 13 states were relatively inefficient. In other way we are agree with Idriz and Geshkov that “tourism is a business most dependable on human resources”. (Idriz & Geshkov 2023, p.135 )

Ilić, I., & Petrevska, I. (2018) have focused on the Balkan countries. They applied DEA through three input and three output variables. Out of a total of 15 Balkan states, they discovered 5 with an efficiency level 1: Montenegro, Bosna and Herzegovina, Greece, Albania and Austria, and also a very high value \(-0,978\) for Slovenia. The other 9 countries, including Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria were not sufficiently efficient.

The authors Radovanov, B. et al. (2020) evaluated tourism efficiency at a macrolevel in a total of 27 EU countries and five West Balkan states over the period 2011 – 2017. The results from their study show that the average efficiency level of the sample was high (above \(80 \%\) ); therefore, they concluded that the tourism sector operated with high efficiency.

Another large-scale study by Gomez-Vega, M., Herrero-Prieto, L. C., & López, M. V. (2022) on a total of 140 states and data from the World Economic Forum (WEF) for 2019 adopted two statistical techniques: а) cluster analysis to group countries and b) assessment of their efficiency as tourist destinations, through DEA analysis, which was later used as a result to build regression analysis that included significant external factors, determining efficiency. The variables used in the cluster analysis were Human Development Index – as a measure of human resource quality in tourism, GDP share and tourism competitiveness index from WEF’s database, that recapitulates the main tourism characteristics of individual countries.

3. Data and methodology

This study aims to present a model for measuring the tourist destination efficiency in selected countries in Europe and the Balkan Peninsula. As for the homogeneity of the data used in the analysis, we could outline several problematic points. We used characteristics of touristic destinations which were different in size and structure. In this case they could face a number of limitations, to which many analyses have been very sensitive. Our hypothesis for data homogeneity is based on their nature, and the fact that they compete for the same markets and they are all related to the same stakeholders. Nevertheless, non-discretionary factors may turn these observations into non-homogenous. On the other hand, we do not intend to provide the final data to the central authorities responsible for the studied problems, but rather to examine and direct the attention towards the comparative analysis of selected tourist destinations in Europe before and after their recovery from the Covid pandemic. In order to reach homogeneity of the groups, we used non-hierarchical k-means method based on the centroid approach. It operates by iteratively assigning data points to the nearest cluster centroid and recalculating the centroids until convergence (see eq.1).

(1)\[ \begin{gathered} S_{k}=\left\{p \mid \text { if } x_{p} \text { belongs to the } k_{t h} \text { clusters }\right\} \\ k=1 \ldots, K \end{gathered} \]

\(S_{k}\) the index set of points \(x_{\text {n }}\) currently assigned to the \(k_{\text {th }}\) cluster.

\[ c_{k}=\sum_{p \in S_{k}} X_{p} \]

We used part of Gomez’s methodology (Gomez 2021) to highlight the contribution of tourism to the economic development of separate countries. After the clustering over the two studied periods for the separate clusters we applied the DEA method in order to discern the effective DMUs. The use of DEA is justified since it is recognized as applicable in scenarios where the goal is to provide a ranking of comparable units whose components cannot be strictly interpreted as inputs or outputs (Seiford 1996). On the basis of the theoretical grounds for the productive function and linear programming, DEA as a mathematical programming technique has widely been used in scientific literature as an easy non-parameter approach for determining the relative effectiveness of DMUs with specific input and output data (Charnes et al.1978). In order to evaluate efficiency, the DEA method provides a benchmark (frontier) against which competitors can identify areas of “best practices” associated with high measures of performance (Nurmatov 2021). Depending on the aims the author has set, the basic DEA models could be: the Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes (CCR) model that assumes constant returns to scale (CRS) and the Banker-Charnes-Cooper (BCC) model assuming variable returns to scale (VRS). The approach we have adopted in the present study is oriented to maximizing the output (see eq. 2). In DEA, there are two main available options: the constant returns to scale (CRS) and the variable returns to scale (VRS). In order to project each DMU on the efficiency limit, we formulated a mathematical programming model (LP), and added the primary DEA model underneath (eq.2). where, the technical efficiency of country \(k\) using \(m\) inputs, \(s\) outputs.

