Page 127 - Koderman, Miha, and Vuk Tvrtko Opačić. Eds. 2020. Challenges of tourism development in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia. Koper, Zagreb: University of Primorska Press, Croatian Geographical Society
P. 127
ure-based tourism in the eastern part of kr aški rob ...
a) The two-dimensional model b) Adapted version of the model
Fig. 1 A two dimensional model from Fredman et al. (2012) and its adapted version,
for the study of nature in nature-based tourism
interventions in nature, on the other. Under naturalness they include natu-
ral features that are unique and often taken as the reason for the protection
and establishment of protected areas, and wilderness in a broader sense.
Under the second dimension accessibility they put open access on one end
and exclusive rights (i.e. private property) on the other. Three types of prop-
erty rights that have implications regarding the accessibility of a natural
area appear in their model and these are: personal ownership; public own-
ership; and common-pool resources.
In Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom, a landowner’s ex-
clusive right to land is limited by the law, in so far as others can enter and
walk through land for recreational purposes as long as no crops, vegetation,
animals, and natural resources are damaged. In Sweden this is known as
the “Right of Public Access”, and in the UK as the “Right to Roam”. Similar
rights can be found also in Norway and Finland. In Slovenia, most land
is private property. Some is public property and there are also customary
rights to land and natural resources that mostly take the form of village
commons.
It is important to note that so-called “pristine nature” or nature that
is still “wild” is almost non-existent outside protected areas where special
zones and strict nature protection regimes are in place. Protected areas of
this type are few, and visitors are not allowed in zones with strict regimes.
It is against the law for unauthorised visitors to enter such areas, as it repre-
sents an unacceptable transgression on sensitive flora and fauna, and their
habitats. It is interesting to note that in their study, Fredman et al. (2012,
293) acknowledge that ‘natural environments are more or less impacted or
manipulated by humans’. However, the implications of this are not further
125
a) The two-dimensional model b) Adapted version of the model
Fig. 1 A two dimensional model from Fredman et al. (2012) and its adapted version,
for the study of nature in nature-based tourism
interventions in nature, on the other. Under naturalness they include natu-
ral features that are unique and often taken as the reason for the protection
and establishment of protected areas, and wilderness in a broader sense.
Under the second dimension accessibility they put open access on one end
and exclusive rights (i.e. private property) on the other. Three types of prop-
erty rights that have implications regarding the accessibility of a natural
area appear in their model and these are: personal ownership; public own-
ership; and common-pool resources.
In Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom, a landowner’s ex-
clusive right to land is limited by the law, in so far as others can enter and
walk through land for recreational purposes as long as no crops, vegetation,
animals, and natural resources are damaged. In Sweden this is known as
the “Right of Public Access”, and in the UK as the “Right to Roam”. Similar
rights can be found also in Norway and Finland. In Slovenia, most land
is private property. Some is public property and there are also customary
rights to land and natural resources that mostly take the form of village
commons.
It is important to note that so-called “pristine nature” or nature that
is still “wild” is almost non-existent outside protected areas where special
zones and strict nature protection regimes are in place. Protected areas of
this type are few, and visitors are not allowed in zones with strict regimes.
It is against the law for unauthorised visitors to enter such areas, as it repre-
sents an unacceptable transgression on sensitive flora and fauna, and their
habitats. It is interesting to note that in their study, Fredman et al. (2012,
293) acknowledge that ‘natural environments are more or less impacted or
manipulated by humans’. However, the implications of this are not further
125
