Page 20 - 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. 20
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
the Natura 2000 network that are also already protected under other cat-
egories of nature protection are very important. In the described context,
such smaller protected areas (including those in Natura 2000 network) are
usually declared to be of “local” importance and are therefore the concern
of local communities—mainly municipalities. In such cases, the budget for
protected areas is limited and protected areas are sometimes regarded as
development restrictions by the local population (Mrak, 2008).
A comparison of the structure of protected areas in Croatia and
Slovenia according to category shows quite a few differences between the
two states. This is somewhat surprising because these are small, neigh-
bouring states which share nearly identical natural regions (Pannonian
lowlands, Dinarides, Adriatic coast). Apart from this, the most important
part of the development of protected areas in both states actually took place
when they were both part of the same state: the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia.
The category of nature park, which accounts for the largest portion of
the total area of territory with protected status in Croatia, does not exist in
Slovenia. The category that is most similar to the Croatian nature park cat-
egory in Slovenia is either regional or landscape park, but there are major
differences in the manner of management. The only category of protect-
ed area that, by definition and significance for ecology and tourism among
protected areas, is essentially the same in both states is national park. It is
interesting that this category also best corresponds to the IUCN definition,
which confirms the key significance of national parks among protected ar-
eas on the global level. Furthermore, the major aforementioned differences,
connected to levels of management of protected areas, stem from the lack of
regional-level governance in Slovenia.
Context and structure of the book
At first glance, nature protection and tourism or recreation are incompati-
ble activities. An increase in the number of visitors to a given protected area
can have various negative impacts, like water, air, soil, and noise pollution,
and reductions in the number and diversity of plant and animal species.
This negatively influences biodiversity, and visually degrades the area (e.g.
traffic and other tourism/hospitality infrastructure) (Mihalič, 2006; Cigale,
2009; Marković Vukadin, 2017).
Conversely, a protected area should be understood as a site of valu-
able natural heritage, and one of the most important functions of natu-
18
the Natura 2000 network that are also already protected under other cat-
egories of nature protection are very important. In the described context,
such smaller protected areas (including those in Natura 2000 network) are
usually declared to be of “local” importance and are therefore the concern
of local communities—mainly municipalities. In such cases, the budget for
protected areas is limited and protected areas are sometimes regarded as
development restrictions by the local population (Mrak, 2008).
A comparison of the structure of protected areas in Croatia and
Slovenia according to category shows quite a few differences between the
two states. This is somewhat surprising because these are small, neigh-
bouring states which share nearly identical natural regions (Pannonian
lowlands, Dinarides, Adriatic coast). Apart from this, the most important
part of the development of protected areas in both states actually took place
when they were both part of the same state: the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia.
The category of nature park, which accounts for the largest portion of
the total area of territory with protected status in Croatia, does not exist in
Slovenia. The category that is most similar to the Croatian nature park cat-
egory in Slovenia is either regional or landscape park, but there are major
differences in the manner of management. The only category of protect-
ed area that, by definition and significance for ecology and tourism among
protected areas, is essentially the same in both states is national park. It is
interesting that this category also best corresponds to the IUCN definition,
which confirms the key significance of national parks among protected ar-
eas on the global level. Furthermore, the major aforementioned differences,
connected to levels of management of protected areas, stem from the lack of
regional-level governance in Slovenia.
Context and structure of the book
At first glance, nature protection and tourism or recreation are incompati-
ble activities. An increase in the number of visitors to a given protected area
can have various negative impacts, like water, air, soil, and noise pollution,
and reductions in the number and diversity of plant and animal species.
This negatively influences biodiversity, and visually degrades the area (e.g.
traffic and other tourism/hospitality infrastructure) (Mihalič, 2006; Cigale,
2009; Marković Vukadin, 2017).
Conversely, a protected area should be understood as a site of valu-
able natural heritage, and one of the most important functions of natu-
18