\[ \operatorname{Maximize} \cfrac{\sum_{r=1}^{S} u_{r} y_{r k}}{\sum_{i=1}^{m} v_{i} x_{i k}} \]

Table 2. Production function variables

AbbreviationDescriptionRevenue (O)Tourism industry revenueEmployment (I)Person employment in tourism industryHotel rooms (I)Hotel rooms per 100 populationArrivals (I)Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments

4. Discussion of the results

This section presents the results from the empirical application at two levels: k-cluster analysis and efficiency evaluation. As an uncontrolled machine learning method, the k-means algorithm chooses the cluster centers randomly and calculates the means of the data points of the cluster in order to generate clusters. Due to the limited range of the sample, we focused on two cluster groups, that we used afterwards to evaluate relative efficiency. When choosing variables, we applied Gomez’s methodology (Gomez 2021) which discerns the contribution of tourism to the economic development of the separate states, namely: GDP generated by the tourism industry in each country, HDI which measures the presence of quality personnel, efficiency and productivity on the labour market and the indicator for tourism competitiveness TTCI of WEF (2019), and TTDI (2021), which summarize the main ones under indications, such as regulations, business environment, natural and cultural resources (Table 3, fig.1).

Table 3. Cluster analysis results

Cluster 2019Cluster 20211212Tourism Direct GDP8.392.553.231.13Tourism competitiveness (1-7)4.323.964.434.01Human Development Index0.870.830.860.83Countries910910*Source:Author`s calculations.

Figure 1. Cluster of tourist destinations for 2021 with primary data

The reported results from the clustering in 2019 show that out of 19 countries in the sample there were 9 states with high and above average indicators for evaluation in the model. Among the remaining 10 states with average and lower indicators, the following are notable: North Macedonia, Poland, Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia and Bulgaria. These tourist destinations, despite the higher HDI and TCI values, have lower direct GDP.

The applied descriptive statistics in 2021 manifests a \(60 \%\) drop in the contribution of the tourist industry to the GDP of the observed countries. Tourist destinations, which mark high and above average indicators during the two years were Portugal, Spain, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Greece and Montenegro, which at \(78 \%\) of the sample shows a certain sustainability of the results. Cyprus, Italy, Malta and Slovenia have poor results in 2021, and move to a second cluster due to a decrease in the three studied values.

After the clustering, in order to obtain homogenous groups, we applied DEA directed towards maximizing the output (revenue), for which we reported the relative efficiency of each cluster separately in the two timeframes. The aim was to discern the increase/ decrease of efficiency in the separate groups in 2019 and 2021.

Table 4. DEA results by clusters 2019

CLUSTER 1CLUSTER 2MinMaxMeanStd.devMinMaxMeanStd.devTourism revenue(O)450.22022912213440.6268843.934222501601.724.111753.91.32330838.22.3522078.11.37523034.71.2660.117402134000.1276,286.31352261582311.810616.52.752600280.8022259.74.604737320.57Tourist arrivals(I)Industry employment(I)Hotel rooms(I)Spain1Italy1Malta1Serbia0.7539Croatia0.9408Slovenia0.7436Portugal0.8760Hungary0.6463Greece0.8287Moldova0.5947Cyprus0.6258Bosna & Herzegovina0.5762Georgia0.4418Poland0.5464Monte Negro0.3162Bulgaria0.3401Albania0.2676Romania0.3007North Macedonia0.2509*Source:Author`s calculations.

The results presented in Table 4 show optimal (result maximization) in Spain and Malta. The last three countries from Cluster 1 have an efficiency of under 50%, which we suppose is due to the lower levels of tourist arrivals. In cluster 2, twothirds of the observed tourist destinations have an efficiency of over \(50 \%\). Low efficiency is evident in Bulgaria, Romania and North Macedonia.

Table 5. DEA results by clusters 2021

CLUSTER 1CLUSTER 2MinMaxMeanStd.devMinMaxMeanStd.devTourism revenue(O)0.902656000180000.61534.58080001441514.0511.082.37455857.71.9411.923.24588493.41.030.38717819630000.139.12225363184383.932.58505892099526.21.312.79675515897548.51.38Tourist arrivals(I)Industry Employment(I)Hotel rooms(I)Spain1Malta1Portugal1Hungary1Croatia1Moldova1Albania1Poland1Italy0.7867Serbia0.6203Greece0.7253Bosna & Herzegovina0.3616Georgia0.7085Romania0.3336Montenegro0.6052North Macedonia0.2543Slovenia0.3778Bulgaria0.1980Cyprus0.1215*Source:Author`s calculations.

