Page 21 - 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. 21
explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
ral (or cultural) heritage is to educate visitors. Protected areas are popu-
larised by their inclusion in the tourism supply, thus becoming important
goals for tourism and recreational mobilities. Under conditions of globali-
sation and the everyday stress of living in cities, the contemporary tour-
ist is increasingly interested in learning about the values of local nature ar-
eas (Newsome et al., 2013)—especially protected areas. As a consequence
of the aforementioned trend, there has been recognised growth in the sig-
nificance of nature-based tourism (Coghlan and Buckley, 2013), ecotour-
ism (Fennell, 2013), and tourism in protected areas specifically. ‘Equally the
term ecotourism should be understood as promotion of non-mass travel
in naturally sensitive, protected areas where the visitor would raise pub-
lic awareness towards preserving the natural environment and therewith,
with its activities support the local community (Gosar, 2017, 3–4)’.
The aforementioned forms of tourism show numerous advantages, as
they take place within paradigms of sustainable development, for both pro-
tected areas and the wider area, i.e. community or state. Namely, increased
income (from tickets, souvenirs, guided tours, etc.) for protected areas en-
sures additional resources that, along with investment in nature protec-
tion, increase the value of the area in the long term (Bushell and McCool,
2007), and also influence increasing ecological awareness of visitors and
the local population. From the aspect of tourism, the most attractive pro-
tected areas (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park or Triglav National Park) can
become generators of tourism development and the entire economy of the
wider area in which they are found, because their tourism branding also
promotes the entire region and even the state itself. Thereby, a key precon-
dition is that tourism capacity and the majority of its associated infrastruc-
ture should not be within the protected area.
It should be mentioned that the influence of such national parks on
the wider area is not always positive. Regarding the example of the village
Saborsko on the border of Plitvice Lakes National Park, Kušen and Klarić
(2000) emphasised that the foundation of a national park can disrupt tradi-
tional rural systems, i.e. the daily lives of the local population. In this con-
text, national parks can be seen as ‘a foreign body in a previously unnoticed
rural area’ (Kušen and Klarić, 2000, 440)”.
The main theme of this collection of research is comparative analysis
of spatial development of tourism in protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia
from a geographical perspective, in order to identify similarities and differ-
ences. Apart from confirmation of the spatial implications of tourism in
19
ral (or cultural) heritage is to educate visitors. Protected areas are popu-
larised by their inclusion in the tourism supply, thus becoming important
goals for tourism and recreational mobilities. Under conditions of globali-
sation and the everyday stress of living in cities, the contemporary tour-
ist is increasingly interested in learning about the values of local nature ar-
eas (Newsome et al., 2013)—especially protected areas. As a consequence
of the aforementioned trend, there has been recognised growth in the sig-
nificance of nature-based tourism (Coghlan and Buckley, 2013), ecotour-
ism (Fennell, 2013), and tourism in protected areas specifically. ‘Equally the
term ecotourism should be understood as promotion of non-mass travel
in naturally sensitive, protected areas where the visitor would raise pub-
lic awareness towards preserving the natural environment and therewith,
with its activities support the local community (Gosar, 2017, 3–4)’.
The aforementioned forms of tourism show numerous advantages, as
they take place within paradigms of sustainable development, for both pro-
tected areas and the wider area, i.e. community or state. Namely, increased
income (from tickets, souvenirs, guided tours, etc.) for protected areas en-
sures additional resources that, along with investment in nature protec-
tion, increase the value of the area in the long term (Bushell and McCool,
2007), and also influence increasing ecological awareness of visitors and
the local population. From the aspect of tourism, the most attractive pro-
tected areas (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park or Triglav National Park) can
become generators of tourism development and the entire economy of the
wider area in which they are found, because their tourism branding also
promotes the entire region and even the state itself. Thereby, a key precon-
dition is that tourism capacity and the majority of its associated infrastruc-
ture should not be within the protected area.
It should be mentioned that the influence of such national parks on
the wider area is not always positive. Regarding the example of the village
Saborsko on the border of Plitvice Lakes National Park, Kušen and Klarić
(2000) emphasised that the foundation of a national park can disrupt tradi-
tional rural systems, i.e. the daily lives of the local population. In this con-
text, national parks can be seen as ‘a foreign body in a previously unnoticed
rural area’ (Kušen and Klarić, 2000, 440)”.
The main theme of this collection of research is comparative analysis
of spatial development of tourism in protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia
from a geographical perspective, in order to identify similarities and differ-
ences. Apart from confirmation of the spatial implications of tourism in
19