The results for relative efficiency, presented in Table 5, strongly impress with the improved efficiency against the previous period of primarily Albania and Montenegro. These tourist destinations have recovered fast after the Covid pandemic. Only Slovenia has retained an efficiency under 50%. In the cluster 2 group for 2021 it may be affirmed that countries which could not recover successfully and lost efficiency are Bulgaria and Cyprus. It is necessary to mention the average efficiency of cluster 1 in 2021, which was \(82 \%\), while in cluster 2 it was \(58 \%\). These average values for 2019 reached \(55-65 \%\), which may hint a certain homogeneity of the entire sample.

5. Conclusion

The present study aimed to compare and assess the relative efficiency of tourist destinations in selected countries from Southern and Southeast Europe over two separate timeframes before and after the Covid pandemic. By using the non-parameter DEA analysis oriented towards maximizing the result and in view of tackling the heterogeneity of the sample, we applied k-means clustering, which facilitated the equalization of the data in the separate groups. The extracted two clusters over the two timeframes showed a certain sustainability of the results at \(47 \%\) of all.

The contribution of the tourism industry to the GDP in 2021 was notably reduced by \(60 \%\) for the selected destinations. We also observed sustainable efficiency results over the two timeframes for Spain, Portugal, Croatia and Greece, which validated previous research. On the other hand, tourist destinations with poor profitability indicators were Cyprus, Bulgaria and North Macedonia, which allows us to conclude that the aforementioned have slowly been restoring their tourism industry after Covid.

REFERENCES

ABAD, A., & KONGMANWATANA, P., 2015. Comparison of Destination Competitiveness Ranking in the European Union Using a Non-Parametric Approach. Tourism Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 267 – 281. DOI:10.5367/te.2014.0449.

CHARNES, A., COOPER, W., RHODES, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 2 , no, 6, pp. 429 – 444.

CVETKOSKA, V.; BARISIC, P., 2014. Measuring the efficiency of certain European countries in tourism: DEA window analysis. In: ZIVKOVIC, Z., MIHAJLOVIC,I., DJORGJEVIC., P. (Eds). Book of proceedings of the international may conference on strategic management – IMKSM2014, pp 77 – 86. University of Belgrade, Technical Faculty in Bor, Management Department, Bor.

CVETKOSKA, V., & BARIŠIĆ, P., 2017. The efficiency of the tourism industry in the Balkans. Proceedings of the Faculty of Economics in East Sarajevo, vol.14, pp. 31 – 41.

FARMAKI, A., 2012. A Supply-Side Evaluation of Coastal Tourism Diversification: The Case of Cyprus. Tourism Planning&Development, vol. 9, no. 2, pp.183 – 203.

GOMEZ-VEGA, M.; HERRERO-PRIETO, L. C. & LÓPEZ, M. V., 2022. Clustering and country destination performance at a global scale: Determining factors of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Economics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1605 – 1625.

IDRIZ, F., & GESHKOV, M., 2023. Effective management of human resources in tourism through motivation. Strategies for Policy in Science & Education-Strategii na Obrazovatelnata i Nauchnata Politika, vol. 31.no. 3S, pp. 126 – 139. DOI:10.53656/str2023-3s-10-eff.

ILIĆ, I., & PETREVSKA, I., 2018. Using DEA method for determining tourism efficiency of Serbia and the surrounding countries. Menadžment u hotelijerstvu i turizmu, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 73 – 80.

NURMATOV, R.; LOPEZ,H. & MILLAN, P., 2021. Tourism, hospitality, and DEA: Where do we come from and where do we go?, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 95, pp.1 – 13, DOI:10.1016/j. ijhm.2021.102883.

RADOVANOV, B.; DUDIC, B.; GREGUS, M.; MARCIKIC HORVAT, A. & KAROVIC, V., 2020. Using a two-stage DEA model to measure tourism potentials of EU countries and Western Balkan countries: An approach to sustainable development. Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124903.

RODRÍGUEZ, M.; DÍAZ-FERN´ANDEZ, C. & PULIDO-PAV´ON, N., 2023. Tourist destination competitiveness: An international approach through the travel and tourism competitiveness index. Tourism Management Perspectives, vol. 47. DOI:10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101127

SEIFORD, L. M., 1996. Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 7, no. 2, pp 99 – 137. DOI: 10.1007/BF00157037.

SOYSAL-KURT, H., 2017. Measuring tourism efficiency of European countries by using data envelopment analysis. European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 31 – 49.

UNWTO Tourism Data Dashboard | UNWTO. (2019/2021). World travel &tourism Council https://www.unwto.org/unwto-tourism-dashboard

WEAVER, D.; LAWTON, L., 2006. Tourism management. Milton, Queensland, Wiley, Australia.

2025 година
Книжка 6
UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF ESG AND AI IN HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE: INSIGHTS FROM A STUDY ACROSS FIVE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Tina Vukasović, Rok Strašek, Liliya Terzieva;, Elenita Velikova, Justyna Tomala, Maria Urbaniec, Jarosław Pawlik, Michael Murg, Anita Maček

THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL REALIZATION OF STUDENTS – PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Anny Atanasova, Viktoriya Kalaydzhieva, Radostina Yuleva-Chuchulayna, Kalina Durova-Angelova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
ТРАНСФОРМАЦИИ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА И НУЖДАТА ОТ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНИ РЕФОРМИ

Ваня Иванова, Андрей Василев, Калоян Ганев, Ралица Симеонова-Ганева

Книжка 3
FORMING ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE THROUGH EDUCATION

Milena Filipova, Adriana Atanasova

Книжка 2s
THE STATE OF INCLUSION IN ADAPTED BASKETBALL

Stefka Djobova, Ivelina Kirilova

Книжка 2
MODEL OF PROFESSIONALLY DIRECTED TRAINING OF FUTURE ENGINEER-TEACHERS

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Іnna Savytska, Oksana Bulgakova, Lesia Zbaravska, Olha Chaikovska

DETERMINANTS AFFECTING ACADEMIC STAFF SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE LEARNING IN HIGHER MEDICAL EDUCATION

Miglena Tarnovska, ;, Rumyana Stoyanova, ;, Angelina Kirkova-Bogdanova;, Rositsa Dimova

Книжка 1s
AN INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR DEVELOPING DIGITAL COMPETENCES OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Lyudmila Vekova, Tanya Vazova, Penyo Georgiev, Ekaterina Uzhikanova-Kovacheva

Книжка 1
2024 година
Книжка 6s
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES RISK MANAGEMENT

Miglena Molhova-Vladova, Ivaylo B. Ivanov

Книжка 6
AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO ORGANIZING THE FORMATION OF STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE INDEPENDENCE IN CONDITIONS OF INTENSIFICATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Albina Volkotrubova, Aidai Kasymova, Zoriana Hbur, Antonina Kichuk, Svitlana Koshova, Svitlana Khodakivska

ИНОВАТИВЕН МОДЕЛ НА ПРОЕКТНО БАЗИРАНО ОБУЧЕНИЕ НА ГИМНАЗИАЛНИ УЧИТЕЛИ: ДОБРА ПРАКТИКА ОТ УниБИТ

Жоржета Назърска, Александър Каракачанов, Магдалена Гарванова, Нина Дебрюне

Книжка 5s
КОНЦЕПТУАЛНА РАМКА ЗА ИЗПОЛЗВАНЕ НА ИЗКУСТВЕНИЯ ИНТЕЛЕКТ ВЪВ ВИСШЕТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Акад. Христо Белоев, Валентина Войноховска, Ангел Смрикаров

ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ ПРИЛОЖИМОСТТА НА БЛОКОВИ ВЕРИГИ ОТ ПЪРВО НИВО (L1) В СИСТЕМА ЗА ЕЛЕКТРОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ

Андриан Минчев, Ваня Стойкова, Галя Шивачева, Доц Анелия Иванова

ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА ПРИ ПРОМЯНА НА ПЛАТФОРМИ ЗА ДИСТАНЦИОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ

Антон Недялков, Милена Кирова, Мирослава Бонева

APPLICATION OF ZSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN THE DISCIPLINES OF THE STEM CYCLE

Boyana Ivanova, Kamelia Shoilekova, Desislava Atanasova, Rumen Rusev

TEACHERS' ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX WORLD THROUGH THE USE OF AI

Zhanat Nurbekova, Kanagat Baigusheva, Kalima Tuenbaeva, Bakyt Nurbekov, Tsvetomir Vassilev

АТОСЕКУНДНОТО ОБУЧЕНИЕ – МЕТАФОРА НА ДНЕШНОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Юлия Дончева, Денис Асенов, Ангел Смрикаров, Цветомир Василев

Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
Книжка 4
MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF COOPERATION AMONG HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR STAKEHOLDERS

Olha Prokopenko, Svitlana Perova, Tokhir Rakhimov, Mykola Kunytskyi, Iryna Leshchenko

Книжка 3s
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
FORMATION OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS DURING LABORATORY PRACTICE WHEN STUDYING FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE

Ivan Beloev, Oksana Bulgakova, Oksana Zakhutska, Maria Bondar, Lesia Zbaravska

ИМИДЖ НА УНИВЕРСИТЕТА

Галя Христозова

Книжка 1s
COMPETITIVENESS AS A RESULT OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Nikolay Krushkov, Ralitza Zayakova-Krushkova

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SECURITY IN THE INTEGRATED CIRCUITS INDUSTRY

Ivan Nachev, Yuliana Tomova, Iskren Konstantinov, Marina Spasova

Книжка 1
PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Milena Filipova, Olha Prokopenko, Igor Matyushenko, Olena Khanova, Olga Shirobokova, Ardian Durmishi

2023 година
Книжка 6s
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CREATE A DIGITAL CAREER CENTER TOGETHER WITH PARTNER HIGHER SCHOOLS

Yordanka Angelova, Rossen Radonov, Vasil Kuzmov, Stela Zhorzh Derelieva-Konstantinova

DRAFTING A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SECTOR – EMPIRICAL STUDY ON UAE

Mounir el Khatib, Shikha al Ali, Ibrahim Alharam, Ali Alhajeri, Gabriela Peneva, Jordanka Angelova, Mahmoud Shanaa

VOYAGE OF LEARNING: CRUISE SHIPS WEATHER ROUTING AND MARITIME EDUCATION

Svetlana Dimitrakieva, Dobrin Milev, Christiana Atanasova

СТРУКТУРНИ ПРОМЕНИ В ОБУЧЕНИЕТО НА МЕНИДЖЪРИ ЗА ИНДУСТРИЯ 5.0

Недко Минчев, Венета Христова, Иван Стоянов

RESEARCH OF THE INNOVATION CAPACITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

Siya Veleva, ; Margarita Mondeshka, Anka Tsvetanova

Книжка 6
Книжка 5s
ВИДОВЕ ТРАВМИ В ПАРАШУТИЗМА И ПРЕВЕНЦИЯТА ИМ

Капитан III ранг Георги Калинов

Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF DIGITALIZATION OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

Acad. Hristo Beloev, Angel Smrikarov, Valentina Voinohovska, Galina Ivanova

ОТ STEM КЪМ BEST: ДВА СТАНДАРТА, ЕДНА ЦЕЛ

Андрей Захариев, Стефан Симеонов, Таня Тодорова

Книжка 4
EFFECT OF RESILIENCE ON BURNOUT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Radina Stoyanova, Sonya Karabeliova, Petya Pandurova, Nadezhda Zheckova, Kaloyan Mitev

Книжка 3s
INTELLIGENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: FARMER ATTITUDES AND A ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Dimitrios Petropoulos, Koutroubis Fotios, Petya Biolcheva, Evgeni Valchev

Книжка 3
STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF ENGINEERS TRAINING

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Sergii Bilan, Maria Bondar, Oksana Bulgakova, Lyubov Shymko

Книжка 2
РАЗПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА В БЪЛГАРИЯ В КОНТЕКСТА НА ФОРМИРАНЕ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА

Цветелина Берберова-Вълчева, Камен Петров, Николай Цонков

Книжка 1
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE LECTURE COURSE IN PHYSICS FOR TRAINING FUTURE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Vasyl Shynkaruk, Oksana Bulgakova, Maria Bondar, Lesia Zbaravska, Sergii Slobodian

2022 година
Книжка 6
ORGANIZATION OF AN INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Halyna Bilavych, Nataliia Bakhmat, Tetyana Pantiuk, Mykola Pantiuk, Borys Savchuk

ДИГИТАЛИЗАЦИЯ НА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО В БЪЛГАРИЯ: СЪСТОЯНИЕ И ОБЩИ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ

Теодора Върбанова, Албена Вуцова, Николай Нетов

Книжка 5
ПРАВОТО НА ИЗБОР В ЖИВОТА НА ДЕЦАТА В РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Сийка Чавдарова-Костова, Даниела Рачева, Екатерина Томова, Росица Симеонова

Книжка 4
DIAGNOSIS AS A TOOL FOR MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ADDICTION PREVENTION IN ADOLESCENTS

O.A. Selivanova, N.V. Bystrova, I.I. Derecha, T.S. Mamontova, O.V. Panfilova

Книжка 3
ПУБЛИЧНОТО РАЗБИРАНЕ НА НАУКАТА В МРЕЖОВИЯ СВЯТ

Светломир Здравков, Мартин Й. Иванов, Петя Климентова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
ДИГИТАЛНАТА ИНТЕРАКЦИЯ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛ – СТУДЕНТ В ОНЛАЙН ОБУЧЕНИЕТО В МЕДИЦИНСКИТЕ УНИВЕРСИТЕТИ

Миглена Търновска, Румяна Стоянова, Боряна Парашкевова, Юлияна Маринова

2021 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
SIGNAL FOR HELP

Ina Vladova, Milena Kuleva

Книжка 4
PREMISES FOR A MULTICULTURAL APPROACH TO EDUCATION

Anzhelina Koriakina, Lyudmila Amanbaeva

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
ПЪРВА СЕДМИЦА ДИСТАНЦИОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ В СУ „ИВАН ВАЗОВ“ В СТАРА ЗАГОРА

Тони Чехларова, Динко Цвятков, Неда Чехларова

Книжка 1
METHODOLOGY OF SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE BASIS OF NOOSPHERIC EDUCATION SYSTEM FORMATION

Nataliia Bakhmat, Nataliia Ridei, Nataliia Tytova, Vladyslava Liubarets, Oksana Katsero

2020 година
Книжка 6
HIGHER EDUCATION AS A PUBLIC GOOD

Yulia Nedelcheva, Miroslav Nedelchev

Книжка 5
НАСЪРЧАВАНЕ НА СЪТРУДНИЧЕСТВОТО МЕЖДУ ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА И БИЗНЕСА

Добринка Стоянова, Блага Маджурова, Гергана Димитрова, Стефан Райчев

Книжка 4
THE STRATEGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS STUDY IN EDUCATION

Anush Balian, Nataliya Seysebayeva, Natalia Efremova, Liliia Danylchenko

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
МИГРАЦИЯ И МИГРАЦИОННИ ПРОЦЕСИ

Веселина Р. Иванова

SOCIAL STATUS OF DISABLED PEOPLE IN RUSSIA

Elena G. Pankova, Tatiana V. Soloveva, Dinara A. Bistyaykina, Olga M. Lizina

Книжка 1
ETHNIC UPBRINGING AS A PART OF THE ETHNIC CULTURE

Sholpankulova Gulnar Kenesbekovna

2019 година
Книжка 6
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE OF THE SOCIAL TEACHER

Kadisha K. Shalgynbayeva, Ulbosin Zh.Tuyakova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
УЧИЛИЩЕТО НА БЪДЕЩЕТО

Наталия Витанова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
POST-GRADUATE QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS IN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Irina Koleva, Veselin Tepavicharov, Violeta Kotseva, Kremena Yordanova

ДЕЦАТА В КОНСТИТУЦИОННИТЕ НОРМИ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Румен Василев, Весела Марева

СЪСТОЯНИЕ НА БЪЛГАРСКОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Анелия Любенова, Любомир Любенов

ЕДИН НОВ УЧЕБНИК

Ирина Колева

2018 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
A NEW AWARD FOR PROFESSOR MAIRA KABAKOVA

Irina Koleva, Editor-in-

Книжка 4
Книжка 3
BLENDED EDUCATION IN HIGHER SCHOOLS: NEW NETWORKS AND MEDIATORS

Nikolay Tsankov, Veska Gyuviyska, Milena Levunlieva

ВЗАИМОВРЪЗКАТА МЕЖДУ СПОРТА И ПРАВОТО

Ивайло Прокопов, Елица Стоянова

ХИМЕРНИТЕ ГРУПИ В УЧИЛИЩЕ

Яна Рашева-Мерджанова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2017 година
Книжка 6
ЗНАЧИМОСТТА НА УЧЕНЕТО: АНАЛИЗ НА ВРЪЗКИТЕ МЕЖДУ ГЛЕДНИТЕ ТОЧКИ НА УЧЕНИЦИ, РОДИТЕЛИ И УЧИТЕЛИ

Илиана Мирчева, Елена Джамбазова, Снежана Радева, Деян Велковски

Книжка 5
ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННА КУЛТУРА В УЧИЛИЩЕ

Ивайло Старибратов, Лилия Бабакова

Книжка 4
КОУЧИНГ. ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЕН КОУЧИНГ

Наталия Витанова, Нели Митева

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
ЕМПАТИЯ И РЕФЛЕКСИЯ

Нели Кънева, Кристиана Булдеева

2016 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2015 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
ПРАГМАТИЧНАТА ДИДАКТИКА

Николай Колишев

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2014 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
КОХЕРЕНТНОСТ НА ПОЛИТИКИ

Албена Вуцова, Лиляна Павлова

Книжка 4
USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 3
USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 2
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY: А SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Gulnar Toltaevna Balakayeva, Alken Shugaybekovich Tokmagambetov, Sapar Imangalievich Ospanov

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 1
РЕФЛЕКСИЯТА В ИНТЕГРАТИВНОТО ПОЛЕ НА МЕТОДИКАТА НА ОБУЧЕНИЕТО ПО БИОЛОГИЯ

Иса Хаджиали, Наташа Цанова, Надежда Райчева, Снежана Томова

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

2013 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎ

Книжка 3
MASS MEDIA CULTURE IN KAZAKHSTAN

Aktolkyn Kulsariyeva Yerkin Massanov Indira Alibayeva

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ*

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

РОССИЙСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: ГЛАВНЫЕ УРОКИ

В. Болотов / И. Вальдман / Г. Ковалёва / М. Пинская

Книжка 2
ОЦЕНЯВАНЕ НА ГРАЖДАНСКИТЕ КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТИ НА УЧЕНИЦИТЕ: ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА И ВЪЗМОЖНОСТИ

Светла Петрова Център за контрол и оценка на качеството на училищното образование

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ*

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

Книжка 1
Уважаеми читатели,

вет, както и от международния борд за предоставените статии и студии, за да могат да бъдат идентифицирани в полето на образованието пред широката аудитория от педа- гогически специалисти във всички степени на образователната ни система. Благодаря за техния всеотдаен и безвъзмезден труд да създават и популяризират мрежа от научни съобщества по профила на списанието и да насърчават научните изследвания. Благодаря на рецензентите от национално представените висши училища, на- учни институции и

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

2012 година
Книжка 6
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE IN KAZAKHSTAN IN THE PERIOD OF INDEPENDENCE

Aigerim Mynbayeva Maira Kabakova Aliya Massalimova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
СИСТЕМАТА ЗА РАЗВИТИЕ НА АКАДЕМИЧНИЯ СЪСТАВ НА РУСЕНСКИЯ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ „АНГЕЛ КЪНЧЕВ“

Христо Белоев, Ангел Смрикаров, Орлин Петров, Анелия Иванова, Галина Иванова

Книжка 2
ПРОУЧВАНЕ НА РОДИТЕЛСКОТО УЧАСТИЕ В УЧИЛИЩНИЯ ЖИВОТ В БЪЛГАРИЯ

* Този материал е изготвен въз основа на резултатите от изследването „Parental Involvement in Life of School Matters“, проведено в България в рамките на проек- та „Advancing Educational Inclusion and Quality in South East Europe“, изпълняван

ВТОРИ ФОРУМ ЗА СТРАТЕГИИ В НАУКАТА

Тошка Борисова В края на 2011 г. в София се проведе второто издание на Форум за страте- гии в науката. Основната тема бе повишаване на международната видимост и разпознаваемост на българската наука. Форумът се организира от „Elsevier“ – водеща компания за разработване и предоставяне на научни, технически и медицински информационни продукти и услуги , с подкрепата на Министер- ството на образованието, младежта и науката. След успеха на първото издание на Форума за стратегии в науката през

Книжка 1
РЕЙТИНГИ, ИНДЕКСИ, ПАРИ

Боян Захариев